Bad idea ...

[capsulecorpjx]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18944557/

7 thousand more Iraqi refugees?

I guess I'm a religious bigot because I hope they take mostly Athesists and Christians (They do exist in Iraq I think). Or at the very least interview each one to make sure they are secular.

Sweden took many Iraqi refugees, they are now being harassed by some fanatics, who want to change Swedish law for Muslims, and also dealing with rapes and crimes.

And not even all of them are fanatics, it just takes 99% of a religious minority to be indifferent, and 1% to be extremist for some crap to go down.

[penagate]

Moved

[FunkyDexter]

guess I'm a religious bigot

Your first paragraph does read that way to me, I'm afraid, and acknowledging the fact doesn't excuse it. Why do you assume that because someone is a muslim they are therefore a terrorist? I do think that the security screening the article mentions is a good idea but why wouldn't you apply it to everyone.

Sweden took many Iraqi refugees, they are now being harassed by some fanatics, who want to change Swedish law for Muslims, and also dealing with rapes and crimes.

Not sure what you're referring to there. Could you supply some details?

And not even all of them are fanatics

fanaticism doesn't seem to be the sole premise of muslims from my observations. I see as much fanaticism from christian groups and I'm always amazed to see how evangelical atheists can be as soon as someone declares a religious belief.

I've never met a budhist fanatic but it can only be a matter of time.

[demotivater]

Just wanted to pop in and comment quickly - I missed some posts in the Obama thread, but it's funny that the thread was closed because of race issues, yet religious threads go on and on. This one hasn't gone anywhere yet, but historically speaking, that's an accurate summation. Everyone on internet forums is the most upstanding, non racist, all inclusive, open minded person ever!! Which is total BS (and dangerous to your future, but that's all you). I understand online personas and all that, but it's simply laughable and completely transparent. "Your racist, your a religious bigot!!" BS. Cut to the core and the entire planet is racist and religiously biased. The same reason you root for your hometown sports team. If it weren't for racists and bigots (not to mention the disgusting people that are willing to die in order to kill the other sides version of them), you'd be under someone elses thumb. Wake up, welcome to the 21st century. Put your political correctness back in the hole it crawled out of and stand up for yourself and your country before it's to late.

For the record, I'm not racist or religiously biased (as long as someone is standing between me and "them").

Sorry if this hijacks your thread, I wanted to post in the other but it's closed, close enough here.

[Valleysboy1978]

Unfortunately it is a case of sensitivity. The Muslim community seems to find anything as an insult. A good example is the constant argument that persons of a Muslim appearance are more likely to be pulled over by police in the UK. This is fact. However the police are simply reacting to the current threat of Muslim terrorists. In the 1980s the threat were the IRA so if you were white, and driving a van of some kind you were more likely to be pulled over.

I have been stopped on a couple of occasions by the police because I am young and own a valuable BMW car. They ask for my details and are very polite in their manner. I for one do not have a problem being pulled over as I have nothing to hide, and should my car ever be stolen, I would hope they would pull that person over for the same reason.

The police are simply doing their job. Leave them to do it

[homer13j]

I see as much fanaticism from christian groups

Where? Can you show examples of say, Christians posting videos of themselves hacking off someone's head while screaming "God is great" ? Or maybe you can give me an example of Christians blowing themselves up in pizza shops or markets in order to kill as many women & children as they can? Perhaps there were some Christians who killed olympic atheletes in cold blood simply because of their race/religion that I didn't hear about? Show me, please.

The only example I can think of is the bombing of abortion clinics - from what I am told by the US religious left this is just as bad if not far worse than flying planes into crowded buildings...

I am old enough to remember getting on an airplane with NO security whatsoever... I hate to tell you this, but today's airport security was not a response to so-call "Christian fanaticism."

// not a Christian, by the way

[18experience]

Where? Can you show examples of say, Christians posting videos of themselves hacking off someone's head while screaming "God is great" ? Or maybe you can give me an example of Christians blowing themselves up in pizza shops or markets in order to kill as many women & children as they can? Perhaps there were some Christians who killed olympic atheletes in cold blood simply because of their race/religion that I didn't hear about? Show me, please.

The Ku Klux Klan is very Christian. And they have threatened, kidnapped, and killed people for racial and religious differences (they don't so much like Jews, Catholics.... basically anyone who isn't a white protestant), all the while claiming how much they love God and how much God loves them. And they took pictures of it. They put lynching photos on post cards. I think that can qualify as a latter day equivalent of posting videos.

You tell yourself, never again will I get drawn into an argument online, and yet, here I am again...

[homer13j]

The Ku Klux Klan is very Christian.

While the KKK was a very nasty group of terrorists and 100 years ago they have been pretty much a joke for the last 4-5 decades. Today's KKK rallies consist of 10 guys in robes with several hundred more yelling at them to STFU and die.

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing any equivalence...

Now your argument would be valid if Christian schools were cranking out terrorists at an alarming rate, but the fact is they are not. Can't say the same for the Islamic schools...

[sevenhalo]

Where? Can you show examples of say, Christians posting videos of themselves hacking off someone's head while screaming "God is great" ? Or maybe you can give me an example of Christians blowing themselves up in pizza shops or markets in order to kill as many women & children as they can? Perhaps there were some Christians who killed olympic atheletes in cold blood simply because of their race/religion that I didn't hear about? Show me, please.

I hope you're not suggesting that the christian faith as a whole doesn't have its fair share of "innocent" blood...

[capsulecorpjx]

I hope you're not suggesting that the christian faith as a whole doesn't have its fair share of "innocent" blood...

Very true, a few hundred years ago the Christians were much worse.
A off-branch Christian Cult staged a civil war in Imperial China that left 20 million dead.

Not to mention midevil Europe through the 1700's, when torture and religious violence (between Protestants, Catholics and against the Muslims of Spain) were rampant.

[homer13j]

I hope you're not suggesting that the christian faith as a whole doesn't have its fair share of "innocent" blood...

Not at all... But if we want to go a few hundred years into the past I might remind you that Muslims weren't exactly full of rainbows and sunshine back then, either.

They also didn't have anthrax, C4, AK-47s or huge aluminum flying tubes filled with jet fuel back then...

My original post was in response to FunkyDexter's claim that Christianity is "just as fanatical" as Islam. And although I am not a Christian I am quite bothered by this sentiment. While it is true that the history of the Christian religion is full of violence (just read the Bible), so is ALL of human history. My point is the Christian religion has pretty much outgrown that type of behavior while most of Islam seems to be quite happy being stuck firmly in the 7th century.

[System_Error]

My original post was in response to FunkyDexter's claim that Christianity is "just as fanatical" as Islam.

His claim is simply retarded. No need to even reply.

I'm amazed at how many people are 'lessening' the actions of the muslims. There is no group that is even a close comparison.

I hope you're not suggesting that the christian faith as a whole doesn't have its fair share of "innocent" blood...

How many christians have blown themselves up in amongst a group of innocent people within the last month? How many christians have sawed off an innocent person head within the last month? How many christians walk around today with a ak-47 and grenades willing to kill anyone not following their God?

Last time I was at Church the preacher didn't talk about killing others or blowing myself up at wal-mart. Heck, I heard something mentioned about a mission trip to peru to give those in need health care and build houses.

[sevenhalo]

My point is the Christian religion has pretty much outgrown that type of behavior...

Not every war is faught with swords, and every deadly swing isn't always done by the arm that put it in motion.

I'm at work, I'll follow up when I get home (no time right now).

[18experience]

While the KKK was a very nasty group of terrorists and 100 years ago they have been pretty much a joke for the last 4-5 decades. Today's KKK rallies consist of 10 guys in robes with several hundred more yelling at them to STFU and die.

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing any equivalence...

I just laid it out for you piece by piece how they are nearly identical. The fact that most of what the KKK are famous for happened several decades ago is irrelevant. But, what the hell, lets go deeper.

Radical fundamental Islamic groups (notice, I didn't say all) take the core beliefs of Islam and pervert them. They take pieces of their writings and twist them to mean something else. This is exactly what the KKK does. They are radical fundamental Christians. And both groups are in the minority as far as their religions are concerned.

I'm just saying that your original statement made it seem like Christians aren't capable of doing what (some) Muslims are doing now, even though (some) Christians already have done it in.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Where? Can you show examples of say, Christians posting videos of themselves hacking off someone's head while screaming "God is great" ?

Nope.

Or maybe you can give me an example of Christians blowing themselves up in pizza shops or markets in order to kill as many women & children as they can?

Atlanta Olympic bombing (Christian bombers appear unwilling to die for their beliefs these days). Not many people killed, but that may have been because the bomber wanted to live to bomb again (he did).

McVeigh was associated with groups that called themselves christian (all the aryan nations stuff is fundamentalist christian of sorts), but I don't know if he had christian ideals, or just anti-government ideals.

Perhaps there were some Christians who killed olympic atheletes in cold blood simply because of their race/religion that I didn't hear about? Show me, please.

Unaware of athletes being targeted by christians in the last sixty years.

The only example I can think of is the bombing of abortion clinics

Yeah, there's that, and a few assassinations.

[FunkyDexter]

His claim is simply retarded. No need to even reply

Thank you for your well reasoned analysis.

You don't have to go back in history to find examples. I believe the IRA would classify as christian fanatics, their struggle for the last fifty years or so has primarily been a religious one, albeit rooted in an independence cause which became unimportant decades ago. Equally the Loyalist paramilitary groups would qualify in my opinion. These groups have most definitely engaged in assissination, torture and mass murder. To my knowledge they've never carried out a suicide bombing but I'm not sure that's what exclusively qualifies one as 'fanatic'.

Further, I think there is a world of difference between accepting that Islamic terrorists exist (of course they do) and trying to argue that refugee status should be denied to the people of a primarily muslim country which we invaded and has become an incredibly dangerous place to live as a result on the basis that they are, in fact, muslim. We broke it, we own it.

[mendhak]

True, but if someone wants to move to another country, they should learn the language, learn the culture, learn the rules, and accept it. Not expect it to change for them. I'm not British or American, but I've learned to be flexible enough to not cause problems wherever I go. (But I do wish everyone would learn English :P )

[TheBigB]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18944557/

7 thousand more Iraqi refugees?

I guess I'm a religious bigot because I hope they take mostly Atheists and Christians (They do exist in Iraq I think). Or at the very least interview each one to make sure they are secular.

Sweden took many Iraqi refugees, they are now being harassed by some fanatics, who want to change Swedish law for Muslims, and also dealing with rapes and crimes.

And not even all of them are fanatics, it just takes 99% of a religious minority to be indifferent, and 1% to be extremist for some crap to go down.

I guess you are American? No offense intended, but we're going way back till the segregation period here, but in this case we're talking about racism against Muslims.

To make a good comparison, the black criminals in society were merely 1% too, so yes, this is more or less the same thing.

And dude, I hope you didn't vote for Bush, otherwise, you got it all to thank for yourself. This is all from the Iraq war. And the plans were already visible before he even participated in the elections.

So don't be a big baby and stop whining.

[Shaggy Hiker]

but I've learned to be flexible enough to not cause problems wherever I go.

Well, I value your opinion, but I've never expected THAT opinion Being a little delusional this morning?

[si_the_geek]

That's not delusional in the slightest... I have had the pleasure of meeting said froggy, and he fits in very well.

If he hadn't told me about his past (and got confused on the underground system!), I wouldn't have realised that he hadn't grown up in London.


If you move, depending on which country (or city etc) you move to, you need to adjust by varying degrees... I've done it myself (but nowhere near as drastically - only 100 miles or so from where I was born!), and changed a bit to fit in more.

I have known several people who have done similar, and all have realised that the 'correct' way to do things is to change yourself to fit the area, rather than expecting the area to change to fit you.

You cannot stay as the 'old you' and expect things to be easy - the novelty factor the locals get at first wears off fairly rapidly, and you only get properly 'accepted' when you follow their ways (or are obviously making a serious attempt).

[Atheist]

...
Sweden took many Iraqi refugees, they are now being harassed by some fanatics, who want to change Swedish law for Muslims, and also dealing with rapes and crimes....

huh

[nemaroller]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18944557/

7 thousand more Iraqi refugees?

I guess I'm a religious bigot because I hope they take mostly Athesists and Christians (They do exist in Iraq I think). Or at the very least interview each one to make sure they are secular.

800+7000 = 7800 total.

Just think, that means 1 in 38,461 people living the US will be a refugee from Iraq.

Compare that to 1 in 21 people being an illegal immigrant from Mexico or Central America.

[FunkyDexter]

True, but if someone wants to move to another country, they should learn the language, learn the culture, learn the rules, and accept it.

Broadly I agree with you. Certainly, in the UK at the moment, we have an increasing problem with some sectors of our society that haven't made any effort to get along at all, although I still think they're a tiny minority despite what the Daily Mail would have us belive. If you don't make an effort to get along, you can't really expect to get along.

But I also think that a country can benefit greatly by adopting aspects of various immigrants'. I lived in St Marys, which is a predominantly South Asian area of Southampton, for several years and absolutley loved it. It's a bit grotty in places but I loved sights, sounds and colours. In particular, the Siekh New Year procession has to be seen to be believed. My Step Nan lives in a predominantly West Indian are of London and, again, I love immersing myself in that culture (particularly the food )

I also think that we do have human responsibility to respect immigrants' rights to practice their culture openly, provided that they don't directly conflict with our own. And particularly when they're refugees from a situation we were instrumental in creating.

Us Brits don't have a very good record of integrating into other nations cultures. Neither do the US. So we probably shouldn't be preaching.

[yrwyddfa]

I hope you're not suggesting that the christian faith as a whole doesn't have its fair share of "innocent" blood...

The sum of death of secular wars (fought over land, or political ideals) far exceeds that of faith-based conflict, especially in the 20th century (aka modern times) Look here

[mendhak]

Broadly I agree with you. Certainly, in the UK at the moment, we have an increasing problem with some sectors of our society that haven't made any effort to get along at all, although I still think they're a tiny minority despite what the Daily Mail would have us belive. If you don't make an effort to get along, you can't really expect to get along.

But I also think that a country can benefit greatly by adopting aspects of various immigrants'. I lived in St Marys, which is a predominantly South Asian area of Southampton, for several years and absolutley loved it. It's a bit grotty in places but I loved sights, sounds and colours. In particular, the Siekh New Year procession has to be seen to be believed. My Step Nan lives in a predominantly West Indian are of London and, again, I love immersing myself in that culture (particularly the food )

I also think that we do have human responsibility to respect immigrants' rights to practice their culture openly, provided that they don't directly conflict with our own. And particularly when they're refugees from a situation we were instrumental in creating.

Us Brits don't have a very good record of integrating into other nations cultures. Neither do the US. So we probably shouldn't be preaching.

But does it mean that they go out of their way to accommodate the immigrants? This sort of reminds me of that bit of news a while ago, about a girl wanting to wear a burka in school, while the teachers were against it. What's your opinion on that?

[FunkyDexter]

They should go out of their way... a bit. It's a bit like having a guest round to your house for the first time: You make them a cup of tea, make sure they've got a confy seat and try to make polite conversation. You don't hand over your wife and allow them urinate in the pot plants.

On the burka thing, I think I remember the case you're referring to and I supported the schools position, mainly because the school had a uniform policy in place (which I'm old fashioned enough to believe is a good thing) before she ever joined the school.

I actually don't have a problem with women wearing burka's in general and I don't buy the argument that it's a barrier to communication (any more than a big beard and an eighties floppy fringe) but it IS a barrier to identification so women wearing burkas must expect that they will, at time's, be obligated to lift their veil. If they insist that they can only do that to a women that's fine but they must expect to have to wait around and be inconvenienced until a suitable woman becomes available. If no such suitable woman exists then, tough, they'll just have to forego whatever service they were trying to get. I've only ever known one girl who wore a full veil and this was her position too, she felt she should be allowed to wear it but she accepted that she would have to make some sacrifices in her life as a result. Sacrifice is, after all, a large part of what following your religion is about.

[homer13j]

You don't hand over your wife and allow them urinate in the pot plants.

Yeah, I would never allow anyone to urinate in my pot plants... The stuff is too expensive.

// For medicinal purposes only...

[timeshifter]

I'm not racist, and I think it's a good policy to allow refugees in... while their country is under dispute. However, with the Iraqis, it's a different matter. They've already proven that we don't know who the hell might be a terrorist.. they all look the same, have the same routines, talk the same way. it's just not possible to pick out the bad guy from the crowd... and that's why I think we shouldn't allow Iraqi refugees in. It's just too dangerous.

[TheBigB]

So the other countries should clean up the mess America made?
Or should the real refugees stay in Iraq and risk dying from the sick-of-americans-in-their-homeland bombing terrorists?
Tell me... Where should they go then?

[18experience]

they all look the same, have the same routines, talk the same way

Wait, hold on now.... yeah, that might be the most fundamentally racist thing I have ever heard.

[penagate]

Sorry timeshifter, but I have to agree there. Tarring everyone with the same brush

[timeshifter]

It's not a racist thing, it's just the way their society is, and I'm not attacking it at all. It's the way they've lived for millenia. My point is that it's hard to find the one in a hundred terrorist when he has the same routine as everyone else. It could happen anywhere, but it's less likely (note I didn't say impossible) to happen in America because of the nature of our society. If someone's up to something, it's not overly difficult to figure it out. People are generally stupid, and easy to get information from. In Iraq, everything is so different. Who knows? Maybe there is a way to figure out the one in a hundred, but we don't know enough about their society to know it.

[zaza]

Much as it pains me to weigh in on the side of timeshifter, I would like to point out that he does not appear to be repeating the old line "<insert racial group here> all look the same".

He seemed to be saying "You can't tell a guy with terrorist intentions apart from anybody else".


I appreciate that Liberal knickers are easily twisted, but there are sometimes multiple ways to take a comment, and because it is taken in the wrong way does not make it a bad comment.


That said, I don't agree with his line that you therefore should class them all as potential terrorists.

[18experience]

Fine, I'm bored.

You said

they all look the same

However (and I'm not certain this would make it any less racist), you left off the implied "to me." At least, I hope you were implying that. Because, if you didn't, you would be being arrogant, too.

Now, I would agree that most (if not all) non-Anglo races are more homogenous than the Anglo race (henceforth, white). There is generally a greater amount of diversity when it comes to eye and hair color. But, all races seem homogenous when the viewer is unfamiliar them. However, the more familiar the viewer is with the race, the more the differences in their features becomes apparent.

Maybe I misunderstand your position/intentions, but when someone makes claims like that, it seems as though they are claiming that their group (race/nation/etc.) is somehow different, and does not have that quality. I don't believe that is ever the case.

The older I get, the more "different" things seem the same.

[timeshifter]

Much as it pains me to weigh in on the side of timeshifter, I would like to point out that he does not appear to be repeating the old line "<insert racial group here> all look the same".

He seemed to be saying "You can't tell a guy with terrorist intentions apart from anybody else".

Thank you. It means a lot to me.

I appreciate that Liberal knickers are easily twisted, but there are sometimes multiple ways to take a comment, and because it is taken in the wrong way does not make it a bad comment.


That said, I don't agree with his line that you therefore should class them all as potential terrorists.

How should they be classed, then? I believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality, but the fact remains... given the nature of their society, all of them ARE potential terrorists. Please note the repeating "potential". I'm fully aware that most of them aren't, but how do you treat a crowd of seven thousand if you have no clue how many might have a bomb strapped to their back? Even if it's only one, there would still be at least dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries. All because an entire crowd was welcomed with open arms? That would make national news pretty quick. It's entirely possible that none of them would be terrorists... but again, it's just a possibility. Most of them would never hurt another human.. it's the few that would that need the precautions, and if you can't tell which ones it is, how can you exercise caution without keeping the entire crowd under the same level of suspicion?

[penagate]

By that logic, and given your quote: "[it's] not a racist thing", every single person in the world is a potential terrorist and should be treated as such. Which means that you achieve nothing.

[timeshifter]

I suppose that is the implication, but also look at the stats. Most terrorist activity somehow roots back to Iraq and Afghanistan. At least, I can't remember the last time an Aussie walked into a market and blew it up for a religious belief. I realize it's easy to point at the Middle East because that's where the conflict is.. but that's also where the conflict has been coming from since the beginning. They are self-proclaimed fanatics, and they seem to have missed the "Board now to become civilized" train. I know the possibility of terrorists from anywhere exists... but statistically speaking, the vast majority of recent activity has been from the Middle East. Should we lock down some random country because they aren't supporting the war on terror? I don't think so. I see that as meaning they just don't care, but it also likely means terrorists aren't coming from there, either.

I don't know if this is making sense.. it's kind of an abstract process running around my brain. It makes sense to me, but I'm not sure how to put it into words... blast the limits of this language.

[penagate]

Don't you think that that's like giving the class detention because the teacher can't find who threw the paper aeroplane?

[timeshifter]

Kinda... but proportionally, that example might be a bit more extreme than what I was thinking. More like something simple that will just make everyone mad until someone either fesses up or gets fingers pointed at them.

Maybe I should just stop trying to explain my thoughts.. it doesn't seem to be working...

[MasterBlaster]

If they nuked Iraq in the first place like I said, there wouldn't be a refugee problem.

The US government has insane amounts of unused housing sitting behind barbed wire on military bases that Bill Clinton closed. Stick them in there until Iraq stabalizes and send them back. What's so hard about that? In fact while they are here, train them to be soldiers, doctors, nurses, teachers, IT professionals, cops...... and then send them back to Iraq so they can fix their own country.