THE Grand Mufti of Australia and Islamic leaders have united to reject the fatwa issued against Australia

by veya_victaous Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:22 am

THE Grand Mufti of Australia and other Islamic leaders have united to reject the fatwa issued by against Australia by members of the terrorist group IS.

The Grand Mufti of Australia Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohamed made his comments in Sydney at a press conference today, saying: “The sanctity of life is of paramount importance to all people of faith and to all people of goodwill.”

Lebanese Muslim Association president Samier Dandan also revealed that four Australian mosques in Sydney had received threats in the wake of recent incidents.

He condemned the IS threats, saying: “We do not stand for our faith to be hijacked by any minority group whatsoever.”

“God forbid something happens here and it only takes one person, who would pay the price the most? That’s my biggest fear.”

“We all play a role, we all need to come together as one family making sure the notion of family is very strong.”

“We don’t want our youth to be instructed by Imam YouTube or Sheikh Google and this is the dilemma.”

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/Muslim-man-shot-dead-in-melbourne-was-known-terror-suspect/story-fnii5sms-1227068663096

by Guest Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:33 am

In his speech responding to the horrific murder of journalist James Foley by a British jihadist, President Obama delivered the following rebuke (using an alternate name for ISIS):

ISIL speaks for no religion… and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt…. we will do everything that we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for. May God bless and keep Jim’s memory. And may God bless the United States of America.

In his subsequent remarks outlining a strategy to defeat ISIS, the President declared:

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim…. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way…. May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.

As an atheist, I cannot help wondering when this scrim of pretense and delusion will be finally burned away—either by the clear light of reason or by a surfeit of horror meted out to innocents by the parties of God. Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas—jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy—reliably lead to oppression and murder? It may be true that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents exactly—but innocence, as the President surely knows, is in the eye of the beholder. Are apostates “innocent”? Blasphemers? Polytheists? Islam has the answer, and the answer is “no.”
More British Muslims have joined the ranks of ISIS than have volunteered to serve in the British armed forces. In fact, this group has managed to attract thousands of recruits from free societies throughout the world to help build a paradise of repression and sectarian slaughter in Syria and Iraq. This is an astonishing phenomenon, and it reveals some very uncomfortable truths about the failures of multiculturalism, the inherent vulnerability of open societies, and the terrifying power of bad ideas.
No doubt many enlightened concerns will come flooding into the reader’s mind at this point. I would not want to create the impression that most Muslims support ISIS, nor would I want to give any shelter or inspiration to the hatred of Muslims as people. In drawing a connection between the doctrine of Islam and jihadist violence, I am talking about ideas and their consequences, not about 1.5 billion nominal Muslims, many of whom do not take their religion very seriously.
But a belief in martyrdom, a hatred of infidels, and a commitment to violent jihad are not fringe phenomena in the Muslim world. These preoccupations are supported by the Koran and numerous hadith. That is why the popular Saudi cleric Mohammad Al-Areefi sounds like the ISIS army chaplain. The man has 9.5 million followers on Twitter (twice as many as Pope Francis has). If you can find an important distinction between the faith he preaches and that which motivates the savagery of ISIS, you should probably consult a neurologist.
Understanding and criticizing the doctrine of Islam—and finding some way to inspire Muslims to reform it—is one of the most important challenges the civilized world now faces. But the task isn’t as simple as discrediting the false doctrines of Muslim “extremists,” because most of their views are not false by the light of scripture. A hatred of infidels is arguably the central message of the Koran. The reality of martyrdom and the sanctity of armed jihad are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity. It is not an accident that millions of Muslims recite the shahadah or make pilgrimage to Mecca. Neither is it an accident that horrific footage of infidels and apostates being decapitated has become a popular form of pornography throughout the Muslim world. Each of these practices, including this ghastly method of murder, find explicit support in scripture.
But there is now a large industry of obfuscation designed to protect Muslims from having to grapple with these truths. Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations. What are their real motivations? Insert here the most abject hopes and projections of secular liberalism: How would you feel if Western imperialists and their mapmakers had divided your lands, stolen your oil, and humiliated your proud culture? Devout Muslims merely want what everyone wants—political and economic security, a piece of land to call home, good schools for their children, a little leisure to enjoy the company of friends. Unfortunately, most of my fellow liberals appear to believe this. In fact, to not accept this obscurantism as a deep insight into human nature and immediately avert one’s eyes from the teachings of Islam is considered a form of bigotry.
In any conversation on this topic, one must continually deploy a firewall of caveats and concessions to irrelevancy: Of course, U.S. foreign policy has problems. Yes, we really must get off oil. No, I did not support the war in Iraq. Sure, I’ve read Chomsky. No doubt, the Bible contains equally terrible passages. Yes, I heard about that abortion clinic bombing in 1984. No, I’m sorry to say that Hitler and Stalin were not motivated by atheism. The Tamil Tigers? Of course, I’ve heard of them. Now can we honestly talk about the link between belief and behavior?
Yes, many Muslims happily ignore the apostasy and blasphemy of their neighbors, view women as the moral equals of men, and consider anti-Semitism contemptible. But there are also Muslims who drink alcohol and eat bacon. All of these persuasions run counter to the explicit teachings of Islam to one or another degree. And just like moderates in every other religion, most moderate Muslims become obscurantists when defending their faith from criticism. They rely on modern, secular values—for instance, tolerance of diversity and respect for human rights—as a basis for reinterpreting and ignoring the most despicable parts of their holy books. But they nevertheless demand that we respect the idea of revelation, and this leaves us perpetually vulnerable to more literal readings of scripture.
The idea that any book was inspired by the creator of the universe is poison—intellectually, ethically, and politically. And nowhere is this poison currently doing more harm than in Muslim communities, East and West. Despite all the obvious barbarism in the Old Testament, and the dangerous eschatology of the New, it is relatively easy for Jews and Christians to divorce religion from politics and secular ethics. A single line in Matthew—“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”—largely accounts for why the West isn’t still hostage to theocracy. The Koran contains a few lines that could be equally potent—for instance, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256)—but these sparks of tolerance are easily snuffed out. Transforming Islam into a truly benign faith will require a miracle of re-interpretation. And a few intrepid reformers, such as Maajid Nawaz, are doing their best to accomplish it.
Many believe it unwise to discuss the link between Islam and the intolerance and violence we see in the Muslim world, fearing that it will increase the perception that the West is at war with the faith and cause millions of otherwise peaceful Muslims to rally to the jihadist cause. I admit that this concern isn’t obviously crazy—but it merely attests to the seriousness of the underlying problem. Religion produces a perverse solidarity that we must find some way to undercut. It causes in-group loyalty and out-group hostility, even when members of one’s own group are behaving like psychopaths.
But it remains taboo in most societies to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. Even atheists tend to observe this taboo, and enforce it on others, because they believe that religion is necessary for many people. After all, life is difficult—and faith is a balm. Most people imagine that Iron Age philosophy represents the only available vessel for their spiritual hopes and existential concerns. This is an enduring problem for the forces of reason, because the most transformative experiences people have—bliss, devotion, self-transcendence—are currently anchored to the worst parts of culture and to ways of thinking that merely amplify superstition, self-deception, and conflict.
Among all the harms caused by religion at this point in history, this is perhaps the most subtle: Even when it appears beneficial—inspiring people to gather in beautiful buildings to contemplate the mystery existence and their ethical commitments to one another—religion conveys the message that there is no intellectually defensible and nonsectarian way to do this. But there is. We can build strong communities and enjoy deeply moral and spiritual lives, without believing any divisive nonsense about the divine origin of specific books.
And it is this misguided respect for revelation that explains why, in response to the starkest conceivable expression of religious fanaticism, President Obama has responded with euphemisms—and missiles. This may be the best we can hope for, given the state of our discourse about religion. Perhaps one day we will do “everything that we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for.” But today, we won’t even honestly describe the motivations of our enemies. And in the act of lying to ourselves, we continue to pay lip service to the very delusions that empower them.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon

by Guest Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:04 pm

Didge wrote:In his speech responding to the horrific murder of journalist James Foley by a British jihadist, President Obama delivered the following rebuke (using an alternate name for ISIS):
ISIL speaks for no religion… and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt…. we will do everything that we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for. May God bless and keep Jim’s memory. And may God bless the United States of America.
In his subsequent remarks outlining a strategy to defeat ISIS, the President declared:
Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim…. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way…. May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.
As an atheist, I cannot help wondering when this scrim of pretense and delusion will be finally burned away—either by the clear light of reason or by a surfeit of horror meted out to innocents by the parties of God. Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas—jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy—reliably lead to oppression and murder? It may be true that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents exactly—but innocence, as the President surely knows, is in the eye of the beholder. Are apostates “innocent”? Blasphemers? Polytheists? Islam has the answer, and the answer is “no.”
More British Muslims have joined the ranks of ISIS than have volunteered to serve in the British armed forces. In fact, this group has managed to attract thousands of recruits from free societies throughout the world to help build a paradise of repression and sectarian slaughter in Syria and Iraq. This is an astonishing phenomenon, and it reveals some very uncomfortable truths about the failures of multiculturalism, the inherent vulnerability of open societies, and the terrifying power of bad ideas.
No doubt many enlightened concerns will come flooding into the reader’s mind at this point. I would not want to create the impression that most Muslims support ISIS, nor would I want to give any shelter or inspiration to the hatred of Muslims as people. In drawing a connection between the doctrine of Islam and jihadist violence, I am talking about ideas and their consequences, not about 1.5 billion nominal Muslims, many of whom do not take their religion very seriously.
But a belief in martyrdom, a hatred of infidels, and a commitment to violent jihad are not fringe phenomena in the Muslim world. These preoccupations are supported by the Koran and numerous hadith. That is why the popular Saudi cleric Mohammad Al-Areefi sounds like the ISIS army chaplain. The man has 9.5 million followers on Twitter (twice as many as Pope Francis has). If you can find an important distinction between the faith he preaches and that which motivates the savagery of ISIS, you should probably consult a neurologist.
Understanding and criticizing the doctrine of Islam—and finding some way to inspire Muslims to reform it—is one of the most important challenges the civilized world now faces. But the task isn’t as simple as discrediting the false doctrines of Muslim “extremists,” because most of their views are not false by the light of scripture. A hatred of infidels is arguably the central message of the Koran. The reality of martyrdom and the sanctity of armed jihad are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity. It is not an accident that millions of Muslims recite the shahadah or make pilgrimage to Mecca. Neither is it an accident that horrific footage of infidels and apostates being decapitated has become a popular form of pornography throughout the Muslim world. Each of these practices, including this ghastly method of murder, find explicit support in scripture.
But there is now a large industry of obfuscation designed to protect Muslims from having to grapple with these truths. Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations. What are their real motivations? Insert here the most abject hopes and projections of secular liberalism: How would you feel if Western imperialists and their mapmakers had divided your lands, stolen your oil, and humiliated your proud culture? Devout Muslims merely want what everyone wants—political and economic security, a piece of land to call home, good schools for their children, a little leisure to enjoy the company of friends. Unfortunately, most of my fellow liberals appear to believe this. In fact, to not accept this obscurantism as a deep insight into human nature and immediately avert one’s eyes from the teachings of Islam is considered a form of bigotry.
In any conversation on this topic, one must continually deploy a firewall of caveats and concessions to irrelevancy: Of course, U.S. foreign policy has problems. Yes, we really must get off oil. No, I did not support the war in Iraq. Sure, I’ve read Chomsky. No doubt, the Bible contains equally terrible passages. Yes, I heard about that abortion clinic bombing in 1984. No, I’m sorry to say that Hitler and Stalin were not motivated by atheism. The Tamil Tigers? Of course, I’ve heard of them. Now can we honestly talk about the link between belief and behavior?
Yes, many Muslims happily ignore the apostasy and blasphemy of their neighbors, view women as the moral equals of men, and consider anti-Semitism contemptible. But there are also Muslims who drink alcohol and eat bacon. All of these persuasions run counter to the explicit teachings of Islam to one or another degree. And just like moderates in every other religion, most moderate Muslims become obscurantists when defending their faith from criticism. They rely on modern, secular values—for instance, tolerance of diversity and respect for human rights—as a basis for reinterpreting and ignoring the most despicable parts of their holy books. But they nevertheless demand that we respect the idea of revelation, and this leaves us perpetually vulnerable to more literal readings of scripture.
The idea that any book was inspired by the creator of the universe is poison—intellectually, ethically, and politically. And nowhere is this poison currently doing more harm than in Muslim communities, East and West. Despite all the obvious barbarism in the Old Testament, and the dangerous eschatology of the New, it is relatively easy for Jews and Christians to divorce religion from politics and secular ethics. A single line in Matthew—“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”—largely accounts for why the West isn’t still hostage to theocracy. The Koran contains a few lines that could be equally potent—for instance, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256)—but these sparks of tolerance are easily snuffed out. Transforming Islam into a truly benign faith will require a miracle of re-interpretation. And a few intrepid reformers, such as Maajid Nawaz, are doing their best to accomplish it.
Many believe it unwise to discuss the link between Islam and the intolerance and violence we see in the Muslim world, fearing that it will increase the perception that the West is at war with the faith and cause millions of otherwise peaceful Muslims to rally to the jihadist cause. I admit that this concern isn’t obviously crazy—but it merely attests to the seriousness of the underlying problem. Religion produces a perverse solidarity that we must find some way to undercut. It causes in-group loyalty and out-group hostility, even when members of one’s own group are behaving like psychopaths.
But it remains taboo in most societies to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. Even atheists tend to observe this taboo, and enforce it on others, because they believe that religion is necessary for many people. After all, life is difficult—and faith is a balm. Most people imagine that Iron Age philosophy represents the only available vessel for their spiritual hopes and existential concerns. This is an enduring problem for the forces of reason, because the most transformative experiences people have—bliss, devotion, self-transcendence—are currently anchored to the worst parts of culture and to ways of thinking that merely amplify superstition, self-deception, and conflict.
Among all the harms caused by religion at this point in history, this is perhaps the most subtle: Even when it appears beneficial—inspiring people to gather in beautiful buildings to contemplate the mystery existence and their ethical commitments to one another—religion conveys the message that there is no intellectually defensible and nonsectarian way to do this. But there is. We can build strong communities and enjoy deeply moral and spiritual lives, without believing any divisive nonsense about the divine origin of specific books.
And it is this misguided respect for revelation that explains why, in response to the starkest conceivable expression of religious fanaticism, President Obama has responded with euphemisms—and missiles. This may be the best we can hope for, given the state of our discourse about religion. Perhaps one day we will do “everything that we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for.” But today, we won’t even honestly describe the motivations of our enemies. And in the act of lying to ourselves, we continue to pay lip service to the very delusions that empower them.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon

See. its not just me. or nicko or tommy.......even this guy, a rationalist, sees multiculturaliskm has FAILED and is an ongoing failure.....

by Tommy Monk Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:03 pm

Quite right Victor......

by Guest Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:04 pm

Disagree Victor, many areas of where Multiculturalism has worked is places like America, Australia and I include this country. To based off certain people from some nations means it needs looking at and not that it has failed, being as it is an ongoing process.
The very fact is this nation is based off multicultural ethnicity through centuries, where I am sure you would not say England is a failure.
Most of his other points though are excellent

by Lone Wolf Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:52 pm

IDIOTS who keep on blathering away with their noisy nonsense about how "multiculturalism doesn't work.." and will only lead to TEOTWAWKI* in the end, are nothing more than a bunch of ignorant fools who only ever manage to reveal that they actually have NO idea of just what multiculturalism actually is to start with !!!

IF we look at the least multicultural countries in the world ~ North Korea, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Peru, Iran, South Korea, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar, Nepal, Dubai, Switzerland, Austria, Nigeria, Lebanon, Germany, Japan, just as a few quick examples ~ I have a simple query for those clueless nongs who consider such bastions of peace and harmony to be such great examples of single and narrow-culture/ethnic societies..

HOW many of you would actually want to live there ?
AND why aren't you clowns living there already, if their societies are so much more richer, stable, peaceful and nicer for the experience ?

BY COMPARISON, Britain has effectively been a multicultural society at it's core for the last two thousand years ! While it's former colonies Australia, New Zealand and the USA have been genuine and successful "multicultural" societies since their inception ~ despite efforts by English-centric monarchists in the 19th century, and racist nationalist groups in the early 20th Century, to turn these nations into forcibly integrated "white supremacy" countries.. Laughing

* 'The End Of The World As We Know It !'

by Guest Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:46 pm

Again tye abusive village idiot (thats you Bee) utterly fails to see the difference between

multiculturalism as exemplified by a country in which multiple cultures live peacefully side by side, freeling intermixing and at ease with one anothers "quirks" where issues of "halal" and burkahs etc wouldnt happen because hala food would have ALWAYS been clearly labeled and those who support the burkah would undestand the cultural aversion we in the west have to the covered face and inability to read the faces of those around us....just to give two examples

and the idiotic leftists dream of encouraging "ghettoisation" and cultural isolation with stupid notions of positive discrimination and "protection of culture" by imposing deceit, lies, obscuration and threats upon the majority culture all in tghe name of "community cohesion"

multiculturalism is inevitable, given the global reach these days....the politicised, morally bankrupt, and inane mess crerated by the left here IS a HUGE failure......that much becomes more obvious day by day, with each and every outrage that we see...

and I would STILL like to see....without abuse thank you.....a list of the so called benefits of multiculturalism as it is at present practiced that we would otherwise NOT have obtained by way of trade and other international contacts..

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:40 am

@victor
Multiculturalism works great here....
Wink

by Ben Reilly Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:35 am

victorisnotamused wrote:Again tye abusive village idiot (thats you Bee) utterly fails to see the difference between

multiculturalism as exemplified by a country in which multiple cultures live peacefully side by side, freeling intermixing and at ease with one anothers "quirks" where issues of "halal" and burkahs etc wouldnt happen because hala food would have ALWAYS been clearly labeled and those who support the burkah would undestand the cultural aversion we in the west have to the covered face and inability to read the faces of those around us....just to give two examples

and the idiotic leftists dream of encouraging "ghettoisation" and cultural isolation with stupid notions of positive discrimination and "protection of culture" by imposing deceit, lies, obscuration and threats upon the majority culture all in tghe name of "community cohesion"

multiculturalism is inevitable, given the global reach these days....the politicised, morally bankrupt, and inane mess crerated by the left here IS a HUGE failure......that much becomes more obvious day by day, with each and every outrage that we see...

and I would STILL like to see....without abuse thank you.....a list of the so called benefits of multiculturalism as it is at present practiced that we would otherwise NOT have obtained by way of trade and other international contacts..

So why do you think Britain is incapable of managing multiculturalism, when nations culturally descended from Britain have managed it? (Mind you, I'm not accepting anything in your premise, as the notion that multiculturalism has failed even in Britain is not accepted by all British people.)

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:46 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:Again tye abusive village idiot (thats you Bee) utterly fails to see the difference between

multiculturalism as exemplified by a country in which multiple cultures live peacefully side by side, freeling intermixing and at ease with one anothers "quirks" where issues of "halal" and burkahs etc wouldnt happen because hala food would have ALWAYS been clearly labeled and those who support the burkah would undestand the cultural aversion we in the west have to the covered face and inability to read the faces of those around us....just to give two examples

and the idiotic leftists dream of encouraging "ghettoisation" and cultural isolation with stupid notions of positive discrimination and "protection of culture" by imposing deceit, lies, obscuration and threats upon the majority culture all in tghe name of "community cohesion"

multiculturalism is inevitable, given the global reach these days....the politicised, morally bankrupt, and inane mess crerated by the left here IS a HUGE failure......that much becomes more obvious day by day, with each and every outrage that we see...

and I would STILL like to see....without abuse thank you.....a list of the so called benefits of multiculturalism as it is at present practiced that we would otherwise NOT have obtained by way of trade and other international contacts..

So why do you think Britain is incapable of managing multiculturalism, when nations culturally descended from Britain have managed it? (Mind you, I'm not accepting anything in your premise, as the notion that multiculturalism has failed even in Britain is not accepted by all British people.)

Exactly and Britain has the least far right support out of any European nation and has the one of the biggest immigration to it. We see little to reflect it has failed as we do not see this with a huge increase in violence and riots, which has failed to materialize.
Plus to put an end point on something when it is an ongoing process, just like it was in the US, where at first there was also the same arguments used back when they had mass migration, shows it does take time and cannot be constituted as failed.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:30 pm

So, why are there so many "cultural ghettos"?
thats point one

why are ther all the other issues?

why are certain "crimes" covered up and tolerated by wilful blindness when comitted by "certain groups"?

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:29 pm

But Didge, you ignore this......

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/uk-britain-immigration-survey-idUKBREA0600F20140107

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:46 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:So, why are there so many "cultural ghettos"?
thats point one

why are ther all the other issues?

why are certain "crimes" covered up and tolerated by wilful blindness when comitted by "certain groups"?

What cultural Ghettos victor?
So you are now going off some crimes being covered up, sorry selective arguent, are all immigrants criminals?
No.
Do things happen like the Rochdale situation that is wrong?
Yes
Were they wrong?
Yes
Does that mean Multiculturalism has failed ?
No
Again we are no where near like the US was with immigration, the same arguments were had back then also, yet that nation thrives, we do not have mass unrest in this country which would be apparent if it had failed all of which you are ignoring. Most people get along with each other Victor, just because your view is different does not mean others are

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:50 pm

Rotherham and other places in UK where same thing has been happening and covered up is an example of desperate attempts to protect and promote multiculturalism in the face of its obvious failings.

Just like the hiding of huge crime rates by blacks is to protect the image of multiculturalism...

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:53 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Rotherham and other places in UK where same thing has been happening and covered up is an example of desperate attempts to protect and promote multiculturalism in the face of its obvious failings.

Just like the hiding of huge crime rates by blacks is to protect the image of multiculturalism...

Many things have been covered up, from celebrities to politicians on sex crimes, it seem endemic,yet your argument only concentrates on the attackers who are not white British which is odd, as what it shows is we have a problem with the cover up of many sex crimes.
Your views on many topics ignore many facts, so again if multiculturalism has failed why are we not see mass unrest?

Take your time

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:00 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:But Didge, you ignore this......
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/uk-britain-immigration-survey-idUKBREA0600F20140107

This is how people present their opinions as we are a civilised people.

Continual ignoral of British opinion and more enforced immigration against our wishes will provoke stronger reactions and ultimately lead to mass unrest.....

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:06 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:But Didge, you ignore this......
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/uk-britain-immigration-survey-idUKBREA0600F20140107

This is how people present their opinions as we are a civilised people.

Continual ignoral of British opinion and more enforced immigration against our wishes will provoke stronger reactions and ultimately lead to mass unrest.....

That is not a survey on multiculturalism but on less immigration, it does not state there should be no immigration or immigrants should leave, so that was rather comical to post as your evidence.
So again if multiculturalism has failed why are we not seeing mass unrest?

Take your time

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:10 pm

The pro multiculturalism propaganda machine is in full effect.

We are seeing massive problems.

But crimes by certain groups are being covered up and ignored to try to hide the problems.

Whites move away where they can, what does that tell you?

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:13 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
The pro multiculturalism propaganda machine is in full effect.

We are seeing massive problems.

Crimes by certain groups are covered up and

Again you are doing your usual dance avoiding the question, oh well, another failed Twatti response.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:14 pm

Added more above in edit.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:16 pm

And you failed to answer my question, let me know when you can.

Good luck

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:25 pm

If people were happy about multiculturalism then they wouldn't be so opposed to immigration.....

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:30 pm

There are many reasons why people want immigration to decrease, some of which are valid, some of which are not valid, again if Multiculturalism had failed we would see mass unrest.
Answer the question, why is it we do not

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:39 pm

Ultimately we will see mass unrest if the continual failings of multiculturalism are not addressed.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:42 pm

That is speculation, where people have been saying the same things since the 1950's and yet no such mass unrest has occurred.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:48 pm

Ultimately we will see mass unrest if the continual failings of multiculturalism are not addressed.
You cannot say that because we have not yet seen mass unrest then it means that multiculturalism is running along nicely!!!
What a joker!!!!

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:53 pm

We never have and never will, your view has been speculated countless times and as seen has never materialized, mainly because you miss the point the young are not so anti immigration, it is the older generation that is, thus over time it will become less and less of a problem, just as happened in the US.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:12 pm

The USA is very divided by racial/cultural lines.

As are people here.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:13 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The USA is very divided by racial/cultural lines.

As are people here.

Is it?
Where is the mass unrest from all racial/ethnic groups?

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:02 pm

There are mass high crime rates against the white majority by the minorities both here and USA.

You can't keep claiming that multiculturalism is working just because we have not yet seen mass unrest.

Although there are examples of increased unrest and tensions both here and USA.

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:05 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:There are mass high crime rates against the white majority by the minorities both here and USA.

You can't keep claiming that multiculturalism is working just because we have not yet seen mass unrest.

Although there are examples of increased unrest and tensions both here and USA.

Again you are talking about crime levels which is still low in percentages for the world of which many are not racially based either from one group against naother, so you need to show mass unrest to prove your case which at every turn you have failed to do so.
There has been odd blips of riots, but not constant mass violence that brings about changes, hence you need to view history to understand what I mean by mass unrest as at the end of the day many people here and in the US live peacefully together, which you are ignoring!
So again you have failed to answer my question

by Ben Reilly Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The USA is very divided by racial/cultural lines.

As are people here.

Not as much as you seem to think, Tommy. Remember, you don't live here, you don't see daily life. I live in a neighborhood with people of all different ethnic groups and we get along great.

by Lone Wolf Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:02 pm

ONCE AGAIN that absolute fuckwit Tommy Monk has made an even bigger fool of himself than usual by confusing immigration with those government policies of facilitating "multiculturalism"...

AND he has yet again proven himself to be the stupidest member on this forum, not only not bothering to do his homework before posting his always ignorant rants these days, but writing total crap which is nothing more than parroting the crassest bleatings of those racist and neo-nazi sources that he apparently constantly wallows in..

::rfth::

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:06 pm

I was talking about UK primarily,it ya, dodge who tried to divert by bringing the USA into it.
There are deep divisions among racial/cultural lines both here in UK and there in USA and just hearing you deny it means nothing.
And dodge,You can't keep clinging on to your false premise that because there is not yet mass unrest that multiculturalism is working just fine.
Multiculturalism is evidently failing and to continue with mass immigration And promotion of it will ultimately lead to mass unrest.
The covering up of Muslim child rape hangs and high levels of black crime rates is purely to prevent mass unrest and is a direct result of this multiculturalism you think is working.

by Lone Wolf Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:19 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:

Again tye abusive village idiot (thats you Bee) utterly fails to see the difference between......

........................................

Blah, blah, blah....

ONLY know the one tiresome insult, I see ~ needles been stuck on that record for a while now...

Victor the braindead idiot druid once again proves his total ignorance of anything outside his own backyard..

BEEN smoking those funny looking toadstools again, have you Vic' ~ at least that would account for the premature senility ! :::carnbnn:::

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:25 pm

Flea keeper pops up trolling again with nothing of value to add to debate....

Yawn!

by Guest Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:39 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

Again tye abusive village idiot (thats you Bee) utterly fails to see the difference between......

........................................

Blah, blah, blah....

ONLY know the one tiresome insult, I see ~ needles been stuck on that record for a while now...

Victor the braindead idiot druid once again proves his total ignorance of anything outside his own backyard..

BEEN smoking those funny looking toadstools again, have you Vic' ~ at least that would account for the premature senility ! :::carnbnn:::

there is only one senile idiot onn here Bee, and that would be yourself, I have yet to see you put in ANY value to ANY conversation on here. All you can produce is abuse and villification. For some one claiming to have "higher education" you make the babblings of a gutter drunk seem intelligible.. What did you have to do to get your qualifications eh Bee....

was it one mark for knowing a cow moos
and the other for knowing which end to feed?

mind you ...you are in good company today...it seems ALL the multicultural appologists have utterly failed to see the point of my earlier post....

what YOU may view as multiculturalism, and you ben and quill, is something somewhat at odds with what WE in the UK have to put up with.

just to drive the point home and repeat to what is obviously an audience of the termninally stupid, allied with the perpetually dense...

"multiculturalism" is INEVITABLE, given the reach of the "global village" what with travel and communication so easy today...

what is NOT inevitable and should never have occured is the "brand" of multiculturalism that has been foisted upon us by the leftist cretins over here...

and this leads back to the concept of "tolerance" which the left rant on about incessantly...thus proving just how racist they are....

scenario.....

as a senior staff member I have a (whatever) foisted upon me as a "co-worker"
now I dont actually like (whatever)
but I am told by everyone who feels they have a right to tell me (many of whom actually have NO such right) that i must be "tolerant")
so

I "tolerate" this (whatever)
now unless this (whatever) is as thick as Bee, its not going to be long untill he/she realises that that is exactly what I am doing...tolerating, that is to say "putting up" with him/her against my personal feelings, and that in fact i actually dislike him/her.
Now
I have been absolutely correct in my dealing with him/her...never been abusive...BUT never friendly, never relaxed and always "formal"
and it is quite clear that, although unspoken, the feeling is there that "OK you are, defacto, part of the team but I aint happy"

how do you think THAT will make this person feel?

especially when, out of the necessity to preserve MY position i have been scrupulously careful never to cause offence but have rebuffed ALL attempts by that person to have any sort of "professional" friendship

Yet I am doing EXACTLY what the leftist happy clappers dictate I must.....tolerating....

the trap is of the lefts own making, as ever, inept with language, and always speaking with "forked tongue" they dare NOT dictate that we must unconditionally surrender our individuality to their poisoned grey amorphous mass future, so they did the next best thing...they said "tolerate"
so we do...we "put up with in spite of our dislike"

how much longer the "putting up with" will last and/or what it will take to break the forebearence required is an open point.....

now the question arises of "righteousness"...or some such nebulous concept....

would I harm someone from (whatever) group?....of course not
some will say thats "righteous" me? I call it common sense...
does "not seeing harm done" imply I have to actually like that person...no it damn well doesnt....nor does it mean I have to act in anyway other than strictly "correct
"

by Guest Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:16 am

And after all that I have selective vies points none of which show Multiculturalism has failed.
Showing selective incidents neglecting that the majority of the country get son with each other and has done for a very long time ignores the many fact there is no mass unrest.

All you are doing Victor is giving your own opinion.

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:21 am

@victor
maybe the problem is too many English (and Europeans in general) tolerate but don't embrace, so the Migrants tolerate but don't embrace. (not that everyone has to embrace but it helps if most are)

"multiculturalism" is INEVITABLE, given the reach of the "global village" what with travel and communication so easy today...

what is NOT inevitable and should never have occured is the "brand" of multiculturalism that has been foisted upon us by the leftist cretins over here...

that is true and a fair point...

I do think however there is a culture of exclusion/separation in the UK(and Europe), that makes it harder for Multiculturalism to be accepted. There haven't been the real community leaders from the English side to encourage migrants to want to call themselves and think of themselves as English. OR as I was explaining to didge in another thread 'English Muslims' or 'Pakistani English' etc. The Idea of being many things seem a bit hard for many 'Indigenous/Anglo' English to accept.

I think Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohamed exemplifies the success of multiculturalism in Australia as the VAST majority of Muslims are calling for authorities to be tougher on the actual Radical preachers etc than the rest of the community is. In the recent raids many of the suspects were identified by Muslims community leaders. Many of the Mosques are now keeping their eyes and ears open for Extremists and reporting them swiftly. they are Muslim but they are also Australian and 'live the beauty/greatness/awesome that is being Australian' and want to protect it because they like/proud being part of it because it is a great thing to be a part of.

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:36 am

For years we have been talking about tougher line on radical Muslims and preachers just to be shouted down as racists and Islamaphobes.....

A couple of Muslims do it and they are praised by the useful idiots as heros.....

I despair......!!!!

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:47 am

Tommy Monk wrote:For years we have been talking about tougher line on radical Muslims and preachers just to be shouted down as racists and Islamaphobes.....

A couple of Muslims do it and they are praised by the useful idiots as heros.....

I despair......!!!!

No.... for years you have seen someone different than yourself and Squealed in fear and terror, thus you became like the boy how cried wolf.
You have been taking about Radical Muslims like it is all or the majority of Muslims... which is the Opposite of helpful and community building, Do not think for a second I was referring to People that behave like you...

these are people that actually engage the person and after having lengthy discussion with them come to the conclusion they may be a threat.

to highlight the difference
what percentage of Muslims do YOU think need police investigation?

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:03 am

Don't be a twat Veya, I have lived in London all my life, probably the most cosmopolitan and diverse places on the planet and I have grown up seeing all sorts for 43 years.

I have friends and family of various different ethnic and religious backgrounds.

I have also travelled quite extensively and visited Muslim countries many times.

And to answer your question, there are a significant percentage of the 3 million Muslims here in UK who are very sympathetic to the Islamic militant cause and A significant number of then are active supporters.....

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:21 am

What is a significant percentage?
here is the thing you are saying something emotive with not facts or even a figure to back it up...

I cant say in the UK for sure, but Unless you guys are doing something really wrong it should not be more than 0.05%... only about 1 in 2000 support ISIS in any capacity.

IF you grew up somewhere with so many other types of people why do you know so little about them? and London is Multicultural but not the Most.
THE Grand Mufti of Australia and Islamic leaders have united to reject the fatwa issued against Australia Blackt10

THE Grand Mufti of Australia and Islamic leaders have united to reject the fatwa issued against Australia Blackt10

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:52 am

Well I think you need to look into the statistics of how many Muslims here actually support militants and sharia enforcement etc.....

It's quite a lot....

And 0.5% of our 3,000,000 Muslims in UK is a considerable number to cause widespread and major problems..... although the statistics suggest the numbers are much higher.

Plus.... white British are a minority in London.....

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/census-reveals-white-britons-as-minority-in-capital-for-first-time-8405998.html

And 3 other places outside London.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/10/white-britons-minority_n_2446765.html

With white British being marginalized in many other places in UK.

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:15 am

0.05%
so a tenth the number you thought

so you are talking about 1500 people in all of the UK with a population of 64,000,000

I live in Blacktown where over 42% of people are BORN overseas and then there are all the Non-white Aussies that are born here Anglos Aussies make maybe 30% but it pretty hard to tell sine so many of us a part-caste...

37% are born overseas in London, all the other ethnic stats are incomparable as we don't really measure 'white' versus 'not white' and if you're born here the only stat you may fall under is "speaks language other than English at home" cause you are an Aussie.

Can you see my point about the WAY we embrace or migrants and don't excluded them, so the whole dynamic is different. maybe your numbers are higher because you don't offer them 'the dream'

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:43 am

There are already probably more than1500 UK Muslims who have gone to fight for ISIS directly.....

The supporters of militant Islam are much higher.

The sympathisers are even higher still.

Think you need to check your statistics again.

Plus Australia population is overwhelmingly based on immigration so your statistics are a little disjointed in comparison.

However our nation being already substantially populated, so the figures showing huge foreign populations and displacement of The indigenous is much more startling.

With most not coming here for what they can bring but for what they can get/take.

Not really wanting to integrate or be British as such.

The earlier arrivals had to integrate and assimilate quite considerably, but now they have established themselves, the newer arrivals now just come to carry on as they would in their home nations with little to no regard for or interest in the British people or way of life.

We don't want or need the vast majority of immigrants who arrive here either, and have never voted in favour of any of them coming.

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:04 am

Not really wanting to integrate or be British as such.

that's the point, or the question ::dunno:: WHY don't they want to be British? and what can you do to make them believe 'the British Dream' over their old one.

by nicko Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:08 am

Bring back"" National Service" and watch them leave in mass!

by The Puzzler Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:47 am

Why does Australia even need a 'Grand Mufti'?

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:05 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Not really wanting to integrate or be British as such.
that's the point, or the question ::dunno:: WHY don't they want to be British? and what can you do to make them believe 'the British Dream' over their old one.

They don't come here to be British, they come here for what they can take/get, money, housing, running water, electricity etc, encouraged by labours multicultural dream to be proud of their cultures and to just carry on with it here.

With most being just economic migrants chasing money, unskilled, uneducated, unwanted, but just see Britain as a soft touch and with a certain contempt for being so easy to rinse out....

Interpreters are readily supplied and paid for and all council/govt/benefits letters and documents are translated into a variety of languages for them too, so why should they even bother trying?

by Sponsored content