Should Canada and the U.S. tolerate an intolerant Islam?

Who said a color. Are you showing your own prejudices?

https://www.nfb.ca/film/sharia_in_canada_part_1

http://www.breitbart.com/...-with-violence-against-americans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSgxZlp6f90

Regards
DL

I don't see evidence that it has failed, sorry.

What a disgusting lie. One that undermines your own argument. One that anybody who has been keeping an eye on the emerging Syria crisis for years rather than months can see is transparently stupid and/or evil.

You aren't persuading me that you are doing better.

Yes, some people are pissed off. So?

No it hasn't, and there is nothing wrong with that even if it were true.

If you are talking about the terrorist attacks - that is not the carnage you should be concerned with.

The refugees dying in their thousands is more carnage than terrorists have managed to inflict on us in decades of earnest attempts.

If they break the law, those Canadians and Americans should be punished for their actions. We can't blame the victims of this lashing out, obviously!

Also, they are not being forced. They have already agreed to it. That's democracy.

As I keep repeating - we already tried that. The situation got worse for everyone in the short term, and looked to be growing in intensity - meaning the long term was also looking bad.

Nice try, but you are not learning from experience.

Malmö. A city that has improved its economic situation enormously over the last three decades. What would you like to say about it?

--Percy

Your initial claim was that the folks flocking to Europe "... do not want to support or live under such extreme Islamism".

To which I replied that many do, just not the exact version as being practiced.

To which you responded by changing general "extreme Islamism" to "extreme Islamism of ISIS " which, of course, agrees with what I said: the folks don't want to live under ISIS's extreme Islamism - but many do want to live under some version of extreme Islamism.

And it is none but the blind who fail to see that it is this general attitude of Middle Eastern Muslims that is behind so much of the violence in the region: it's a mash-up of extremist ideologies fighting for power with each one subjugating the others in its turn. ISIS rules today; some other may rule in the future.

Well, that's the topic of this thread: should we be welcoming intolerant Islam into the West. There are two ways of welcoming Islam, conversion or immigration. We're talking about the latter.

Huh? I don't think Muslims are intrinsically bad. They are human beings who have the same potential to be good, honorable, and compassionate as all other human beings. Islam seems to do a good job suppressing these potentials; hence this thread and the several others on the same topic.

Yes, because: this thread.

Then let Sweden educate the kids. Their parents can stay in Syria.

It does if we have good reason to believe those civilians are bringing the warzone with them - or even just the mentality that is largely responsible for it.

There are ways to help that don't involve inviting extremist nutjobs into our borders.

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

How many, and how do you know this?

Today's New York Times (ISIS Wives and Enforcers in Syria Recount Collaboration, Anguish and Escape) describes a pre-ISIS Syria with many progressive and westward-looking residents, e.g.:

quote:

---

All three belonged to a generation of Syrian women who were leading more independent lives than ever before. They mixed freely with young men, socializing and studying together in a religiously diverse city with relatively relaxed mores.

---

These people have no right to flee?

--Percy

Tell me - are these 'other versions' of Islamism the same extremism as ISIS' brand? It's just that they disagree on something? Can you show me?

ISIS doesn't rule the middle east.
I've been personal friends with Iraqis, Jordanians and one Syrian. They have some interesting stories, they work hard and are loyal and generous friends each of them - their families are likewise. They are not unique. I want those kinds of people to stay alive. I want the frequency of these people within the population to increase in comparison with the militant nutters.

Am I being controversial in this?

I know the topic. What difference does the fact that some of them might be 'perpetrators' themselves when we are deciding whether to let refugees drown?

So because of this thread we should let them drown?

This kind of disgusting evil is why I am persuaded your position should not be accepted by any reasonably decent human.

Why?

I'm all ears. Speak quick though, while our hypothetical borders are closed to refugees there are people starving and drowning a few hundred miles offshore.

I never said people haven't a right to flee.

What I have said is we have no obligation to receive such folks and should, given what we know of Muslims in the region be very cautious about importing extreme radicalism of the kind the West has already fought enough wars to get rid of in its own borders.

That, of course, is just an anecdote. If we look at actual evidence (surveys of what people believe) we find things like this bit that Mod kindly pointed out long ago but has been doing a good job of forgetting:

quote:

---

Modulous in Message 131 in Evil Muslim conspiracy...:

quote:

---

About eight-in-ten Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan (82% each) endorse the stoning of people who commit adultery; 70% of Muslims in Jordan and 56% of Nigerian Muslims share this view. Muslims in Pakistan and Egypt are also the most supportive of whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery; 82% in Pakistan and 77% in Egypt favor making this type of punishment the law in their countries, as do 65% of Muslims in Nigeria and 58% in Jordan.

When asked about the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion, at least three-quarters of Muslims in Jordan (86%), Egypt (84%) and Pakistan (76%) say they would favor making it the law; in Nigeria, 51% of Muslims favor and 46% oppose it. In contrast, Muslims in Lebanon, Turkey and Indonesia largely reject the notion that harsh punishments should be the law in their countries. About three-quarters of Turkish and Lebanese Muslims oppose the stoning of people who commit adultery (77% and 76%, respectively), as does a narrower majority (55%) of Muslims in Indonesia.

---

The bottom line is: if religiously sanctioned death and mutilation is an extremist position - its a very common one.

---

Middle-Eastern Muslims are by and large fundamentalists of a nature that makes our own Christian fundamentalists look like kittens.

It's not unreasonable to want to keep their crap out of the West.

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

If no one will receive them, what good is the right to flee?

Simple humanity demands we receive people fleeing from groups like the Nazis, the Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc. We failed the Jews before and during World War II, we shouldn't repeat the mistake with fleeing Syrians, Iraqis, Nigerians, etc.

Of course.

Mod's quote in his Message 131, taken from Stoning Adulterers at the Pew Research Center, was provided to support his argument of a wide variety of opinion among Muslims. For example, the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph states, "In contrast, Muslims in Lebanon, Turkey and Indonesia largely reject the notion that harsh punishments should be the law in their countries."

I could agree with summarily rejecting refugee status for all mad bombers, but not all Muslims. It would be inhumane.

--Percy

I'm only a participant in this thread, but could I suggest that maybe we could let the audience make their own decisions about who is stupid and who isn't. Our own personal opinions aren't the ones that count.

--Percy

Meanwhile, I stand by my statement: the immigrants who should have been kept out were us.

Prove it. You're judging them before they do anything.

Like I said, your morals stop at the borders and that's scary.