Islam - what is it all about?

PeterCS wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Don't waste an iota of sympathy on the psychopaths.

I think Pete is arguing that an empathetic approach to the overall population will marginalise fewer, and push or drive fewer of them out of mainstream society towards acts of retaliatory hate and revenge.

Got it! (Thanks.)

I was also trying to suggest it's important to find and engage the empathies of those individuals in society who - experience seems to suggest - are likely only to be (further) alienated by the 'Big Mallet' approach, as I called it. Rather than switch them off further from the wider societies they live in, and wider shared value systems. They are often cramped and restricted enough in their family circles, the reports seem often to suggest.

I'm sorry you saw yourself as patronised, vilks. I feel that too was a misunderstanding of what I was getting at.

Lardy nailed it.

The problem is that Muslims in the west marginalise themselves by living in enclaves & refusing to assimilate into western culture. In typical fashion they then blame everyone else & play the victim card.. This then gives the wannbe jihadists an excuse to relatiate. This behaviour has been recognised by the authorities in Aust. During the Lindt Cafe siege the government and police went to great lengths to disassociate the actions of the gunman with Islam (even though it was obvious to all it was). In taking this approach, they were denying other Muslim hotheads any excuse to retaliate in the name of Islam.

Big Dog wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Don't waste an iota of sympathy on the psychopaths.

I think Pete is arguing that an empathetic approach to the overall population will marginalise fewer, and push or drive fewer of them out of mainstream society towards acts of retaliatory hate and revenge.

Got it! (Thanks.)

I was also trying to suggest it's important to find and engage the empathies of those individuals in society who - experience seems to suggest - are likely only to be (further) alienated by the 'Big Mallet' approach, as I called it. Rather than switch them off further from the wider societies they live in, and wider shared value systems. They are often cramped and restricted enough in their family circles, the reports seem often to suggest.

I'm sorry you saw yourself as patronised, vilks. I feel that too was a misunderstanding of what I was getting at.

Lardy nailed it.

The problem is that Muslims in the west marginalise themselves by living in enclaves & refusing to assimilate into western culture. In typical fashion they then blame everyone else & play the victim card.. This then gives the wannbe jihadists an excuse to relatiate. This behaviour has been recognised by the authorities in Aust. During the Lindt Cafe siege the government and police went to great lengths to disassociate the actions of the gunman with Islam (even though it was obvious to all it was). In taking this approach, they were denying other Muslim hotheads any excuse to retaliate in the name of Islam.

The question is do they want to assimilate or do they expect the west to change to suit them?

taipan wrote:The question is do they want to assimilate or do they expect the west to change to suit them?

some want to fit in. some dont. but its not always that easy to tell the difference.

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:

taipan wrote:The question is do they want to assimilate or do they expect the west to change to suit them?

some want to fit in.  some dont.  but its not always that easy to tell the difference.

You could be describing every race or ethnicity who ever came to Australia (other than the English).

JGK wrote:

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:

taipan wrote:The question is do they want to assimilate or do they expect the west to change to suit them?

some want to fit in.  some dont.  but its not always that easy to tell the difference.

You could be describing every race or ethnicity who ever came to Australia (other than the English).

Thats a very broad statement & not necessarily true.

JGK wrote:

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:

taipan wrote:The question is do they want to assimilate or do they expect the west to change to suit them?

some want to fit in.  some dont.  but its not always that easy to tell the difference.

You could be describing every race or ethnicity who ever came to Australia (other than the English).

South Africans?

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:

taipan wrote:The question is do they want to assimilate or do they expect the west to change to suit them?

some want to fit in.  some dont.  but its not always that easy to tell the difference.

You could be describing every race or ethnicity who ever came to Australia (other than the English).

South Africans?

Fair point.  None of those qunts want to fit in.

Nor do we want them.

lardbucket wrote:Nor do we want them.

Showing the Aussies up a bit, are they?

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Nor do we want them.

Showing the Aussies up a bit, are they?

Lardy's full of it.  Saffie women are hot.  They are welcome to stay.

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Nor do we want them.

Showing the Aussies up a bit, are they?

Lardy's full of it.  Saffie women are hot.  They are welcome to stay.

TBF they were probably wise enough not to settle in Tassie.

JGK wrote:

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:

taipan wrote:The question is do they want to assimilate or do they expect the west to change to suit them?

some want to fit in.  some dont.  but its not always that easy to tell the difference.

You could be describing every race or ethnicity who ever came to Australia (other than the English).

to be serious for a moment - that was kinda the point i was trying to make

you can carry on with the banter now

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Nor do we want them.

Showing the Aussies up a bit, are they?

Lardy's full of it.  Saffie women are hot.  They are welcome to stay.

TBF they were probably wise enough not to settle in Tassie.

They would be welcome. Our State Rugger team could do with some muscle.

Problem is if it is changed for other than terrorism.
Same with the bikie law,if expounded on it can mean other groups,maybe on religion.
I think tho if the minister is doing the stripping,he is pretty bloody sure of their guilt.I'd hate to see someone doing humanitarian work being stripped for doing good,and their are volunteers in Iraq and Syria doing just that.
Question is do you strip Aussies born here of their citizenship,there are some white kids on Jihad,and if some brown person can be stripped then i have no brown with some white trash being stripped of their citizenship.

I think this is a fair effort at what I was trying to get at, above.

Not sure I would agree with all of it, and some of it seems a bit speculative (maybe too hopeful, as well).

But it makes a start.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/21/isis-women-its-not-about-jihadi-brides-its-about-escape

I see our Muslim buddies had fun around the world again today.

Of course it is all the fault of the western world.

taipan wrote:Of course it is all the fault of the western world.

yeh
we shoulda nuked the ****** when we had the chance

just in case anyone cant tell thats meant to be tongue in cheek

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:

taipan wrote:Of course it is all the fault of the western world.

yeh
we shoulda nuked the ****** when we had the chance

just in case anyone cant tell thats meant to be tongue in cheek

Nah they were showing empathy by not nuking them.

I wish the politicians would leave aside their political correctness and just admit that we are facing a war against Islam. It is the religion of anti-democracy, it is the religion of violence and brutality, it is the religion of sexism, it is the religion of slavery and child labour, it is the religion that seeks power and dominance over other people and other religions. There are no successful Islamic states, there are no predominantly Muslim states that are stable and safe places to live. It is easy to look at this as being coincidental, but not when it is true of every single one. Islam is the enemy.

Well, if we want a never ending war against two billion people (with the Russians and Chinese no doubt waiting in the wings to fill the gap left by a ruined Western world) then maybe that's the way to go...

9/11 changed the world and nothing anyone has tried since has done anything but make the situation worse, so not sure what the right answer is. We have to keep moderate Islam on our side or it would be absolute global carnage, but standing by and letting a succession of failed states in the Middle East and North Africa fall into extremist control surely can't go on.

So you guys keen on taking away or suspending lone citizens passports(ie those born here) if they fight with Isis,as thats what Abbott is about next?

brockley wrote:So you guys keen on taking away or suspending lone citizens passports(ie those born here) if they fight with Isis,as thats what Abbott is about next?

Nah, an execution should be sufficient punishment.

taipan wrote:

brockley wrote:So you guys keen on taking away or suspending lone citizens passports(ie those born here) if they fight with Isis,as thats what Abbott is about next?

Nah, an execution should be sufficient punishment.

...or worse. We could make them all live in Adelaide.

Big Dog wrote:

taipan wrote:

brockley wrote:So you guys keen on taking away or suspending lone citizens passports(ie those born here) if they fight with Isis,as thats what Abbott is about next?

Nah, an execution should be sufficient punishment.

...or worse. We could make them all live in Adelaide.

And force them to go to day/night tests.

Je suis Charlie