Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

But the new Testament its based in the texts written by the disciples of Jesus Christ, thats where the differences comes.

The Old Testament that Judaism follow and the Quorah are bot interpreted as direct words of God.

But you are right, I have explained it badly before, sorry!

 Galas wrote:
But the new Testament its based in the texts written by the disciples of Jesus Christ, thats where the differences comes.

The Old Testament that Judaism follow and the Quorah are bot interpreted as direct words of God.

But you are right, I have explained it badly before, sorry!

The disciples are not teaching. They are putting forth the events that happened with Christ (thats the argument anyway). Except for Paul's letter to the window washer. I really can't see how that relates.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Galas wrote:
But the new Testament its based in the texts written by the disciples of Jesus Christ, thats where the differences comes.

The Old Testament that Judaism follow and the Quorah are bot interpreted as direct words of God.

But you are right, I have explained it badly before, sorry!

The disciples are not teaching. They are putting forth the events that happened with Christ (thats the argument anyway). Except for Paul's letter to the window washer. I really can't see how that relates.

Yeah, JC seems to be that genuinely cool, charismatic guy in highschool who everyone feels is their best friend, and Paul is the stick-up-arse gakhead who everyone dislikes, but puts up with because JC brought him.

"Islam" is not the cause of Islamic terrorism, corporate imperialism is.

 Galas wrote:
We can't try to solve the Terrorism problem without understanding the Islam. And understanding the Islam its understanding how it is not comparable to even the worst times of christianity.

In a personal level, I despise every mayor monotheistic religion, but they are very different. Judaism and Islam are based on the word of God, thats why those religions can't be reformed to be more "pacific".

In the other hand, Christianity its based in the words of "Prophets" and how they interpreted the word of God. Thats why Christianity has lived so many excisions, because christianity can be reinterpreted and thus, it can be reformed throught the years.

If we wan't to fix this problem, we should obligate every forengeir, not to forget his culture, but to addapt to our legislations and judicial systems. To embrace our European values of personal freedom, democracy, respect and non-violence. In fact, those values even need to be remembered to our own European citicens, because they are so easy forgotten.

And we have to understand that Islam, as an religion and ideology,at his more fundamental core (Muslisms can live in Europe and totally embrace our values, just like you see Christians no practitioners), its totally incompatible with those european values.

Christianity was incompatible too, but as I said early, it has been reformed througth the years, and many branches have originated from those reforms. As a hard-core Atheist I have been slaped in the face many times, being remembered myself that despise all the bad things Christianity has done, its because of his core values that we have the society we have today. Its something that inside me burns, but I have to recognice that its the truth.

 Galas wrote:
Well, we are talking about Islamic terrorism. Obvious, other types of terrorism, like the spanish political one of ETA, have other solutions and causes.

Islam its the foundation used to push a political and religious agenda manifested in the form of terrorism. Just as other religions in the past have been the cores and foundations of other types of atrocyties.

Leaving personal feelings about religion aside. I don't see why Islam is necessarily that much worse than Christianity, horrible and monstrous things have been done in the name of both.

All religions can be interpeted how people want to live. Some Christians take the Bible much more strictly and some Muslims the Quran. The problem is that crazy or power hungry people will always find a way to read those things in a way to fit their world view. Just look at the Buddhists murdering people in Burma. Most people/Muslims that come to live in Europe adapt to our judicial and legislative systems well enough. The problem is not that its the foreigners doing it though, the worst attacks have been committed by second and third generation Europeans. They posses the connections and knowledge about the country to do more than lash out in a truck (London, Madrid, Paris, Brussels).

Islam is not incompatible with the Western world unless you start taking what the holy texts say literally, but then almost all religions will start having issues as they tend to include some pretty horrible stuff every 'normal' Muslim or Christian will tell you is outdated or meant differently. Look at the hijab for example, it should be to promote modesty, but how many Muslim girls wear make up, which kind of defeats the point of a hijab. Just saying that Christianity has reformed is such a non-statement. It took centuries of blood and violence to reform it on a scale Islam will never have to reform in Europe and this reform is usually linked to the development of political situations and economic outlook.

Furthermore the idea that Islamic terrorism is intrinsically linked to Islam is also quite a bit flawed if their actions are looked at. IS for example was created due to political differences with Al-Qaeda. They denounced him as a heretic but Al-Baghdadi wanted to gain more power and create his own state to rule over, publicly breaking with his leaders to escape Iraq (where he was getting hammered) instead of diligently continuing the holy war against against the Iraqi heretics and American infidels, preferring to cross the border to Syria and start murdering other Sunni's to carve out his little empire.
It is true some chumps might do these things out of religious conviction, but take for example suicide bombings. We all have heard the martyr-virgin story, but many suicide bombers are actually people pressured into it. I'm talking about disabled people, children and foreign fighters. Those European Jihadists don't exactly want to go there to get themselves blown up (why not do that here?) but want to live the live of the conquering master with a bunch of sex slaves and 'respect' they feel they weren't getting here. That's why Europeans committing attacks here import people from over there and people there try to import people from over here. Its a lot easier to get people to blown themselves up once they are isolated and desperate. The ones most prominent in terrorist organizations are always the most keen to let others do the dying. Religious conviction is an easy tool, but not something that they themselves exactly overflow with. Just think about Bin-Laden, why mope around his compound as a sad old insignificant man, if he could have gotten that sweet martyr deal? Maybe he wasn't such a true believer after all. All kinds of terrorism frequently have a deeper political goal and many of the people wanting to be terrorists aren't really that keen on dying for their cause. This goes beyond religion, it is an expression of culture and identity that ties people together in an area that is weak nationally speaking or based on 'tribal' identity, its a useful tool, but don't forget Europe went from religion to nationalism in favourite cause of war, which can already been seen in part in the Middle East.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

We say No. Like Tunisia says No.
See?
Equal right to refuse to have them.

 feeder wrote:

"Islam" is not the cause of Islamic terrorism, corporate imperialism is.

Oh, please do explain this one to us in depth.

I can use a laugh.

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

We say No. Like Tunisia says No.
See?
Equal right to refuse to have them.

Say no to what? People illegally crossing the Med with no identification? Where are you going to send them back to? Its a nice way to ruin your relationship with countries you need to work with to reduce the flow across the Med. Seeing as how Tunisia is still willing to make an effort to become a Western inspired democracy, maybe not push them back into the arms of another dictator or more theocratic regime.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

If someone comes from a country they should be deported back there. It doesn't seem right that as soon as a country moves someone on they wash their hands of them and can refuse responsibility for having had them in their country. This means that countries like Tunisia can just funnel people through and refuse to take them back. That's not acceptable, and maybe makes you wonder if anyone should be allowed to enter Europe from Tunisia if they're going to refuse to take back illegitimate entries.

Is North Africa interested in relations with Europe?

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

"Islam" is not the cause of Islamic terrorism, corporate imperialism is.

Oh, please do explain this one to us in depth.

I can use a laugh.

I'm just going to add, power is the cause for Islamic terror. Everybody want's a slice of power or country to rule over. Don't get your way? Find the cause that might attract/rally the most people who feel undervalued/repressed. Its how the Jewish population in the mandate of Palestine founded Isreal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

If someone comes from a country they should be deported back there. It doesn't seem right that as soon as a country moves someone on they wash their hands of them and can refuse responsibility for having had them in their country. This means that countries like Tunisia can just funnel people through and refuse to take them back. That's not acceptable, and maybe makes you wonder if anyone should be allowed to enter Europe from Tunisia if they're going to refuse to take back illegitimate entries.

Is North Africa interested in relations with Europe?

Well unless you advise they go the route of Turkey or Libya, which is not at all in our interest, be my guest in explaining your plans.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

We say No. Like Tunisia says No.
See?
Equal right to refuse to have them.

Say no to what? People illegally crossing the Med with no identification? Where are you going to send them back to? Its a nice way to ruin your relationship with countries you need to work with to reduce the flow across the Med. Seeing as how Tunisia is still willing to make an effort to become a Western inspired democracy, maybe not push them back into the arms of another dictator or more theocratic regime.

Mediterranean = international waters.

So we just turn them 180° around.

Your argument is: Tunisia doesn't identify a person as tunisian > person does not enter Tunisia. So if we don't identify this person as from any European country > no entry to europe.
As I say. Things go both ways.

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

We say No. Like Tunisia says No.
See?
Equal right to refuse to have them.

Say no to what? People illegally crossing the Med with no identification? Where are you going to send them back to? Its a nice way to ruin your relationship with countries you need to work with to reduce the flow across the Med. Seeing as how Tunisia is still willing to make an effort to become a Western inspired democracy, maybe not push them back into the arms of another dictator or more theocratic regime.

Mediterranean = international waters.

So we just turn them 180° around.

Your argument is: Tunisia doesn't identify a person as tunisian > person does not enter Tunisia. So if we don't identify this person as from any European country > no entry to europe.
As I say. Things go both ways.

Ah so its the nice and infamous let them drown argument again! Those people couldn't make it back on their floating wreckage passed off as a boat even if they wanted too.

Man, your so edgy and cool and totally not undermining decades of social and international norms!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ah so its the nice and infamous let them drown argument again! Those people couldn't make it back on their floating wreckage passed off as a boat even if they wanted too.

Man, your so edgy and cool and totally not undermining decades of social and international norms!

Where did he say we should let them drown? Provide the quotation that specifically says that we should let them drown.

We can pick them up at sea, treat injuries etc, and them immediately take them back to north Africa. Make it abundantly clear that the crossing is futile.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ah so its the nice and infamous let them drown argument again! Those people couldn't make it back on their floating wreckage passed off as a boat even if they wanted too.

Man, your so edgy and cool and totally not undermining decades of social and international norms!

Where did he say we should let them drown? Provide the quotation that specifically says that we should let them drown.

We can pick them up at sea, treat injuries etc, and them immediately take them back to north Africa. Make it abundantly clear that the crossing is futile.

He said turn them around, how often have you not heard of a boat already sinking or picking people out of the water to rescue them? How do you turn those people around exactly? He was wilfully being coy with what he exactly meant. He also never said what you're suggesting, which is already occurring btw, there just aren't enough ships to patrol and stop every boat from reaching Lampedusa or other islands. Also letting people on board and then trying to turn that ship around to Libya with a few hundred desperate people seems like a recipe for disaster. Some sources of current efforts, with darker side effects:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/world/europe/can-eu-shift-migrant-crisis-to-the-source-in-libya-the-odds-are-long.html?_r=0
https://www.amnesty.nl/actueel/eu-plans-to-close-sea-border-would-lock-refugees-and-migrants-in-horrendous-conditions-in-libya

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

We say No. Like Tunisia says No.
See?
Equal right to refuse to have them.

Say no to what? People illegally crossing the Med with no identification? Where are you going to send them back to? Its a nice way to ruin your relationship with countries you need to work with to reduce the flow across the Med. Seeing as how Tunisia is still willing to make an effort to become a Western inspired democracy, maybe not push them back into the arms of another dictator or more theocratic regime.

Mediterranean = international waters.

So we just turn them 180° around.

Your argument is: Tunisia doesn't identify a person as tunisian > person does not enter Tunisia. So if we don't identify this person as from any European country > no entry to europe.
As I say. Things go both ways.

Ah so its the nice and infamous let them drown argument again! Those people couldn't make it back on their floating wreckage passed off as a boat even if they wanted too.

Man, your so edgy and cool and totally not undermining decades of social and international norms!

Is all you can offer as reply of this "quality" ?

Usually your course as far as I have followed this thread: false claim of people beeing liars, having no sources.

And this time, its: " Hey look , he want those poor people drowned, see what a great person i am and how evil he is"

May I suggest to keep your hands of that keyboard if you can't provide something worth saying?

I mean, I did just ignore all of that crap you posted about parts of Europe that aren't the Netherlands and which you seem to have no clue about.

I don't know if youre just bored, ignorant, too fanatic or whatever to post the way you do. But do us a favor. Change your silly ways. Its not funny. Not cool.

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

We say No. Like Tunisia says No.
See?
Equal right to refuse to have them.

Say no to what? People illegally crossing the Med with no identification? Where are you going to send them back to? Its a nice way to ruin your relationship with countries you need to work with to reduce the flow across the Med. Seeing as how Tunisia is still willing to make an effort to become a Western inspired democracy, maybe not push them back into the arms of another dictator or more theocratic regime.

Mediterranean = international waters.

So we just turn them 180° around.

Your argument is: Tunisia doesn't identify a person as tunisian > person does not enter Tunisia. So if we don't identify this person as from any European country > no entry to europe.
As I say. Things go both ways.

Ah so its the nice and infamous let them drown argument again! Those people couldn't make it back on their floating wreckage passed off as a boat even if they wanted too.

Man, your so edgy and cool and totally not undermining decades of social and international norms!

Is all you can offer as reply of this "quality" ?

Usually your course as far as I have followed this thread: false claim of people beeing liars, having no sources.

And this time, its: " Hey look , he want those poor people drowned, see what a great person i am and how evil he is"

May I suggest to keep your hands of that keyboard if you can't provide something worth saying?

I mean, I did just ignore all of that crap you posted about parts of Europe that aren't the Netherlands and which you seem to have no clue about.

I don't know if youre just bored, ignorant, too fanatic or whatever to post the way you do. But do us a favor. Change your silly ways. Its not funny. Not cool.

Seeing as your suggestions had no content or basis in reality at all I didn't think more needed to be said. However I can expand if I really need to.
First of all turning these people back once you're in international waters is flat out illegal. You can't send them back into another nation's territorial waters without creating an incident and technically sending people back into Libya which is suffering from a civil war means you could be sending refugees back into a conflict zone, which is even worse and also illegal.

The liars thing and having no sources is easily backed up. I have dealt with Blackie before posting completely flawed sources. Furthermore he has twisted and flat-out lied about my positions to try and present me as a bigot like saying:

As always you seem to not understand that radical muslims are not the average common muslims, and you think it's probably impossible to defeat the problem without deporting every muslim in europe and bombing every muslim country.

He also lied about Islamic radical being the only people committing vehicle attacks, which he could have googled as false with 1 minute. Nothing I have said has been untrue or not backed up by me in conversations with him. If you however want to debate me how he twists my words, lies about me and flat out presents biased or wrong sources you are completely free to do so.

I have always backed up my statements with sources when required. Which I have given to Jhe who did indeed have a more solid argument beyond 'turn them around'. But please tell me more what I am ignorant about, I would love to hear your assumptions and prove to you that I'm willing to learn if I truly 'have no clue'.

So far you post short statements trying to be funny knowing full well what the implications are and haven't even bothered to look into the legality of what you argue. But sure, I'm the one with 'no clue'.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The liars thing and having no sources is easily backed up. I have dealt with Blackie before posting completely flawed sources. Furthermore he has twisted and flat-out lied about my positions to try and present me as a bigot like saying...

I have to admit that I'm too lazy to argue properly about all this issues. I won't judge anyone by a few statements of the internet but generally speaking I can say that people that don't hang out or maybe even date people of foreign language or actual foreigners are racist, especially in those countries with high levels of immigration, where is impossible to not have any contact with the minorities unless they avoid them on purpose. Last time I went to stockholm (2012) on vacation I visited many clubs/discos and I saw a significant number of arabs and africans, all males of course, and all among themselves. I haven't seen a single mixed couple or group of friends with multiple ethnicities. in denmark it's even worse, with danish people that don't give any confidence to non danish ones. At all.

Many europeans/americans are extremely racist and hypocrite, on one side they advocate a multicultural society, on the other side they only stay among purebloods. And this is one of the main reasons why radical islam is growing in europe, foreigners and local muslism don't feel like they belong to those countries and many fanatisms are allowed in the fear of generating a racist backlash. Being tolerant as a nation means nothing if there are separate communities in one country with incompatible values.

In fact the highest number of european foreign fighters come from those nations that are considered more tolerant, belgium, holland, denmark and sweden. In italy we have approx 1.5 million muslims, which are certainly more (or at least a comparable number) than how many sweden and holland have, considering the total population of those two countries, approx 10 millions and 6.5 millions. Only 87 foreign fighters (the official number given by the government considering 2011-2015) fled from italy to join ISIS though.

https://www.rferl.org/a/foreign-fighters-syria-iraq-is-isis-isil-infographic/26584940.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

First of all turning these people back once you're in international waters is flat out illegal. You can't send them back into another nation's territorial waters without creating an incident and technically sending people back into Libya which is suffering from a civil war means you could be sending refugees back into a conflict zone, which is even worse and also illegal.

True, but laws can be changed if they're wrong or outdated. We paid billions to turkey to send the illegals back, and since egypt, tunisia and even the legit lybian government are allied to western countries I don't get why EU can't do the same things with those countries. And stop calling refugees people that cross the sea, they are illegals. Some of them also a refugee. The ones that come to italy are not entitled to get the refugee status with percentages of more than 80%.

Oh good. More far right drivel from Blackie.

Refugees are something defined, and agreed upon at an international level.

You saying otherwise doesn't change that.

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

"Islam" is not the cause of Islamic terrorism, corporate imperialism is.

Oh, please do explain this one to us in depth.

I can use a laugh.

Well, do you think it because they hate our freedom?

No, of course not. "the West" has been interfering in their backyard for decades, sometimes more than a hundred years. They have stuff we want, and we want it cheaply. Rubber, oil, diamonds, rare minerals, cheap labour, etc.

"the West" actively undermines local attempts to organize ownership, resist exploitation, and generally use their own resources to enrich their populace.

I'm not singling out the US for this. It's not really a nation thing, it's an ultra-rich thing.

But you know all this, you're a smart guy.

Not seeing how that relates to an attack on Sweden, which had no colonies nor "interference" as far as I can tell way back to pushing Russia around in Peter the Great's time.

The problem here is seeing this as an "its Islam! No, its the Imperial Colonialism!"

Everything has a part to explain why things are how they are now. We just can't ignore a part of the facts because they don't fit our ideological views. Thats how things don't get better. Like it or not, the moral values and the political ideology that its the Islam has a part. The Colonialism and post-colonialism and Cold War interventions has another part. Everything its important to know the root of the problem.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that relates to an attack on Sweden, which had no colonies nor "interference" as far as I can tell way back to pushing Russia around in Peter the Great's time.

We did have a few colonies, but not on the scale of the Netherlands or Belgium, let alone the "big boys".

Greenland, Iceland and Vinland don't count.

Those were Norwegian, not Swedish. We had "proper" colonies, St. Bartholomew in the Caribbean for example.

Looks like they had an Africa colony for 13 years in the 1600s. Thats....thin.

Oh wow. Ok now I know the trivia question of name which country Denmark actually beat in a war...

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The liars thing and having no sources is easily backed up. I have dealt with Blackie before posting completely flawed sources. Furthermore he has twisted and flat-out lied about my positions to try and present me as a bigot like saying...

I have to admit that I'm too lazy to argue properly about all this issues. I won't judge anyone by a few statements of the internet but generally speaking I can say that people that don't hang out or maybe even date people of foreign language or actual foreigners are racist, especially in those countries with high levels of immigration, where is impossible to not have any contact with the minorities unless they avoid them on purpose. Last time I went to stockholm (2012) on vacation I visited many clubs/discos and I saw a significant number of arabs and africans, all males of course, and all among themselves. I haven't seen a single mixed couple or group of friends with multiple ethnicities. in denmark it's even worse, with danish people that don't give any confidence to non danish ones. At all.

Many europeans/americans are extremely racist and hypocrite, on one side they advocate a multicultural society, on the other side they only stay among purebloods. And this is one of the main reasons why radical islam is growing in europe, foreigners and local muslism don't feel like they belong to those countries and many fanatisms are allowed in the fear of generating a racist backlash. Being tolerant as a nation means nothing if there are separate communities in one country with incompatible values.

Back up this load of garbage, seriously. What is your proof people up here are less tolerant besides your anecdotal evidence you dont see many interracial couples?

Here is some info on mixed marriages: http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2012/07/mixed-marriages
Here is the actual study: http://epc2012.princeton.edu/papers/120785
See this graph, this is the percentage of mixed couples, you can find it on page 17 of the report, these are the percentages of mixed couples compared to nonn mixed, with the left bar being 2005-2007 and the right 2008-2010

Italy is actually at the bottom end of the list on mixed marriage in Europe, not so tolerant now by your own admission right?

I don't think further words are needed on this waste of space, biased, hateful arguments and anacdotal evidence you couldn't bother to back up. Either argue properly, or start owning up to the easily dismissed arguments.

 Blackie wrote:
In fact the highest number of european foreign fighters come from those nations that are considered more tolerant, belgium, holland, denmark and sweden. In italy we have approx 1.5 million muslims, which are certainly more (or at least a comparable number) than how many sweden and holland have, considering the total population of those two countries, approx 10 millions and 6.5 millions. Only 87 foreign fighters (the official number given by the government considering 2011-2015) fled from italy to join ISIS though.

https://www.rferl.org/a/foreign-fighters-syria-iraq-is-isis-isil-infographic/26584940.html

Why does the amount of foreign fighters indicate how tolerant a country is? Are you really going to start arguing countries like Hungary, Poland or even Russia are more tolerant than France just based on the amount of foreign fighters. Furthermore the amount of Muslims in Italy is misleading because many aren't Italian nationals and therefore would not be counted as an Italian foreign fighter. If looking at CESNUR's 2016 demographic report on minority religions in Italy, the actual % of Muslims amongst Italians is only 0.4% or 245.621. The rest are all considered foreigners i.e. non permanent residents. Other countries certainly have a higher % of nationals being Muslims. But please explain further how the amount of foreign fighters directly correlates with how tolerant society is, cause some really questionable countries can be very tolerant according to you in that case! Furthermore your numbers on the population of the Netherlands are hilariously bad, we have 17.1 million people, 5 seconds on wikipedia could have told you that over your 6.5 million, with our population of native Muslims being 825.000 or four times higher than that of the native Italian population while being four times smaller pop wise. This is exactly my problem with how you post, easily and quickly looked up facts just get completely ignored in favour of your arguments.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

First of all turning these people back once you're in international waters is flat out illegal. You can't send them back into another nation's territorial waters without creating an incident and technically sending people back into Libya which is suffering from a civil war means you could be sending refugees back into a conflict zone, which is even worse and also illegal.

True, but laws can be changed if they're wrong or outdated. We paid billions to turkey to send the illegals back, and since egypt, tunisia and even the legit lybian government are allied to western countries I don't get why EU can't do the same things with those countries. And stop calling refugees people that cross the sea, they are illegals. Some of them also a refugee. The ones that come to italy are not entitled to get the refugee status with percentages of more than 80%.

Great so international laws regarding the protection of sovereignty of nations or plain preventing the deaths of people are now outdated or wrong? These sorts of things are the foundation of our Western system, we came up with these rules and regulations. Tearing these things down is starting to affect the moral and societal foundations of 'the West'. You can make deals as long as they adhere to the laws, but you can't change these laws. I already posted on why Amnesty International explains why its a bad idea to send people back to Libya (where the vast majority of those crossing the Med come from). The EU already tries to do many things which you could have seen, again by reading my linke NY Times source. I can call people crossing the Med refugees all I want until we establish that those people are migrants and not refugees.

Again you post easily refutable information about '80%'. Here is a source, enjoy: http://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean
Notice that the first 5 countries of origin or 55.5% of arrivals are from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria or Eritria. Now led me just quickly go over those countries. Syria=war, Iraq=war, Afghanistan=war, Nigeria=violence in northern Nigeria, Eritrea=dictatorship. These people could all easily apply for refugee status and receive it. This blows you 80% claim out of the water without me even going on to bother examining the remaining 44.5%.

Do us all a favour, put 10 minutes into google before you post, it could save all of us a lot of effort.

Who do you think sold all the iron for the shackles for the slave trade tho' Frazz?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that relates to an attack on Sweden, which had no colonies nor "interference" as far as I can tell way back to pushing Russia around in Peter the Great's time.

We did have a few colonies, but not on the scale of the Netherlands or Belgium, let alone the "big boys".

Correct, the Netherlands was one of the big boys of colonialism thanks to the Dutch East Indies. We did some truly disgraceful things, but Indonesia was never really a country susceptible to Islamic terrorism. True, it exists, but it is also the largest Muslim country in the world, but it is tied to other factors such as separatism (which was and is a big issues in Indonesia). The history around the independence of Indonesia and the interaction between it, the Netherlands and the U.S.A is also a very curious and interesting part of old and new imperialism. But most people that came from Indonesia to the Netherlands after independence were collaborators or christian minorities. Who btw had their own phase of terrorism in the 70's against the Dutch government (they didn't agree we stopped fighting in Indonesia and wanted their own country as promised).

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that relates to an attack on Sweden, which had no colonies nor "interference" as far as I can tell way back to pushing Russia around in Peter the Great's time.

Me: "It's not really a nation thing"

Frazz: Looks for the national angle. Good ol' Frazz.

I was talking generally.

This specific attack seems to be because a guy was cheesed off that his application was denied. Not an elite terror cell, not even a lone wolf really. Just a some gakhead looking to vent his frustration on the world in a big, ugly display.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that relates to an attack on Sweden, which had no colonies nor "interference" as far as I can tell way back to pushing Russia around in Peter the Great's time.

Me: "It's not really a nation thing"

Frazz: Looks for the national angle. Good ol' Frazz.

I was talking generally.

This specific attack seems to be because a guy was cheesed off that his application was denied. Not an elite terror cell, not even a lone wolf really. Just a some gakhead looking to vent his frustration on the world in a big, ugly display.

Its a thread on Sweden. Someone posted that it goes back to the West messing with I guess the Middle East/ Africa over the last hundred years. Then I pointed out Sweden wasn't involved in there since the 1600s and only for 13 years.

Then I noted that Sweden lost to Denmark. Then i chuckled murthily whilst eating a maple syrup Oreo (because when you have access to Canadian Oreo type treats that how you roll).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that relates to an attack on Sweden, which had no colonies nor "interference" as far as I can tell way back to pushing Russia around in Peter the Great's time.

We did have a few colonies, but not on the scale of the Netherlands or Belgium, let alone the "big boys".

The number of people who ever heredof that colony must be low. The scandanavian countries are not known for there colonial holdings.
In contrast a old ABC in Britian one has C is for colnies, we have thr most/best on world etc or general pride.

https://rupostcolonial.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/cforcoloniesv1.jpg