HOME | DD

AtheosEmanon In reply to ??? [2018-02-06 18:19:36 +0000 UTC]

Then that would make Islam no different than the other abrahamic faiths, Judaism aka the Old testament, as well as the bible aka the New has verses at which could justify the horrid of bads and yet has beautiful verses that would lead one to the most peaceful of goods.. Islam, in that respect of text at which seem to argue against each other, is no different than the other faiths at which originated from Abraham.

The faith took a drastic change following the death of Mohammad who signaled no successor, leading to factional wars between those that chose to follow his father-in-law in which became Sunni Islam, the largest sect, and some following Ali, the husband of Mohammad's daughter in what became Shia Islam.. and the many sects that occur within sects of large religions..

The most violent forms of which which plague Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other strict sects known as Wahhabism .. which I think is the real strain at which causes much of the issues around the world than some general "Islam"

Which verse in the text justifies the rape of western women specifically? .. you did not say it justifies the rape of women, you specifically said Western women at which which verse particularly singles out western women?


I have looked up Finland and rape stats of migrants, while they do say migrants on average are more likely, I could not find a particular citation for your "50 times more likely".. other than on some reddit post and then when googling the text of that post, you look up the stats from the Ministry of Justice in Finland.. I could not find anywhere close to that 50x rate.. their stats say 1,600/10,000 for migrants and 1,200/1000 for Finnish citizens when looking at the most active group that commits these crimes of 15-30 .. 

So, can you provide some kind of stats or some official government statement that cites your Iraqi Migrants specifically are 50x more likely to rape than Finnish citizens.

So while their data does say that immigrants, according to their data have higher rapes of sexual assaults.. none of their data came close that I have seen to your 50x as likely claim.


yes. the US has one of the strictest immigration screenings, taking on average around around 2 years for a visa.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-02-06 19:02:19 +0000 UTC]

"Then that would make Islam no different than the other abrahamic faiths, Judaism aka the Old testament, as well as the bible aka the New has verses at which could justify the horrid of bads and yet has beautiful verses that would lead one to the most peaceful of goods.. Islam, in that respect of text at which seem to argue against each other, is no different than the other faiths at which originated from Abraham.

The faith took a drastic change following the death of Mohammad who signaled no successor, leading to factional wars between those that chose to follow his father-in-law in which became Sunni Islam, the largest sect, and some following Ali, the husband of Mohammad's daughter in what became Shia Islam.. and the many sects that occur within sects of large religions.. 

The most violent forms of which which plague Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other strict sects known as Wahhabism .. which I think is the real strain at which causes much of the issues around the world than some general "Islam""

So where are the jewish suicide bombers and christian honour murders? When were people killed because of cartoons for the sake of ANY other religion than Islam?
When was the last time the pope justified slavery?
And just look at the state of the majority of muslim countries.
No Islam is clearly different.

"Which verse in the text justifies the rape of western women specifically? .. you did not say it justifies the rape of women, you specifically said Western women at which which verse particularly singles out western women?"

They don't mention western women specifically. However as a general rule families of western women don't pay the Jizya, nor do western women go everywhere escorted by a male family member or cover themselves up.
Thus they are free prey for muslim men.
Also Yazidis for a examples don't fall under people of the book so they are fucked anyway, both literally and figuratively.

"I have looked up Finland and rape stats of migrants, while they do say migrants on average are more likely, I could not find a particular citation for your "50 times more likely".. other than on some reddit post and then when googling the text of that post, you look up the stats from the Ministry of Justice in Finland.. I could not find anywhere close to that 50x rate.. their stats say 1,600/10,000 for migrants and 1,200/1000 for Finnish citizens when looking at the most active group that commits these crimes of 15-30 ..  

So, can you provide some kind of stats or some official government statement that cites your Iraqi Migrants specifically are 50x more likely to rape than Finnish citizens.

So while their data does say that immigrants, according to their data have higher rapes of sexual assaults.. none of their data came close that I have seen to your 50x as likely claim."

Actually it was 77 times more likely but just in the year 2012. Also I have to admit than in the longer term they are only 43 times more likely to commit rape.

Now the Islamophobic yet factual government statistics have been hidden since the outrage they caused but I'll can do some digging.
In the meantime have this article though online translators have their issues:
www.hs.fi/paivanlehti/12052017…

Also note that since court sentences are public information in Finland they could just have busted false statistics if that had been the case.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-02-06 22:17:18 +0000 UTC]

I apologize first for the long comment, I tried to address everything and in future will try to be more concise as we can eventually wrap it up vs it just being pages and pages of writing and going nowhere.
"So where are the jewish suicide bombers and christian honour murders? When were people killed because of cartoons for the sake of ANY other religion than Islam?
When was the last time the pope justified slavery?
And just look at the state of the majority of muslim countries.
No Islam is clearly different."

Not particularly, every faith has their season, the Jews had their bloodiest battles a 2,000 years ago, the Christians had theirs 1,000 years ago and this seems to be the season of the Islam as one called it a fight for the future of the faith.


Christian honor murders, you can check out the Lord's resistance army, they have killed thousands over the years in their fundamentalist form of Christianity, yet the claim is not that they will be equal in scale, solely that every religion has a small fringe of fundamentalists that commit violent acts..

Islam has 1.8 billion people in it, only a small minority commit acts of terrorism yet according to you .. how many do it is not relevant which is horseshit to put it plainly.. if you had 80% of Muslims out there committing acts of terrorism, then you might have a point, but even when you look at the
www.thereligionofpeace.com/
which tracks Islamic attacks all around the world.. you will see a very small percentage actually commits acts of terror.. am I to blame 1.8 billion people for the acts of hundreds of thousands ?  That would be absurd.

We can look at the "State" of Muslim majority countries, yet are we judging now because countries are impoverished they are bad, or  is the argument still the terrorists within the religion? I mean if you suddenly wish to change your argument, then say so.

"They don't mention western women specifically. However as a general rule families of western women don't pay the Jizya, nor do western women go everywhere escorted by a male family member or cover themselves up.
Thus they are free prey for muslim men.
Also Yazidis for a examples don't fall under people of the book so they are fucked anyway, both literally and figuratively."
so basically you cannot prove your claim, you made the exacting claim of "Islam provides justification for raping western women. "
Yet when asked wherein the text that makes up "Islam" that specifically speaks of raping of Western women your argument folds. Since there is no text which speaks of rape being an  general acceptable punishment for a woman in general.   Your grand issue seems to be you overly generalize, and as such your arguments are far too large to ever be able to prove

Al-Baqara 256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" ... Islam distinctly forbids forced conversions, and as one of the three Abrahmic faiths the books borrows text from the Old and New, the Yazidis as such were targeted by fundamentalists... as such the men who are fundamentalists trying to forcibly convert or kill these Yazidis are working against their own text which explicitly forbids forced conversions. men who want power rarely stop until they have absolute power.. thus Aesop..  "a tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny"

www.huffingtonpost.com/kabir-h…
As I said, as with most things,. men try to generalize a mass thing build on a specific.. the text often cited by men as yourself with the killing of the nonbelievers were specifically speaking of men they were at war with .. not each and every single person who did not believe since Islam was and became in its early days seekers of knowledge, thus Arabic numerals, thus Alcohol, thus why most of the stars in the sky have Arabic names.. if they simply killed everyone who did not believe as they then this would not be.. yet they were seekers of knowledge.. now I do not agree with their religion but I also do not agree with your mass generalizations based upon rhetoric rather than reason and study/

"Now the Islamophobic yet factual government statistics have been hidden since the outrage they caused but I'll can do some digging.
In the meantime have this article though online translators have their issues:
www.hs.fi/paivanlehti/12052017…

Also note that since court sentences are public information in Finland they could just have busted false statistics if that had been the case.That site has a paywall, so unless one has an account and  can log in it will not let me read more than the first paragraph, do you have another cite to prove your claim... preferably in English but if not then I can just use the Google translator. "

So basically you are saying you have no way to prove your claim? Had you simply said they are more likely, I would have agreed since that is what the data of the Finnish government states.. but they do not state they are 50x more likely, and now you have risen it to 77x more likely... so hopefully a future comment you would provide some data from a trustworthy site and not just some fringe site

"Irakilaisten tekemiksi epäillyt seksuaalirikokset kääntyivät rajuun nousuun viime vuonna. Asia käy ilmi rikostilastoista, jotka HS pyysi poliisiammattikorkeakoulusta. Poliisi on aiemmin kertonut, että ulkomaalaisten tekemiksi epäillyt seksuaalirikokset lisääntyivät runsaast"

of the text shown translates to
"Sexual crimes suspected of involvement in Iraq began to grow sharply last year. This is the case with criminal statistics that HS requested from the Polytechnic. The police have previously reported that the number of suspected sexual crimes committed by foreigners increased abundantly"

suspected? No, man that is not how stats work.. do they have actual citations to prove their claim, even in that first line it is speaking of what they suspect, not what they know. Perhaps in the later text they showed actual citation, and further more remember your claim was specifically about Iraqi migrants, not immigrants in general, so whatever link you provide in the future that is not behind a paywall, do cite and quote the exact text of your now 77 times as much claim..

I say this as someone who has taken a journalism class, if you make a an exacting claim of 50..and now 77x .. it does not bolster your argument to link to something where they say they "suspect".. no, because that is not an exacting evidence based claim of exactitude of your 77x as much claim.


As always, I will reply back when I see your comment, and once again will try to keep it shorter in future, and if possible ask you do the same

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-02-06 23:25:04 +0000 UTC]

My time is limited and I'll perhaps write a longer comment later but here goes:

Not particularly, every faith has their season, the Jews had their bloodiest battles a 2,000 years ago, the Christians had theirs 1,000 years ago and this seems to be the season of the Islam as one called it a fight for the future of the faith.

Oh but we are talking about the year 2018. Its not like muslims don't have internet or books.

Christian honor murders, you can check out the Lord's resistance army, they have killed thousands over the years in their fundamentalist form of Christianity, yet the claim is not that they will be equal in scale, solely that every religion has a small fringe of fundamentalists that commit violent acts.. 

Well if christians start following the example of a medium warlord mixing christianity and African mythology then we have a problem. However it wouldn't lessen the issue of Islam.
Also I wouldn't necessarily call it small. Just the number of jihadists in Europe could be as high as 50 000.
mobile.wnd.com/2017/09/more-th…


Islam has 1.8 billion people in it, only a small minority commit acts of terrorism yet according to you .. how many do it is not relevant which is horseshit to put it plainly.. if you had 80% of Muslims out there committing acts of terrorism, then you might have a point, but even when you look at the 
www.thereligionofpeace.com/
which tracks Islamic attacks all around the world.. you will see a very small percentage actually commits acts of terror.. am I to blame 1.8 billion people for the acts of hundreds of thousands ?  That would be absurd.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that, the smaller minority is very relevant. Also I'm not saying that we should blame all muslims for Islam just like it would have been wrong to blame all germans for nazis or all russians for communism.
Muslims themselves are victims of false ideology and jihadists themselves throw away their lives for the sake of a deception.

We can look at the "State" of Muslim majority countries, yet are we judging now because countries are impoverished they are bad, or  is the argument still the terrorists within the religion? I mean if you suddenly wish to change your argument, then say so.

You made the claim that Islam and other Abrahamic religions are the same. Empirical evidence does not support this claim.

so basically you cannot prove your claim, you made the exacting claim of "Islam provides justification for raping western women. "
Yet when asked wherein the text that makes up "Islam" that specifically speaks of raping of Western women your argument folds. Since there is no text which speaks of rape being an  general acceptable punishment for a woman in general.   Your grand issue seems to be you overly generalize, and as such your arguments are far too large to ever be able to prove

I have not said that it specifically talks about western women, just women not protected under Sharia and western women fall under this category by default.
Also nowhere did I say that they would use rape as a punishment.

Al-Baqara 256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" ... Islam distinctly forbids forced conversions, and as one of the three Abrahmic faiths the books borrows text from the Old and New, the Yazidis as such were targeted by fundamentalists... as such the men who are fundamentalists trying to forcibly convert or kill these Yazidis are working against their own text which explicitly forbids forced conversions. men who want power rarely stop until they have absolute power.. thus Aesop..  "a tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny"

www.huffingtonpost.com/kabir-h…
As I said, as with most things,. men try to generalize a mass thing build on a specific.. the text often cited by men as yourself with the killing of the nonbelievers were specifically speaking of men they were at war with .. not each and every single person who did not believe since Islam was and became in its early days seekers of knowledge, thus Arabic numerals, thus Alcohol, thus why most of the stars in the sky have Arabic names.. if they simply killed everyone who did not believe as they then this would not be.. yet they were seekers of knowledge.. now I do not agree with their religion but I also do not agree with your mass generalizations based upon rhetoric rather than reason and study/

Again Islam is a dualistic religion and among others stuff gives the opportunity to live as dhimmis.

Also note that since court sentences are public information in Finland they could just have busted false statistics if that had been the case.That site has a paywall, so unless one has an account and  can log in it will not let me read more than the first paragraph, do you have another cite to prove your claim... preferably in English but if not then I can just use the Google translator. "

So basically you are saying you have no way to prove your claim? Had you simply said they are more likely, I would have agreed since that is what the data of the Finnish government states.. but they do not state they are 50x more likely, and now you have risen it to 77x more likely... so hopefully a future comment you would provide some data from a trustworthy site and not just some fringe site 

"Irakilaisten tekemiksi epäillyt seksuaalirikokset kääntyivät rajuun nousuun viime vuonna. Asia käy ilmi rikostilastoista, jotka HS pyysi poliisiammattikorkeakoulusta. Poliisi on aiemmin kertonut, että ulkomaalaisten tekemiksi epäillyt seksuaalirikokset lisääntyivät runsaast"

of the text shown translates to 
"Sexual crimes suspected of involvement in Iraq began to grow sharply last year. This is the case with criminal statistics that HS requested from the Polytechnic. The police have previously reported that the number of suspected sexual crimes committed by foreigners increased abundantly"

suspected? No, man that is not how stats work.. do they have actual citations to prove their claim, even in that first line it is speaking of what they suspect, not what they know. Perhaps in the later text they showed actual citation, and further more remember your claim was specifically about Iraqi migrants, not immigrants in general, so whatever link you provide in the future that is not behind a paywall, do cite and quote the exact text of your now 77 times as much claim..

I say this as someone who has taken a journalism class, if you make a an exacting claim of 50..and now 77x .. it does not bolster your argument to link to something where they say they "suspect".. no, because that is not an exacting evidence based claim of exactitude of your 77x as much claim.


As always, I will reply back when I see your comment, and once again will try to keep it shorter in future, and if possible ask you do the same 

I see you did not read my comment it was 77x only in one year and a average of 43x on a longer period. Also I have read the material myself and think I do have copy somewhere.
Though finding and posting it would take a while and nothing would prevent me from editing it so you couldn't really trust it. Also its pretty unlikely that you would travel to Finland just to read the archives.

However whether you believe it or not is not too relevant as it does not change what is really happening in Europe or what is going to happen and there is not much point in arguing with someone who outright rejects the reality of the people who have actually seen it.

Can we for the sake of argument assume that the number is correct? If not then there is no point in continuing this.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-02-07 02:33:21 +0000 UTC]

This is around 500 words shorter than my last reply, so I will try to make the future one even shorter.. though given your ending sentence, a major party of this exchange may be done with.

"Oh but we are talking about the year 2018. Its not like muslims don't have internet or books."
having the internet and books changes very little when you have a very small minority of your belief structure causing a lot of damage and some within the Western world, like yourself, that seeks to cast them all as such

"Well if christians start following the example of a medium warlord mixing christianity and African mythology then we have a problem. However it wouldn't lessen the issue of Islam.
Also I wouldn't necessarily call it small. Just the number of jihadists in Europe could be as high as 50 000.
mobile.wnd.com/2017/09/more-th… "

Has little to do with African mythology and more to do with.. power.. what people who always get it and want more of it.

WND is not a credible site, really? "could be".. please brother, stop with the mealy mouth words.. facts, figures.. not bullshit. Do you have an actual citations of the number of Jihadis living in Europe.. I mean if their argument is true, 0.00673% of Europe are Jihadis..

and yes.. let us take JUST EUROPE not the entire 1.8 billion Muslims on earth..

I assume you have no issue with Pew since the WND site you just used cited pew but not in relation to their claim  but still in that piece.
www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/eu…

According to Pew, Muslims make up 4.9% of the European population, according to a quick google search there are 744 million people in Europe, 4.9% of that is around 37 million ,,, 50K of that (or 51,800) would be 0.14% so BY YOUR OWN NUMBERS OF 50,000 that would mean 99.86% of Muslims in Europe  are not Jihadists

for the record "could be as high as 50,000" means the numbers they have shows far lower but that it could be as many as 50,000 .. which would mean even fewer  than that 0.14% of the numbers they have

I say again, meaning full respect. If you are able, please make your arguments and cite them with reasonable claims.. yes, 0.14% of a group, is still a small percentage of a group.


"Again Islam is a dualistic religion and among others stuff gives the opportunity to live as dhimmis."
All of the Abrahamic faiths have a duality in actuality, offering texts for the greatest of goods and the most terrible of deeds.. so that makes Islam no different than their brother religions of Christianity and Judaism which all make up the Abrahamic faiths

"I see you did not read my comment it was 77x only in one year and a average of 43x on a longer period. Also I have read the material myself and think I do have copy somewhere.
Though finding and posting it would take a while and nothing would prevent me from editing it so you couldn't really trust it. Also its pretty unlikely that you would travel to Finland just to read the archives.

However whether you believe it or not is not too relevant as it does not change what is really happening in Europe or what is going to happen and there is not much point in arguing with someone who outright rejects the reality of the people who have actually seen it.

Can we for the sake of argument assume that the number is correct? If not then there is no point in continuing this."


I did read the comment, if you have a citation for 77x as much just in that one year I would take that as well, as well as your general claim of 50 times as much in general at which, once again in this comment you did not provide evidence for .

Editing it? so you have no official news site of your nation, a credible news site that has reported on your numbers? 21st century, your Ministry of Justice puts out reports on crime stats simply googling "Finland Ministry of Justice Crime stats" would bring up the stats for years and you can just pick 2016 which is the most recent year posted and try to prove your claim... surely you can look em up and  be able to prove your claim.. I admit I doubt it since I could find no credible citation for your 43x, 50x, or 77x as much claims.

It is not about belief, I believe in nothing.. It is about facts, the use of reason to construct a premise. You made a claim and I simply asked that you show evidence for your claim.

No, we cannot for the sake of argument assume an absurdity is correct, do you have evidence for your 77x as much in one year, or 50x as much in general, or don't you? or even a 43x now on average...

since the premise lies on the continuation of this exchange, then I shall consider this exchange to be done.

Good day to you, sir.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-02-07 08:18:24 +0000 UTC]

Very well then.
Just remember that the blood spilled because of Islam is also on the hands of those defending it and unlikely muslims themselves you don't have the excuse of not knowing better.

The numbers are totally absurd yes but also 100% true.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-02-07 16:34:45 +0000 UTC]

"Very well then.
Just remember that the blood spilled because of Islam is also on the hands of those defending it and unlikely muslims themselves you don't have the excuse of not knowing better."
Ad hominems, the last defense in a losing argument.. bravo, man.. you have covered the absurdity to full circle.

I am an atheist, so as a matter of "Islam" I have no grand belief in it, but I am a man of knowledge, reason..and if one makes the claim then it is on that person to prove said claims.. you have made several claims in this exchange that when challenged you were unable to prove said claims..

A word of advice for you, I hope you take it to heart.
So, if it is about "not knowing better".. then perhaps one, and one in this case meaning you, would better serve themselves to read up on subjects before attempting to debate them. To better formulate your arguments and make sure to not fall into the trap of making grandiose generalizations which is a trap you fall into often.

Do take this criticism to your mind.. it is not an attack it is actually to help you in the future better formulate your arguments to make them more accurate.

Had you simply stated that Iraq migrants commit more sexual assaults on average comparative to Finnish citizens, that would be true by your own Ministry of Justice reports of 1,600/10,000 18-30 year old committing sexual assaults vs 1,200/10,000 Finnish citizens of that same age who commit sexual assault.. so they are, by evidence.. on average commit more.. but you fell into a trap of grandiose claims.. with your.. 50x as much, 77x as much in a single year, 43x as much on average.. had you left out the attempts at grandiosity then your arguments would have ring true.


"The numbers are totally absurd yes but also 100% true."
An absurdity at which you cannot prove and at which no credible cite would hold is then not true.. You cannot simply make a statement and think that makes it true... if you cannot prove your case at which I have provided several comments and your replies for you to prove such and you have been unable to provide any link which proves either your 77x, 50x, or 43x as much claim..

LET US BE HONEST,
If I made claim to you that non-migrant in Finland committed 77x as many sexual assaults in a single year, 50x in general or 4x on average the sexual assaults as comparative to the migrants .. you would be a fool to accept any claim at which no evidence is provided of such AND FOR THE RECORD.. I doubt you would believe such a claim if no evidence is presented to prove that claim.

If that will be all, good day to you, sir.

I shall assume this matter is over

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-02-07 18:41:37 +0000 UTC]

Ad hominems, the last defense in a losing argument.. bravo, man.. you have covered the absurdity to full circle.

A Ad Hominen is saying that one is wrong because he is supporting side X. Not stating that supporting side X has a price.

I am an atheist,

Can you prove it? A atheist supporting a ideology that literally kills Atheists is at least as absurd as the numbers you do not believe. 
Or is this just a temporary alliance of convenience?

so as a matter of "Islam" I have no grand belief in it, but I am a man of knowledge, reason..and if one makes the claim then it is on that person to prove said claims.. you have made several claims in this exchange that when challenged you were unable to prove said claims.. 

We didn't really get that far especially as you kept putting words in my mouth.

A word of advice for you, I hope you take it to heart.
So, if it is about "not knowing better".. then perhaps one, and one in this case meaning you, would better serve themselves to read up on subjects before attempting to debate them. To better formulate your arguments and make sure to not fall into the trap of making grandiose generalizations which is a trap you fall into often.

Oh but I don't recall making grandiose generalizations at least as far as individuals go.

Do take this criticism to your mind.. it is not an attack it is actually to help you in the future better formulate your arguments to make them more accurate.

Had you simply stated that Iraq migrants commit more sexual assaults on average comparative to Finnish citizens, that would be true by your own Ministry of Justice reports of 1,600/10,000 18-30 year old committing sexual assaults vs 1,200/10,000 Finnish citizens of that same age who commit sexual assault.. so they are, by evidence.. on average commit more.. but you fell into a trap of grandiose claims.. with your.. 50x as much, 77x as much in a single year, 43x as much on average.. had you left out the attempts at grandiosity then your arguments would have ring true.

An absurdity at which you cannot prove and at which no credible cite would hold is then not true.. You cannot simply make a statement and think that makes it true... if you cannot prove your case at which I have provided several comments and your replies for you to prove such and you have been unable to provide any link which proves either your 77x, 50x, or 43x as much claim..

LET US BE HONEST,
If I made claim to you that non-migrant in Finland committed 77x as many sexual assaults in a single year, 50x in general or 4x on average the sexual assaults as comparative to the migrants .. you would be a fool to accept any claim at which no evidence is provided of such AND FOR THE RECORD.. I doubt you would believe such a claim if no evidence is presented to prove that claim.

Thing is that I have the files with the numbers so I would know whether they are true or not and if we would have had this debate a year ago while the data was not behind a wall then I could have proved it with relative ease. (Good times.)
I really did not know that it was no longer public when I made that claim but luckily I have a backup.
But since you have to assume that I'm not arguing in good spirits and am consciously lying meaning that I would also falsify any documents then I would practically have to get and mail you the official papers to prove it. No thank you.
Especially as this conversation never got too serious in the first place.

If that will be all, good day to you, sir. 

I shall assume this matter is over

Sure I don't mind ending the conversation here. However otherwise this is only the beginning.

In the end history shall be our judge.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-02-09 01:09:54 +0000 UTC]

"A Ad Hominen is saying that one is wrong because he is supporting side X. Not stating that supporting side X has a price."
Actually that is not what an ad hominem is.

"Can you prove it? A atheist supporting a ideology that literally kills Atheists is at least as absurd as the numbers you do not believe. 
Or is this just a temporary alliance of convenience?"

Show me where I "supported a ideology"
I simply disagreed with absurdity, you made a claim that Iraqi migrants commit, in one case you said 77x in a year, in another 50x in general, and another 43x on average more sexual assaults than Finnish citizens, I asked you to prove your case at which I looked up your own Ministry of Justice reports on Migrant sexual assault and while they are higher comparative to Finnish citizens, none cited your numbers and you, yourself were unable to prove your claim

Not believing absurdities is not "supporting an ideology".

If you wish to provide links which would show your claim to be true, do so.. i am sure you will not but I have grown accustomed to your making baseless claims.

"We didn't really get that far especially as you kept putting words in my mouth."
I literally quoted your words and asked that you prove them, you could not.


"Thing is that I have the files with the numbers so I would know whether they are true or not and if we would have had this debate a year ago while the data was not behind a wall then I could have proved it with relative ease. (Good times.)
I really did not know that it was no longer public when I made that claim but luckily I have a backup.
But since you have to assume that I'm not arguing in good spirits and am consciously lying meaning that I would also falsify any documents then I would practically have to get and mail you the official papers to prove it. No thank you.
Especially as this conversation never got too serious in the first place."

Having a file with numbers at which cannot be looked up does not mean your numbers are true.

If it was as BAD as you claimed of 43x, 50x, 77x as much then surely you would be able to find some citation... but the fact that you are unable to I think would make a reasonable man rethink their position.. but it does not seem reason has slipped into any argument you have made thus far, so why it let start now.

Any man unable to provide a claim on something as grand as ... Iraqi Migrants in a single year committed 77x as many sexual assaults in a year.. that would mean for every 1 woman a Finnish man sexually assault ... 77 women were assaulted by Iraqi Migrants.. and yet you cannot provide any evidence

What would you call a man who believes things without evidence? I take nothing on faith..


"Sure I don't mind ending the conversation here. However otherwise this is only the beginning.

In the end history shall be our judge."

History might judge the wrath of Jihadists, but I doubt they would find evidence to concur with your numbers..

As always, I will reply back when I See it but if this is the end, have a good one

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-02-09 13:54:19 +0000 UTC]

Actually that is not what an ad hominem is.

So show me where I attacked your character?

Show me where I "supported a ideology" 

Yes, there may be some questionable verses in the Quran where modern terrorists will use for their personal gains, but most of these texts are taken and should be understand from a historical standpoint of what Muhammad and other Muslims went through in the infancy of the faith where being a new religion left them open to attacks from the established faiths and being of a cultural difference in a time where culture was all that mattered also left them open to some attacks. So when used in modern tongue to incite violence, it would do a disservice to their own faith in that the same book that they use to speak of violence speaks to them not being the ones who are supposed to instigate said violence in many other verses. 

.. Yes, Jihadism being Islamic fundamentalism.

similar to saying not all White people are Klansman but all Klansman are white..

yes, because the KKK practice white supremacy.. for me in America.. and according to the FBI states white supremacists have instituted far more attacks than Islamic fundamentalism  over the years

So one should combat extremism in Islam where they can, and see what causes such extremism or what can lead to it and try best to root that out.

I disagree, because by your very statement you imply Islam is extremist .. if such were true then you are either saying of the 1.8 billion only the few million committing acts of terrorism are following the faith.. 

Islam.. like we see in the violent old text of Judaism is from a people 1000+ years ago written in a way of what they were going through, the battles and persecution at the time.. like the OVERWHELMING majority of Jews do not commit any acts of violence, we have only seen a few Jewish terrorists in the last few years.. so is my view of Islam.. only a very small percentage of that 1.8 billion read the text literally and commit violence from that

Disinformation, whataboutism and apologism also count as defending.

I literally quoted your words and asked that you prove them, you could not.

Also you changed my words like you stated that I have claimed that Islamists use rape as a punishment,

Having a file with numbers at which cannot be looked up does not mean your numbers are true.

If it was as BAD as you claimed of 43x, 50x, 77x as much then surely you would be able to find some citation... but the fact that you are unable to I think would make a reasonable man rethink their position.. but it does not seem reason has slipped into any argument you have made thus far, so why it let start now. 

Any man unable to provide a claim on something as grand as ... Iraqi Migrants in a single year committed 77x as many sexual assaults in a year.. that would mean for every 1 woman a Finnish man sexually assault ... 77 women were assaulted by Iraqi Migrants.. and yet you cannot provide any evidence

What would you call a man who believes things without evidence? I take nothing on faith.. 

I literally quoted your words and asked that you prove them, you could not.

History might judge the wrath of Jihadists, but I doubt they would find evidence to concur with your numbers..

Well you decided that all of our media and police are spreading disinformation so disproving such conspiracy theory would take some effort to dispell.
And it does vary some like this report claim that its 43 times likely total but only 13.75 time more likely if we take into account differences in demographics.
www.uusisuomi.fi/kotimaa/22072…

Nevertheless fact remains that Islam justifies raping women not protected by Sharia. How many muslims actually go through with it is another matter.

History might judge the wrath of Jihadists

And those whom enabled them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-02-09 16:11:17 +0000 UTC]

So I guess this is not over.. oh well, as always I will reply back when I see it This comment was long than my previous comment but I will try to make it shorter in the future so this is not going on for months.

"So show me where I attacked your character?"
I was referring to the not having an excuse not knowing better, though on that front I would admit I misread your comment, I thought you had said I did not know better.

"Yes, there may be some questionable verses in the Quran where modern terrorists will use for their personal gains, but most of these texts are taken and should be understand from a historical standpoint of what Muhammad and other Muslims went through in the infancy of the faith where being a new religion left them open to attacks from the established faiths and being of a cultural difference in a time where culture was all that mattered also left them open to some attacks. So when used in modern tongue to incite violence, it would do a disservice to their own faith in that the same book that they use to speak of violence speaks to them not being the ones who are supposed to instigate said violence in many other verses. 

.. Yes, Jihadism being Islamic fundamentalism.

similar to saying not all White people are Klansman but all Klansman are white..

yes, because the KKK practice white supremacy.. for me in America.. and according to the FBI states white supremacists have instituted far more attacks than Islamic fundamentalism  over the years

So one should combat extremism in Islam where they can, and see what causes such extremism or what can lead to it and try best to root that out.

I disagree, because by your very statement you imply Islam is extremist .. if such were true then you are either saying of the 1.8 billion only the few million committing acts of terrorism are following the faith.. 

Islam.. like we see in the violent old text of Judaism is from a people 1000+ years ago written in a way of what they were going through, the battles and persecution at the time.. like the OVERWHELMING majority of Jews do not commit any acts of violence, we have only seen a few Jewish terrorists in the last few years.. so is my view of Islam.. only a very small percentage of that 1.8 billion read the text literally and commit violence from that

Disinformation, whataboutism and apologism also count as defending."

None of which shows me defending the ideology of Jihadism.. you made a claim that I defended a particular ideology, in this case the original premise was violence committed by Islamic fundamentalists which is what the exchange was about - my not extracting because a small group does X that means all who are Muslims share some blame is where the disagreement is. None of those statements defend the actions of the fundamentalists, nice try though.. I merely asked, what I have been asking since you first commented, provide evidence of your grandiose claims at which you have been unable to do so.

Especially since in the very text I said one should combat the extremes of Islam, .. so I am defending what I said we should attack hmm

"Also you changed my words like you stated that I have claimed that Islamists use rape as a punishment,"
Paraphrasing is not changing your words, you literally said that Islam allows for the rape of Western women

Here is your exact text
"Also violence justified by Islam is much broader than just terrorism like Islam provides justification for raping western women."

I asked you to quote the text where Islam justifies the rape of Western women.. you could not.. that is not taking you out of context

As well as "like you stated that I have claimed that Islamists use rape as a punishment,""
You LITERALLY STATED, and I quote

""They don't mention western women specifically. However as a general rule families of western women don't pay the Jizya, nor do western women go everywhere escorted by a male family member or cover themselves up.
Thus they are free prey for muslim men."

If you say someone does not do X.. and thus they are free to be preyed on.. Do this or be prey.. is therefore a punishment for not doing X..

"Well you decided that all of our media and police are spreading disinformation so disproving such conspiracy theory would take some effort to dispell."

Now you are just plain lying, I have never said your "media" or your "police" spread disinformation, you linked me to some site which was behind a paywall at which I told you I could only read the first few lines... I asked that you provide a cite from your Ministry of Justice, or another site that was not behind a paywall and you did not.

"And it does vary some like this report claim that its 43 times likely total but only 13.75 time more likely if we take into account differences in demographics.
www.uusisuomi.fi/kotimaa/22072…"

I read the page through google translator .. since I do not speak the language
It says "says Helsingin Sanomat  ." yet the page that they are citing, is behind a paywall, that you must sign up and pay in order to read. Do you have an account to that site that they are linking to?

They offered up no other citations in the piece at which I can look at the data for myself, SURELY your government data is not behind a paywall, it said according to the National Bureau of Investigation,

"According to an analysis by the National Bureau of Investigation, one thousand Iraqi perpetrators in Finland have reported 12.9 cases of sexual assault. The corresponding proportion of Finnish citizens was 0.3. "
 from the piece

I looked on your National Bureau of Investigation in Finland
www.poliisi.fi/en/national_bur…

I literally spent almost 20 minutes searching the site, searching "sexual assaults" "Iraqi migrants" "12.9" to find the citation and nothing came up.


They make a claim, you have made a claim, neither of which offered up a direct link to the government source they claim shows those numbers.
You said "Statistically a iraqi migrant living in Finland is about 50 times more likely to rape than a native finn"


I asked for a government document or report which I can check the numbers for myself.  Your linking to someone else saying what you are saying but still not linking me to the numbers is not much of a big change.

I admittedly am coming from this from the view of someone who has taken journalism classes, as such I like to see the sources for myself and be able to look em up.. thus far, in that piece and your claim neither of which offer a link to the direct source to the claim.

You said for the sake of argument let us just say it is true.. without verifying evidence, I cannot do that. You may be correct and you may be wrong, thus my point of asking for the crime stats

I do not know, and this is a question I am posing to to you, does your Ministry of Justice stats also break down race of person who did it vs race of victim? FBI crime stats breaks that down so it  would be easier to look make it out vs it just says how many were sexually assaulted and does not break down information on perps.

"Nevertheless fact remains that Islam justifies raping women not protected by Sharia. How many muslims actually go through with it is another matter."
" fact remains"

Then show me where in the text aka what makes up ISLAM where it justifies the raping of women not "protected" by Sharia.. though even in the wording of that it makes me wonder, and I mean this honestly, if you have ever taken a religious studies course.

"And those whom enabled them."
I agree, though I have not enabled them so I have no worries.. I, in fact have said you should attack Jihadism.. where you and I disagree is the grand claims of ISLAM says this.. yet if Islam said this then why do BY YOUR OWN PREVIOUS CITED NUMBERS OF 50,000.. do only 0.14% of them following that view in Europe while the 99.86% of the Muslims in Europe do not... unless you are of the view that 99.86% of Muslims in Europe are wrong and only those 0.14% of Muslims that hold that extremist view are being true.. as such that is what is called a "confirmation bias"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-02-09 19:08:15 +0000 UTC]

None of which shows me defending the ideology of Jihadism.. you made a claim that I defended a particular ideology, in this case the original premise was violence committed by Islamic fundamentalists which is what the exchange was about - my not extracting because a small group does X that means all who are Muslims share some blame is where the disagreement is. None of those statements defend the actions of the fundamentalists, nice try though.. I merely asked, what I have been asking since you first commented, provide evidence of your grandiose claims at which you have been unable to do so.

Well it certainly came across as if you had been defensive or apologetic about the military campaigns of Mohammed.

Especially since in the very text I said one should combat the extremes of Islam, .. so I am defending what I said we should attack hmm

What you said was:

So one should combat extremism in Islam where they can, and see what causes such extremism or what can lead to it and try best to root that out.

Also I'm curious bout how you would do this? Are you going to cut out the more violent parts and pretend that they did not exist?

Paraphrasing is not changing your words, you literally said that Islam allows for the rape of Western women

Indeed it permits raping them. However they do this mostly for fun and to show their dominance. Not to punish.


I asked you to quote the text where Islam justifies the rape of Western women.. you could not.. that is not taking you out of context
Now you are just plain lying, I have never said your "media" or your "police" spread disinformation, you linked me to some site which was behind a paywall at which I told you I could only read the first few lines...

Well excuse me for not having memorised it but;

Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.
Sura 4:24 

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) sent a small army. The rest of the hadith is the same except this that he said: Except what your right hands possessout of them are lawful for you; and he did not mention" when their 'idda period comes to an end". This hadith has been reported on the authority of AbuSa'id (al-Khudri) (Allah be pleased with him) through another chain of transmitters and the words are: They took captives (women) on the day of Autas who had their husbands. They were afraid (to have sexual intercourse with them) when this verse was revealed:" And women already married except those whom you right hands posses"
Shahih Book 8 3433

Abu Sa’id Al Khudri said “The Apostle of Allaah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of Apostle of Allaah  were reluctant to have relations with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. So, Allaah the exalted sent down the Qur’anic verse “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand posses.” This is to say that they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.
Sunan Abi Dawud 2155

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) sent a small army. The rest of the hadith is the same except this that he said: Except what your right hands possessout of them are lawful for you; and he did not mention" when their 'idda period comes to an end". This hadith has been reported on the authority of AbuSa'id (al-Khudri) (Allah be pleased with him) through another chain of transmitters and the words are: They took captives (women) on the day of Autas who had their husbands. They were afraid (to have sexual intercourse with them) when this verse was revealed:" And women already married except those whom you right hands posses"
Bukhari 08:3433

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
Bukhari 34:432

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet came to Khaibar and when Allah made him victorious and he conquered the town by breaking the enemy's defense, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was mentioned to him and her husband had been killed while she was a bride. Allah's Apostle selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha' where her menses were over and he married her. Then Hais (a kind of meal) was prepared and served on a small leather sheet (used for serving meals). Allah's Apostle then said to me, "Inform those who are around you (about the wedding banquet)." So that was the marriage banquet given by Allah's Apostle for (his marriage with) Safiya. After that we proceeded to Medina and I saw that Allah's Apostle was covering her with a cloak while she was behind him. Then he would sit beside his camel and let Safiya put her feet on his knees to ride (the camel).
Bukhari 34:437

(Because women totally want to marry the person responsible for the death of their husband.)

 O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allah has given to you, and the daughters of your 'Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your 'Ammah (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khalah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (captives or slaves) whom their right hands possess, - in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Sura 33:50

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
Shahih Muslim 3371

Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons. 
Ibn Ishaq Hisham 693

Ect read their scriptures.
/watch?v=hrPAIc0aCOE
/watch?vPEy5ZOroNo
/watch?v=EPAwgclKAXw

Now you are just plain lying, I have never said your "media" or your "police" spread disinformation

Either the numbers are correct or my government and our media have engaged in a widespread conspiracy to make muslims look bad.
Though I would like to hear your theory on how they managed to pull it off?

I asked that you provide a cite from your Ministry of Justice, or another site that was not behind a paywall and you did not.

The last was not behind a paywall. Also you don't have a account to access to certain data.

I agree, though I have not enabled them so I have no worries.. I, in fact have said you should attack Jihadism.. where you and I disagree is the grand claims of ISLAM says this.. yet if Islam said this then why do BY YOUR OWN PREVIOUS CITED NUMBERS OF 50,000.. do only 0.14% of them following that view in Europe while the 99.86% of the Muslims in Europe do not... unless you are of the view that 99.86% of Muslims in Europe are wrong and only those 0.14% of Muslims that hold that extremist view are being true.. as such that is what is called a "confirmation bias"

 
Active jihadist are not the same as the number of islamists or people harbouring such thoughts. Like Survey for Channel 4 documentary finds 23% of UK muslims want sharia law.
And I'd suggest that you study the history of Lebanon a bit.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-02-09 21:29:00 +0000 UTC]

"Well it certainly came across as if you had been defensive or apologetic about the military campaigns of Mohammed."
I am a man of logic and reason, by your own numbers of a cite you linked to which said UP TO 50,000 MUSLIMS IN EUROPE BELIEVE IN JIHADISM.. I showed you that amounted to 0.14% of all of the Muslims in Europe. As such it is then unreasonable to then blame the 99.86% who do not ascribe to that view because of the very small minority of their faith that commit terrorist acts


"What you said was:

So one should combat extremism in Islam where they can, and see what causes such extremism or what can lead to it and try best to root that out.

Also I'm curious bout how you would do this? Are you going to cut out the more violent parts and pretend that they did not exist?"

If you are combating extremism, then that would not be pretending they exist. Pretending something does not exist is the exact opposite of combating or direct action against it. As far as how you would do it, you can do it in a myriad of ways, either by arming some of the groups fighting the extremists as the US partially did when we gave the Kurds arms when they were fighting ISIL, to on the technological side freezing assets and bank accounts of their leaders, to "cut the head off the snake" and go after the leaders of the violent groups - - -but using the Powell Doctrine, since you are not from America I am unsure you know what the Powell Doctrine is
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_D…

Sadly my country does not utilize it enough in that we have been in Iraq now for over 15 years with no end in site, in Afghanistan for 17 years with no end in site.. Eventually if you stay too long you seem more like occupiers than people there to help.. granted, I know my country's history in fomenting some of these extremist ideologies when we armed them to fight "communism"... and overthrew democratically elected leaders who would not do our bidding and installed our own dictators which led to theological rule in Iran.


"Indeed it permits raping them. However they do this mostly for fun and to show their dominance. Not to punish."
... so where is the text at which explicitly to rape "Western women" .


Well excuse me for not having memorised it but;

... texts of Islam.. I will put the part you got it from

"....Sura 4:24 "
Yes, slavery existed, and slaves had little rights sadly, but that does not say anything of your premise of Islam permits the raping of Western women. It is sad that Islam, similar to its Jewish counterpart recognized that slavery existed and that slaves had no rights.. but that was not your claim.


"...Shahih Book 8 3433"
Once again, yes, slavery existed. It is sad that for thousands of years warring tribes would take the women and men from a tribe they defeated as slaves and slaves had no rights. If you were to say that slavery existed at the time and they were treated brutally, then I would agree with you .. but that was not your premise, your premise was that Islam justified the raping of Western women.. once again, this text does not fit what you claimed.

"Sunan Abi Dawud 2155
Bukhari 08:3433
Bukhari 34:432
Bukhari 34:437
(Because women totally want to marry the person responsible for the death of their husband.)"
Sura 33:50"
Shahih Muslim 3371

Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons. 
Ibn Ishaq Hisham 693

Ect read their scriptures.
/watch?v=hrPAIc0aCOE
/watch?vPEy5ZOroNo
/watch?v=EPAwgclKAXw"


Slaves being mistreated was never your claim, go back and read your original claim. You never said that slaves were mistreated after being enslaved because their tribe lost a war, had you said that then we would have agreed, granted this was not Islam specific but they did continue a practice that had gone on long before. Had you said slaves were mistreated by their captures ... I would have agreed.. but in none of those texts do they validate your claim of Islam explicitly allowing for the rape of "Western women".

I never denied that slaves were not mistreated or that captive women were not forced to engage in sex, or a dowry be paid for their hand in marriage to some relatives, or for more powerful men, the women would be sent to harems, sometimes as gifts of a defeated tribe as a sign of loyalty, or sometimes taken by force.

Yet that was never your claim, you made a specific claim about it allowing the rape of "Western women"
You have not proven your claim in the text presented. If your claim had been that women of the defeated tribes, who were then, themselves, made slaves or to serve the winning tribe were not treated well, I would never have disagreed.. but that was never your issues.

"Either the numbers are correct or my government and our media have engaged in a widespread conspiracy to make muslims look bad.
Though I would like to hear your theory on how they managed to pull it off?"
So it is about "Muslims" and not Iraqi Migrants in general?

I do not have a particular opinion one way or the other, as I said, I have studied journalism, what is the first rule of citations in journalism?
You need two, verified citations or sources to print or run with a story to make sure of its accuracy.

Your link made a claim, and yet what it linked to was not what it earlier cited, and then it left no citations for the other claim made.

As I said, you could be telling the truth, but without my being able to verify something, why would I believe it on simply someone saying it?

If I made a broad claim, you would not believe it unless I can link you to the exact evidence.. you linked me to someone making the same claim as you, who offered no citations or links to the information.

You seem rather defensive of SO THE NUMBERS ARE CORRECT OR IT IS A CONSPIRACY.
The numbers may very well be correct, all I asked for is a link to either your ministry of justice crime data, or SOME LINK which actually provides a citation for the claim. I do not think it is too much to ask to provide evidence for a claim made, do you?


"The last was not behind a paywall. Also you don't have a account to access to certain data."
The last cited the same number you did, yet the site they linked to was behind a paywall, showing only the first two lines and then you must sign into your account to view the rest.


"Active jihadist are not the same as the number of islamists or people harbouring such thoughts. Like Survey for Channel 4 documentary finds 23% of UK muslims want sharia law.
You should attack all forms of Jihadism, from groups blowing up buildings or killing massive numbers of people in their name of their belief, or just those saying they want to.

The reason why we will NEVER  agree with your mass generalization is because, who are most of the people they are killing? Most of the people killed by these fundamentalists are Muslim.. As shown in the
www.thereligionofpeace.com/

So yes, they attack Western outposts and other religions, but when you look at most of their attacks, and most of those who have been killed by them, they are Muslim.

It would do a disservice to them if I were to say the people killing them are just like the people doing the killing.
For me it is not simply about "Islam", it is about extremism.

I do not care if someone follows Mohammad, I do not care if someone follows Moses, Jesus Christ etc etc.. follow whoever you wish, now when you start preaching and committing acts of violence, then yes, that should be confronted in equal or greater measure depending on the offense (Though I would disagree with some European nations that have "Blasphemy laws")

What do you know of sharia, I mean outside of the Western understanding of it?

I say this earnestly, you are privileged enough to live in Finland, so you can take college courses in your public universities for little or no costs and not be saddles with tens of thousands of dollars in debt..

It would do you a great deal of good, and again I say this earnestly, to just go take a religious and philosophy course or two.



"And I'd suggest that you study the history of Lebanon a bit."

I actually have studied the history of the Middle East, including Lebanon. Perhaps after this exchange is done, if you wish to discuss its history we can, or was there something specifically, in relations to the subject above that you wished to do discuss.

As always, I will reply when I see it and will try to be a bit more concise in later comments so this can be wrapped up hopefully within the next week.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-02-13 19:43:05 +0000 UTC]

I am a man of logic and reason, by your own numbers of a cite you linked to which said UP TO 50,000 MUSLIMS IN EUROPE BELIEVE IN JIHADISM.. I showed you that amounted to 0.14% of all of the Muslims in Europe. As such it is then unreasonable to then blame the 99.86% who do not ascribe to that view because of the very small minority of their faith that commit terrorist acts

There is a difference between jihadists, islamists or supporting Jihad. We are talking about some estimated 50 000 prepared to take a action or kill.
This is of course based on flawed intelligence and the real number could be completely different.
Also I wouldn't use the word responsible of majority but more well suspect like I would free muslims from military conscription.

If you are combating extremism, then that would not be pretending they exist. Pretending something does not exist is the exact opposite of combating or direct action against it. As far as how you would do it, you can do it in a myriad of ways, either by arming some of the groups fighting the extremists as the US partially did when we gave the Kurds arms when they were fighting ISIL, to on the technological side freezing assets and bank accounts of their leaders, to "cut the head off the snake" and go after the leaders of the violent groups - - -but using the Powell Doctrine, since you are not from America I am unsure you know what the Powell Doctrine is 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_D…

Sadly my country does not utilize it enough in that we have been in Iraq now for over 15 years with no end in site, in Afghanistan for 17 years with no end in site.. Eventually if you stay too long you seem more like occupiers than people there to help.. granted, I know my country's history in fomenting some of these extremist ideologies when we armed them to fight "communism"... and overthrew democratically elected leaders who would not do our bidding and installed our own dictators which led to theological rule in Iran.

I was talking about how to combat extremism in Islam. Personally I don't see how its going to work.

Slaves being mistreated was never your claim, go back and read your original claim. You never said that slaves were mistreated after being enslaved because their tribe lost a war, had you said that then we would have agreed, granted this was not Islam specific but they did continue a practice that had gone on long before. Had you said slaves were mistreated by their captures ... I would have agreed.. but in none of those texts do they validate your claim of Islam explicitly allowing for the rape of "Western women".

I never denied that slaves were not mistreated or that captive women were not forced to engage in sex, or a dowry be paid for their hand in marriage to some relatives, or for more powerful men, the women would be sent to harems, sometimes as gifts of a defeated tribe as a sign of loyalty, or sometimes taken by force.

Yet that was never your claim, you made a specific claim about it allowing the rape of "Western women" 
You have not proven your claim in the text presented. If your claim had been that women of the defeated tribes, who were then, themselves, made slaves or to serve the winning tribe were not treated well, I would never have disagreed.. but that was never your issues.

You do not realise that 99.99% of western women count as kuffars and get captured before the actual raping?
Sure its not like chinese women would exempt from the rule if thats what you mean.

So it is about "Muslims" and not Iraqi Migrants in general?

Well the narrative got slammed as islamophobic until it was backed up by official government data and now the left tries hush it up or just ignores it.

I do not have a particular opinion one way or the other, as I said, I have studied journalism, what is the first rule of citations in journalism?
You need two, verified citations or sources to print or run with a story to make sure of its accuracy.

Your link made a claim, and yet what it linked to was not what it earlier cited, and then it left no citations for the other claim made.

As I said, you could be telling the truth, but without my being able to verify something, why would I believe it on simply someone saying it?

If I made a broad claim, you would not believe it unless I can link you to the exact evidence.. you linked me to someone making the same claim as you, who offered no citations or links to the information. 

You seem rather defensive of SO THE NUMBERS ARE CORRECT OR IT IS A CONSPIRACY.
The numbers may very well be correct, all I asked for is a link to either your ministry of justice crime data, or SOME LINK which actually provides a citation for the claim. I do not think it is too much to ask to provide evidence for a claim made, do you?

The last cited the same number you did, yet the site they linked to was behind a paywall, showing only the first two lines and then you must sign into your account to view the rest. 

Here have another one:
www.helsinginuutiset.fi/artikk…

You should attack all forms of Jihadism, from groups blowing up buildings or killing massive numbers of people in their name of their belief, or just those saying they want to.

The reason why we will NEVER  agree with your mass generalization is because, who are most of the people they are killing? Most of the people killed by these fundamentalists are Muslim.. As shown in the 
www.thereligionofpeace.com/

So yes, they attack Western outposts and other religions, but when you look at most of their attacks, and most of those who have been killed by them, they are Muslim.

It would do a disservice to them if I were to say the people killing them are just like the people doing the killing.

Firstly you still not have pointed what broad generalisation I have made?
Secondly jihadists mostly target opposing sects like Sunni Vs Shia or Sunni Vs Sufi or non-Sharia compliant governments.
However this is more or less due to proximity.

For me it is not simply about "Islam", it is about extremism.

I do not care if someone follows Mohammad, I do not care if someone follows Moses, Jesus Christ etc etc.. follow whoever you wish, now when you start preaching and committing acts of violence, then yes, that should be confronted in equal or greater measure depending on the offense (Though I would disagree with some European nations that have "Blasphemy laws") 

Its not just about Islam but we would greatly reduce the amount of human suffering if we could remove Islam form the equation by say education.
Without Islam there would be no ISIS.

What do you know of sharia, I mean outside of the Western understanding of it?

I do know enough to know that it does not mix with western secularism.

I actually have studied the history of the Middle East, including Lebanon. Perhaps after this exchange is done, if you wish to discuss its history we can, or was there something specifically, in relations to the subject above that you wished to do discuss.

Lebanon gives us a chilling example of the worst case scenario.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-02-14 15:52:24 +0000 UTC]

I have addressed your points, if there are points not in quotation and addressed simply tell me and I will address em in next reply

We have been at this for two weeks and seem to be talking in circles, I will reply back whenever I see a comment but hopefully this does not go on for months... but time will tell, as long as you wish to continue this, I will reply back whenever I see a comment

"There is a difference between jihadists, islamists or supporting Jihad. We are talking about some estimated 50 000 prepared to take a action or kill.
This is of course based on flawed intelligence and the real number could be completely different.
Also I wouldn't use the word responsible of majority but more well suspect like I would free muslims from military conscription."

Yes, there is a difference, one can be an Islamist and yet not a jihadist,.
We are talking about those 50K, which your link said "could be" as high as 50,000, which okay then that 0.14% should be viewed on what they advocate for and gone after if they prepare for or commits acts of violence, You would not use the word, but I would.. the concept that because a small percent of your group may do this, that 99.86% of you should then be under suspicion  by the State apparatus would make little sense. granted if it is just you, an individual that wants not to trust Muslims because 0.14% of them may do something then have at it, I think it is unreasonable but it is what it is


"I was talking about how to combat extremism in Islam. Personally I don't see how its going to work."
You will never wipe out all extremism in any religion, but if you can lessen their power bases then that lessens their power

But that will not happen for one reason, what nation is the greatest funder of terrorist groups around the world? Saudi Arabia, look at 9/11 11 of 16 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and yet my country, and pretty much every European Nation is still doing major deals with Saudi Arabia for access to cheap oil and minor military support, if one wants to truly make a broad step towards combating extremism, we must stop doing business with one of its largest funders.. but my nation, nor the countries in Europe will give up those hundreds in billions in weapons contracts.. so they turn a blind eye to it


"You do not realise that 99.99% of western women count as kuffars and get captured before the actual raping?
Sure its not like chinese women would exempt from the rule if thats what you mean."
I think you are trying to say Kafir,

Yet your premise was very simple, the Islamic text allows for the rape of Western women, every text you cited spoke of slaves being captured after warring tribes went to battle and one side ... You made a speciic claim and could not back it up with the text

WHICH IS WHY I SAID, you live in a country that allows you to go college without being saddled with debt, perhaps you should take a religious studies and philosophy class, pairing with a World History course, then you would understand that the text were written during the early year of Islam when they were just a band of warring tribes and yes, like thousands of years ago throughout Africa and the Middle East yes, when tribes went to war the losing tribes were either made slaves, or would have to swear loyalty to those that defeated them.. which often meant paying tribute and many of their women being taken as slaves... 

Yet your premise of Islam explicitly allowing for the rape of Western women, was not proven in any of the text you showed which showed, and I mean this with respect, an ignorance of the text by someone  who reads without contextualizing which is the wrong thing when trying to make a claim on religious text. 


"Well the narrative got slammed as islamophobic until it was backed up by official government data and now the left tries hush it up or just ignores it."
We are not speaking of any narrative, nor of the "left".. you said "backed up by official government data".. I have been asking for official government data links for two weeks now.. So if you have actual government data, then please do link it.. ONCE AGAIN ACTUAL GOVERNMENT DATA .. not some link from some site that claims what you do .. and does not actually link to the citation being made.

I, in fact, said from the start that your claims could be true, the eh I forgot the specifics but 44x, 50x and the 77x more likely in a single year...if you have the government data, and one of the great things about your country's government website is they have a simply button or link to make it in English, so it then easy to verify the claims for someone who does not speak Finnish or Swedish.

So, if you have those links, do provide them and this could be all over.. it seems you just wish to drag this out longer and longer since it has been 2 weeks and as such if you had government data by now I would have thought you would have provided it by now.


"Here have another one:
www.helsinginuutiset.fi/artikk…"

Do you read the sites before you send em?

This is the last link you sent me
www.uusisuomi.fi/kotimaa/22072…

Yet BOTH THE LAST LINK AND THIS LINKS link to this website as a citation
www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-20000052…

and that is behind a paywall, as such I cannot read the citation since it only shows you the first few lines  and then you must be a member to read the rest and you must pay to be a member thus... paywall.

Here is a link from your country which cited a government data not behind a paywall
www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/f…

a website from your country, links to a government stats site for its citation that is not behind a paywall

NOW... it does not break it down but looking at the link you JUST Sent and that link..

there were 3,400 sex crimes, and 1,172 rapes in 2016 which was the year cited in the link you just provided.

Yet in your link, it says
"Last year, a total of nearly 90 suspected rape cases were reported to the police , where the suspect was an Iraqi citizen. Last year, the figure was 45 - rape suspects have almost doubled."

Something is a bit wrong if your country had 1,172 rapes in 2016.. yet your link says "a total" of 90 suspected rapes where

FOR THE RECORD: your government did not break down rapes by race, or perp identity.. just says in 2016 there were 1,172 rapes

If your link is to be believed that a TOTAL of nearly 90 rape cases in 2016 reported by the police where the suspect was Iraq ... then that does not fit the trend of 44x, or 50x ..

But the point remains, that the link provided uses a citation at which is behind a paywall..



"Firstly you still not have pointed what broad generalisation I have made?
Secondly jihadists mostly target opposing sects like Sunni Vs Shia or Sunni Vs Sufi or non-Sharia compliant governments.
However this is more or less due to proximity."

The broad generalizations of 44x, 50x and the 77x in a single year is the broad generalization I am referring to at which.. I have been asking for two weeks now for a link to a government website or some official source which will cite the numbers and the only link provided is one who uses the same numbers as you but offers no citation at which is not behind a paywall  to see and no use of government stats

Sometimes yes, to the jihadist the moderate is an enemy, as such to the Jihadist, even those within their own sect are subject to abuse for not being as fundamentalist as they think they should be.. but yes, the Sunni v Shia is at the heart of much of the issues between Saudi Arabia and Iran and other Islamic theocratic nations.


"Its not just about Islam but we would greatly reduce the amount of human suffering if we could remove Islam form the equation by say education.
Without Islam there would be no ISIS."

That shows a great misunderstanding, yes without Islam there would be no ISIL, like without Christianity there would be no radical Christian groups in America and Africa, I say this not to use a 1:1 comparison but to say yes, without the religion you would not then have a radical form of religion

but there are 1.8 billion Muslims on Earth and around 100-150K ISIL members according to NATO so around .01% of all of Islam.. now there are other Islamic groups but they make up a very small minority, taliban is around 80-100 K.. so that would mean 0.02% of all Muslims etc yes they commit violent acts but the  notion that 1.8  billion people would be "removed" for the actions of few hundred thousand or the belief of a few million makes little use of reason.

"I do know enough to know that it does not mix with western secularism."
.. yes, theocratic beliefs do not mix with secularism.. be they Western or otherwise,  yet of the 1.8 billion Muslims

But on the general Muslims. Not about "Western Secularism" BY YOUR OWN NUMBERS there are 99.86% of Muslims in Europe that do not hold to the religious fundamentalist view of use of violence.

Around 50 million Muslims in Europe, around 4-6 million in all of the Americas, .. they are mostly concentrated in the Asia (where 1.2 of the 1.8  billion Muslims reside) and in Africa (550,000,000 Muslims reside)  .. many of these nations are not theocratic nations, but some do.

"Lebanon gives us a chilling example of the worst case scenario."
If Lebanon is the "worst case" .. I would have chosen a country like Afghanistan, or Iraq, where violent crime occur more frequently than in Lebanon when you look at per capital numbers. Yes they have a very bloody civil war that lasted several decades and were then an occupied nation by several foreign powers and since around 2005 have had a "legitimate government" but still face the issues that many small nations face, poverty rates very high, health issues is not the best .. so yes, Lebanon needs a lot of work to address its nearly 40-50% poverty rate, .. I am sure I would disagree with the more "Free Market" approach of its Prime Minister, who himself is a secular man, who is opposed to theocratic rule.. and the main party pushing for Theocracy in Lebanon Is Hezbollah.. which only controls  12 of 128 seats in their Parliament and 2 of 30 seats in their cabinet .. so not exactly a major party which grand support from the people.

So while Lebanon has many economic, social and political issues that need to be addressed.. if that is the "worst case scenario" then it leaves countries with actual theocratic rule, with far more violence off the hook.

As always, I will reply back when I see it and will try to wrap this up before March... but that is up to you so time will tell.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-02-14 18:14:24 +0000 UTC]

Yes, there is a difference, one can be an Islamist and yet not a jihadist,.
We are talking about those 50K, which your link said "could be" as high as 50,000, which okay then that 0.14% should be viewed on what they advocate for and gone after if they prepare for or commits acts of violence, You would not use the word, but I would.. the concept that because a small percent of your group may do this, that 99.86% of you should then be under suspicion  by the State apparatus would make little sense. granted if it is just you, an individual that wants not to trust Muslims because 0.14% of them may do something then have at it, I think it is unreasonable but it is what it is

If one muslim is a jihadist with a chance of 0.14% then in 100 there is one with the likelihood of 13% in 1000 with the likelihood of 75% and in 4000 there is one with the likelihood of 99.6%.
Also most jihadists did not know that they would become jihadists. Also 50 000 of 19 million is closer to 0.26% and with the newest wave closer to 1.1% according to intelligence.
We should get a pretty good picture of their actual strength once their variation of a TET-offensive begins in Europe.

You will never wipe out all extremism in any religion, but if you can lessen their power bases then that lessens their power

But that will not happen for one reason, what nation is the greatest funder of terrorist groups around the world? Saudi Arabia, look at 9/11 11 of 16 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and yet my country, and pretty much every European Nation is still doing major deals with Saudi Arabia for access to cheap oil and minor military support, if one wants to truly make a broad step towards combating extremism, we must stop doing business with one of its largest funders.. but my nation, nor the countries in Europe will give up those hundreds in billions in weapons contracts.. so they turn a blind eye to it

Have you considered what the alternative to this is? The wahhabi clerics would certainly like it if the house of Saud would lose power.
Not that I'm against getting rid of depending of their oil but until then this dualism will continue.

I think you are trying to say Kafir, 

Yet your premise was very simple, the Islamic text allows for the rape of Western women, every text you cited spoke of slaves being captured after warring tribes went to battle and one side ... You made a speciic claim and could not back it up with the text

WHICH IS WHY I SAID, you live in a country that allows you to go college without being saddled with debt, perhaps you should take a religious studies and philosophy class, pairing with a World History course, then you would understand that the text were written during the early year of Islam when they were just a band of warring tribes and yes, like thousands of years ago throughout Africa and the Middle East yes, when tribes went to war the losing tribes were either made slaves, or would have to swear loyalty to those that defeated them.. which often meant paying tribute and many of their women being taken as slaves...  

Yet your premise of Islam explicitly allowing for the rape of Western women, was not proven in any of the text you showed which showed, and I mean this with respect, an ignorance of the text by someone  who reads without contextualizing which is the wrong thing when trying to make a claim on religious text.  

Did you not read it? We are part of nations or tribes opposed to the Kaliphate. And it was written in the Medinan period not in the early days of Islam. And the text is supposed to be infallible and correct in all times.

"Wall of text too long to quote."

A broad generalization and a statistic are not the same thing. Also would you not think that the government would issue a correction if all the larger media houses would represent its data incorrectly?
Why do you think that did not happen?
Also there is data per nationality and per origin.

That shows a great misunderstanding, yes without Islam there would be no ISIL, like without Christianity there would be no radical Christian groups in America and Africa, I say this not to use a 1:1 comparison but to say yes, without the religion you would not then have a radical form of religion

but there are 1.8 billion Muslims on Earth and around 100-150K ISIL members according to NATO so around .01% of all of Islam.. now there are other Islamic groups but they make up a very small minority, taliban is around 80-100 K.. so that would mean 0.02% of all Muslims etc yes they commit violent acts but the  notion that 1.8  billion people would be "removed" for the actions of few hundred thousand or the belief of a few million makes little use of reason.

Its not like the people would have to be removed like it was not necessary to remove germans or russians to deal with nazism or communism.
Nor does islam have to ideologically defeated 100%. Its enough if people no longer neglect their earthly lives or relatives in hopes of getting into a paradise that may not exist.

. yes, theocratic beliefs do not mix with secularism.. be they Western or otherwise,  yet of the 1.8 billion Muslims 

But on the general Muslims. Not about "Western Secularism" BY YOUR OWN NUMBERS there are 99.86% of Muslims in Europe that do not hold to the religious fundamentalist view of use of violence. 

Around 50 million Muslims in Europe, around 4-6 million in all of the Americas, .. they are mostly concentrated in the Asia (where 1.2 of the 1.8  billion Muslims reside) and in Africa (550,000,000 Muslims reside)  .. many of these nations are not theocratic nations, but some do.

Not by my own numbers. There is about 19 million muslims in EU. Also support goes further than the number of jihadists and there is the issue of dormant jihadists.

If Lebanon is the "worst case" .. I would have chosen a country like Afghanistan, or Iraq, where violent crime occur more frequently than in Lebanon when you look at per capital numbers. Yes they have a very bloody civil war that lasted several decades and were then an occupied nation by several foreign powers and since around 2005 have had a "legitimate government" but still face the issues that many small nations face, poverty rates very high, health issues is not the best .. so yes, Lebanon needs a lot of work to address its nearly 40-50% poverty rate, .. I am sure I would disagree with the more "Free Market" approach of its Prime Minister, who himself is a secular man, who is opposed to theocratic rule.. and the main party pushing for Theocracy in Lebanon Is Hezbollah.. which only controls  12 of 128 seats in their Parliament and 2 of 30 seats in their cabinet .. so not exactly a major party which grand support from the people.

So while Lebanon has many economic, social and political issues that need to be addressed.. if that is the "worst case scenario" then it leaves countries with actual theocratic rule, with far more violence off the hook.

Ok the worst foreseeable scenario for western countries or sectarian conflict or civil war.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-02-14 19:18:53 +0000 UTC]

As always, I will reply back when I see it and hopefully this will wrap up before March .. but that is up to you... as we seem to just be going in circles and have been for 2 weeks.

"If one muslim is a jihadist with a chance of 0.14% then in 100 there is one with the likelihood of 13% in 1000 with the likelihood of 75% and in 4000 there is one with the likelihood of 99.6%.
Also most jihadists did not know that they would become jihadists. Also 50 000 of 19 million is closer to 0.26% and with the newest wave closer to 1.1% according to intelligence.
We should get a pretty good picture of their actual strength once their variation of a TET-offensive begins in Europe."

0.14% of  them all (37 million in Europe)  is not then 1 with a 14% chance in 1,000, it does not just suddenly jump 100x to the individual when in scope. What kind of math are you using where 0.14% of a group translates to a 1 with a 13% chance in 1000 or 1 with a 75%  chance in 4000 ...  unsure where you got those calculations from, but okay. That was just a small part to the larger point of the second line .

If you have a group of 37 million, and of that  group 0.14% may hold extremist views.. when you randomly group 100 that does not then mean 1 has a 14% chance just because you grouped em by 11 so the risk jumped 100x.. not exactly how that works but okay ..

"according to intelligence"
If you mean your intelligence agencies, have they recently released a public study or statement directly from them that I can read, or .. are you referring to your calculations?


There are not 19 million Muslims in Europe, there are 37 million Muslims in Europe as of 2016 .. perhaps that number is even higher now almost 2 years later. So where did your 19 million come from?  (addressed this later on in the comment)

Muslims make up 4.9% of Europe, as of 2017 the European Population was 744 million people.
and your link said as many as 50K (or actually 51,800) which means there are fewer but could be as many as 50K max... as such 50K would be 0.14% of 37 million

"did not know they would become jihadist" WHICH IS WHY YOUR link said could be as many as.. they accounted for those unknown ..

You seem to be now trying to change the argument for what purpose I do not know.


"Have you considered what the alternative to this is? The wahhabi clerics would certainly like it if the house of Saud would lose power.
Not that I'm against getting rid of depending of their oil but until then this dualism will continue."

.... I doubt it,  Saudi Arabia is the Wahhabism that made it, sure they put on a prettier face .. they whipped rape victims in the square, they have whipped people for charges of witchcraft, atheism is considered terrorism and in 2017 they sentenced a man to death for atheism..  they whip journalists who speak against the Kingdom in favor of Democracy not Monarchy... as a blogger was whipped over 100 times and sentenced to 10 years in prison for daring to speak of Democratic rule in Saudi Arabia and against the Monarchy... but the West.. we pay lipservice to democratic ideals and yet .. a man speaks for Democracy and whipped over 100 times and given 10 years and.... we are silent..

So it would seem Wahhabist clerics are already getting what they want in Saudi Arabia .. the women are mostly covered up, Islam aka a religion is the state religion, it is not a secular country, atheism is considered terrorism per a 2014 decree,...

Finland, like the United States like most of Europe has the ability to be completely Energy independent if they simply invested into renewable resources.. on this I would congratulate Germany who is making wide strides to become completely energy independent within the next 15 years - we shall see if they make it.


"Did you not read it? We are part of nations or tribes opposed to the Kaliphate. And it was written in the Medinan period not in the early days of Islam. And the text is supposed to be infallible and correct in all times."
I actually did  read it, as well as have taken several religious studies courses .. I said early years, not days.. the text of Islam was written.. similar to the text of the bible in the first few centuries of what is a 1,4000 year old religion.

Do you believe the Bible, the Tanakh is correct at all times? All the religious text says they are infallible.. according to the Tanakh you should kill someone who works on the Sabbath.. should Jews go back to killing people who do not work on the sabbath just to prove the text stands the text of time?

No, because like most desert dwelling religions, they can only see  to their own end.. so no the text is not infallible and as an atheist, I would say much of it is nonsense.  but that does not change when the text was written they were a band of warring tribes at which yes... as they say TO THE WINNER GOES THE SPOILS which included women from the losing tribes, which included at times the men and women being taken as slaves, which included the losing tribe swearing loyalty and paying tribute

NONE OF THAT of course then goes to your premise of the text explicitly allowing the rape of Western women..

"A broad generalization and a statistic are not the same thing. Also would you not think that the government would issue a correction if all the larger media houses would represent its data incorrectly?
Why do you think that did not happen?
Also there is data per nationality and per origin."

It is not a statistic, you made a BROAD CLAIM that they are 44x, 50x, 77x as likely.. that is a broad claim.. because you claimed a percentage of something does not stop it from being a broad claim.
I am using your government's data, DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OR NOT?

WE LITERALLY have been going in circles for two weeks because you made a claim that you could not prove.

You showed one site which used your numbers, which then did not cite anything for their numbers, and the only citation in the story having to do with something else was behind a paywall.. and the last link did not cite your numbers at all.

Do you have the data per nationality from an official source or just a few posts on some site a credible source?

"Its not like the people would have to be removed like it was not necessary to remove germans or russians to deal with nazism or communism.
Nor does islam have to ideologically defeated 100%. Its enough if people no longer neglect their earthly lives or relatives in hopes of getting into a paradise that may not exist."

... but you did not have to go war with Germany and the Soviet Union.

Do tell how would you go to war with 1.8 billion people span around almost every country on Earth?

If you wanna attack the small pockets of fundamentalists who commit violent acts, great .. that would make far more sense than the seemingly irrational conclusion you believe it would take to wipe out fundamentalism.. though I am of a view you perhaps can lessen in but in any massive idea you would have extremists of said idea.

"Not by my own numbers. There is about 19 million muslims in EU. Also support goes further than the number of jihadists and there is the issue of dormant jihadists."

You literally said just Europe before, not the European Union..

Here is your exact comment
" Just the number of jihadists in Europe could be as high as 50 000.
mobile.wnd.com/2017/09/more-th… "
Here is the link to the comment where you said such
comments.deviantart.com/1/2456…

That comment is from February 6,. why wait an entire week to now try to limit the scope, aka change the scope of your argument? You said EUROPE not the EUROPEAN UNION, which has fewer countries than in Europe
the link you originally used to cite that 50K literally said in EUROPE from there you have argued on that 50K cited from your original comment which was Europe not the European Union, they cited an official which said there are 50,000 radicals in Europe. not just the EU.
 
Just doing a simple "ctrl + f" you have not said the European Union, or EU until this comment, in no past comment can I see you saying EU .. so why change your argument now?

Without editing your comments can you show me in what previous comment aside from the one you just put did you ever say EU or specifically denote European Union...


But okay, 0.26% if you now want to limit it LET US SAY FUCK IT!! and say the number of Dormant Jihadist, now I have no evidence for this but let us just say there are 50K Jihadist and 100K who has the potential to be.. okay that is around 1% .. that 1% should be confronted and if they are planning any attacks or whatever should be put down.. that does not then mean, the other 99% pay the lost of liberty price because a small percent may do something.. if you wanna attack Jihadist, do that all day long..

"Ok the worst foreseeable scenario for western countries or sectarian conflict or civil war."
Not particularly, Hezbollah lost seats during the last rounds of elections, meaning their power was actually lessened.. meaning less and less people want the theocratic nonsense they are spewing which is a good. Of course, there is always a chance for violent change when you have 40-50% of your citizens living in poverty...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-02-16 21:30:05 +0000 UTC]

0.14% of  them all (37 million in Europe)  is not then 1 with a 14% chance in 1,000, it does not just suddenly jump 100x to the individual when in scope. What kind of math are you using where 0.14% of a group translates to a 1 with a 13% chance in 1000 or 1 with a 75%  chance in 4000 ...  unsure where you got those calculations from, but okay. That was just a small part to the larger point of the second line .

If you have a group of 37 million, and of that  group 0.14% may hold extremist views.. when you randomly group 100 that does not then mean 1 has a 14% chance just because you grouped em by 11 so the risk jumped 100x.. not exactly how that works but okay ..

There are not 19 million Muslims in Europe, there are 37 million Muslims in Europe as of 2016 .. perhaps that number is even higher now almost 2 years later. So where did your 19 million come from?  (addressed this later on in the comment) 

Muslims make up 4.9% of Europe, as of 2017 the European Population was 744 million people.
and your link said as many as 50K (or actually 51,800) which means there are fewer but could be as many as 50K max... as such 50K would
be 0.14% of 37 million 

That comment is from February 6,. why wait an entire week to now try to limit the scope, aka change the scope of your argument? You said EUROPE not the EUROPEAN UNION, which has fewer countries than in Europe 
the link you originally used to cite that 50K literally said in EUROPE from there you have argued on that 50K cited from your original comment which was Europe not the European Union, they cited an official which said there are 50,000 radicals in Europe. not just the EU.
 
Just doing a simple "ctrl + f" you have not said the European Union, or EU until this comment, in no past comment can I see you saying EU .. so why change your argument now?

Without editing your comments can you show me in what previous comment aside from the one you just put did you ever say EU or specifically denote European Union... 

I was not aware that I would have to point out that we are not talking about geographical Europe. How would that even work with Turkey and Russia being only partially in it?
To be exact the 50K is for Schengen + UK.

"according to intelligence"
If you mean your intelligence agencies, have they recently released a public study or statement directly from them that I can read, or .. are you referring to your calculations?

Official statements yes but then again its reported by all the same fake news medias so we can leave it at that.

"did not know they would become jihadist" WHICH IS WHY YOUR link said could be as many as.. they accounted for those unknown ..

Nope.

.... I doubt it,  Saudi Arabia is the Wahhabism that made it, sure they put on a prettier face .. they whipped rape victims in the square, they have whipped people for charges of witchcraft, atheism is considered terrorism and in 2017 they sentenced a man to death for atheism..  they whip journalists who speak against the Kingdom in favor of Democracy not Monarchy... as a blogger was whipped over 100 times and sentenced to 10 years in prison for daring to speak of Democratic rule in Saudi Arabia and against the Monarchy... but the West.. we pay lipservice to democratic ideals and yet .. a man speaks for Democracy and whipped over 100 times and given 10 years and.... we are silent.. 

So it would seem Wahhabist clerics are already getting what they want in Saudi Arabia .. the women are mostly covered up, Islam aka a religion is the state religion, it is not a secular country, atheism is considered terrorism per a 2014 decree,... 

Whippings are still a preferable alternative to stoning. Also its not atheism per se but apostasy that is punishable by death.

I actually did  read it, as well as have taken several religious studies courses .. I said early years, not days.. the text of Islam was written.. similar to the text of the bible in the first few centuries of what is a 1,4000 year old religion.

Do you believe the Bible, the Tanakh is correct at all times? All the religious text says they are infallible.. according to the Tanakh you should kill someone who works on the Sabbath.. should Jews go back to killing people who do not work on the sabbath just to prove the text stands the text of time?

Secularism and the Renaissance are why christians and jews are more humane nowadays not some different interpretation.

No, because like most desert dwelling religions, they can only see  to their own end.. so no the text is not infallible and as an atheist, I would say much of it is nonsense.  but that does not change when the text was written they were a band of warring tribes at which yes... as they say TO THE WINNER GOES THE SPOILS which included women from the losing tribes, which included at times the men and women being taken as slaves, which included the losing tribe swearing loyalty and paying tribute

NONE OF THAT of course then goes to your premise of the text explicitly allowing the rape of Western women.. 

I don't see why not but it is sufficient evidence for islamists and jihadists and that is what matters, not whether you believe it or not.

It is not a statistic, you made a BROAD CLAIM that they are 44x, 50x, 77x as likely.. that is a broad claim.. because you claimed a percentage of something does not stop it from being a broad claim.
I am using your government's data, DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OR NOT?

WE LITERALLY have been going in circles for two weeks because you made a claim that you could not prove. 

You showed one site which used your numbers, which then did not cite anything for their numbers, and the only citation in the story having to do with something else was behind a paywall.. and the last link did not cite your numbers at all.

Do you have the data per nationality from an official source or just a few posts on some site a credible source?

Well why my yes I do, just in a form I could edit at will and since you have established that I'm arguing in bad faith it does not matter in this particular conversation. And again it was 77x likely only during one year.

... but you did not have to go war with Germany and the Soviet Union.

Do tell how would you go to war with 1.8 billion people span around almost every country on Earth?

If you wanna attack the small pockets of fundamentalists who commit violent acts, great .. that would make far more sense than the seemingly irrational conclusion you believe it would take to wipe out fundamentalism.. though I am of a view you perhaps can lessen in but in any massive idea you would have extremists of said idea.

By defeating ideologically I meant proving their narrative wrong. A potential war with 1.8 billion people is even more reason to do so.

But okay, 0.26% if you now want to limit it LET US SAY FUCK IT!! and say the number of Dormant Jihadist, now I have no evidence for this but let us just say there are 50K Jihadist and 100K who has the potential to be.. okay that is around 1% .. that 1% should be confronted and if they are planning any attacks or whatever should be put down.. that does not then mean, the other 99% pay the lost of liberty price because a small percent may do something.. if you wanna attack Jihadist, do that all day long.. 

Did I say liberty? There are much lesser means that starting to mark muslims with crescent moons like limiting immigration or releasing them from certain obligations like we already have ended up training IS fighters through military conscription.
If one could reliably tell apart the more harmful muslims from the more harmful ones there wouldn't be this kind of problem in the first place.

Not particularly, Hezbollah lost seats during the last rounds of elections, meaning their power was actually lessened.. meaning less and less people want the theocratic nonsense they are spewing which is a good. Of course, there is always a chance for violent change when you have 40-50% of your citizens living in poverty... 

Thats not a very desirable outcome for most europeans.

As always, I will reply back when I see it and hopefully this will wrap up before March .. but that is up to you... as we seem to just be going in circles and have been for 2 weeks.

Well we could maybe cool it until their primary attack in Europe has commenced and burned out. The scale of the problem should be somewhat apparent at that point but then again it should have been after the rise of IS.
Though it could take them years more of preparation with us busting their supply caches and cells or who knows they could be ready by summer.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-02-17 09:05:06 +0000 UTC]

"I was not aware that I would have to point out that we are not talking about geographical Europe. How would that even work with Turkey and Russia being only partially in it?
To be exact the 50K is for Schengen + UK."

Yet your link was speaking of Europe, the guy who made the 50,000 claim, said they were speaking of Europe not the EU in that statement, he did not single out Turkey which has a small part in Europe or Russia that has a major part of its land mass in Asia but most of its citizens live in its European territories

But even taking your new argument, that would still mean 0.26% have the extremist view and 99.84% do not hold that view, that and your link said as many as.. meaning what they actually count is less than that claim

"Official statements yes but then again its reported by all the same fake news medias so we can leave it at that."
If it is an Official statement, then would not your government post their statements on their website? Which would allow you to link me to the statement on your Finnish Government website which is not behind a paywall. So why not then find their statement on their website since as I said previously that I spent 20 minutes on your government's website trying to find a citation for your claims and could find nothing on your official government website at which corroborated your claim.

"Nope."
So now you are disagreeing with your own link? Your own link said "as many as" which when you say could be as many as, that mean the absolute number you have could be part of a larger number, in this case the 50K... but okay.

"Whippings are still a preferable alternative to stoning. Also its not atheism per se but apostasy that is punishable by death."
But if we are going to speak of Wahhabism, then no, rape victims should not be punished at all, be it stoning, or whipping.. so both should be condemned, but as stated.. Europe nor the US will call out Saudi Arabia as we turn a blind eye to its human rights abuses.


But if we are speaking of .. this is from your comment before this one
"Have you considered what the alternative to this is? The wahhabi clerics would certainly like it if the house of Saud would lose power."

the House of Saud whips rape victims, they have declared atheism thought terrorism
www.independent.co.uk/news/wor…

Back in 2014 under new "anti-terrorism" laws, atheists were put under that law and the King Declared atheists to be terrorists, which said calling of atheistic thought in any form


They kill people for saying they are no longer Muslim

Then it would seem the House of Saud.. is not the benevolent dictator that we think it is.

They jail journalist, and need I remind you
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontli…
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/…
www.worldaffairsjournal.org/ar…

Wahhabism is the dominant belief of Saudi Arabia ... including the House of Saud ... so the idea that Wahhabist Clerics would like it if Wahhabist leaders lose power hmm I would say no, they would not like that since as the last link says, connection between the House of Saud, the Saudi royal Family and Wahhabism goes back centuries

"Secularism and the Renaissance are why christians and jews are more humane nowadays not some different interpretation."
While that did not address the question asked

Small minority of Muslims commit acts of terrorism, the overwhelmingly majority does not, and for those that do .. most of the people at which they kill are Muslims.


"I don't see why not but it is sufficient evidence for islamists and jihadists and that is what matters, not whether you believe it or not."
I am a man of logic, you made a specific claim about Islam and the rape of Western women, and yet the only Koranic verses you could muster spoke nothing of Western women and spoke of warring tribes and taking the women as slaves ... So I will consider since you are unable to prove your claim then this part is done, but we shall see.


"Well why my yes I do, just in a form I could edit at will and since you have established that I'm arguing in bad faith it does not matter in this particular conversation. And again it was 77x likely only during one year."
Yes, I am aware you said 77x in a single year.. and yet I for evidence from an official government site and you have been unable to provide such. Your government posts crime stats on their website, you could just as easily go try to make your argument using that, but so far you have not.. You linked to some website at which said the number you did, and yet their citation was behind a paywall, so I am unable to check their source.


"By defeating ideologically I meant proving their narrative wrong. A potential war with 1.8 billion people is even more reason to do so."
The ideology of Wahhabism should be defeated, luckily only a small percentage of that 1.8 billion believe such which those that take it to the violent extremes sadly kill and oppress more Muslims than anything



"Did I say liberty? There are much lesser means that starting to mark muslims with crescent moons like limiting immigration or releasing them from certain obligations like we already have ended up training IS fighters through military conscription.
If one could reliably tell apart the more harmful muslims from the more harmful ones there wouldn't be this kind of problem in the first place."

Did I say you said liberty? It was obvious by it not being in quotes that it was my comment.

Limiting immigration based solely on religion, which would violate several UN Charters at which I believe your country is signatory on. the idea of a very small percent hold terrible ideology so we should limit them all, makes little sense. As long as you have a good vetting processes, America's vetting process is almost 2 years in general with exceptions for emergencies.


"Thats not a very desirable outcome for most europeans."
Not a desirable outcome for any decent human, regardless of where they are from.


"Well we could maybe cool it until their primary attack in Europe has commenced and burned out. The scale of the problem should be somewhat apparent at that point but then again it should have been after the rise of IS.
Though it could take them years more of preparation with us busting their supply caches and cells or who knows they could be ready by summer."

ISIL has around 100,000 members .. most of their concentration is in Iraq and Syria with some attacks on the West . though that is around 0.006% of all Muslims, and if you looked at the religion of peace website
www.thereligionofpeace.com/

most of their attacks kill primarily Muslims.

Though would I be surprised if ISIL tried to mount an attack in the West, no.. would I then blame all Muslims for it.. no

But okay As always, I will reply back when I see a comment.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-03-02 19:46:10 +0000 UTC]

Not a desirable outcome for any decent human, regardless of where they are from.

Then tell me; Why is it that only europeans are obliged to take this risk?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-03-02 21:46:33 +0000 UTC]

I assumed this was done since it has been almost two weeks since your comment, and since you spoke nothing in this comment about the sexual assault stats, I assume we can wrap this up in a day or two and it will not then go on and on for almost 3 weeks as the previous exchange before this comment.

"Then tell me; Why is it that only europeans are obliged to take this risk?"

"Only Europeans"
is a nonsense claim because that implies only Europe takes in immigrants from those country, which is not true at its face.

so your question is "Why is that only Europeans are obliged to take that risk"
When 1: no one said "Only" Europeans are obliged to take that risk - or have a sole obligation to bring in immigrants..
2: Europeans are not the only people taking in immigrants from those countries
3: There will never be a such thing as "zero risk" immigration, you can try to limit the risk by having a strict immigration policy - American immigration, outside of emergency (natural disasters, medical treatment, etc) and asylum, can take as long as two years.. European nations have a far shorter immigration policy, if they wanted one to mirrors America, that of course is up to them. You can point to no place at which I said I have an issue with that.

As always, I will reply back when I see it and hopefully this will wrap up soon... it has literally now bee going on for over a month.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-03-02 22:14:41 +0000 UTC]

Would you agree that it would be a OK for EU to take the same amount of muslim refugees per capita as the US average during the Obama administration?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-03-03 00:41:13 +0000 UTC]

"Would you agree that it would be a OK for EU to take the same amount of muslim refugees per capita as the US average during the Obama administration?"

The Short answer, I have no say in EU immigration policies,  do I think a population of over 500M should take in the same as a population of 300M with comparable economic structures, I would say no, I would expect the population of several hundred million more to take in more than the 300M one.. but that depends on their policy.

I would ask you ... why would a population of 508 million take in only around 20K Muslim refugees? .. the US takes in on average around 20K Muslim refugees of the on average 80-100K refugees we take it.. why would a population of over 500M .. take in only 20K.. GRANTED refugee visas it is based on necessity not simply their religion..  different than just general immigrant who is not coming for refugee status, of which many of them are also Muslim.



THE LONG ANSWER - - it would be disastrous to their and your economy if they took in similar rates to the US, speaking of refugees in general but immigrants as a whole which of course a refugee is a type of immigrant - -since many Immigrants coming into Europe and America are from the Middle East and Africa with high Islamic populations..

The EU as a whole? well they take in far more.. why would 28 countries  of the EU take in the same amount as a single country, America?...  but I do not dictate what the EU policy is, though it would seem odd that a population of over 500 million taking in the same amount as a country with 320 million..

The laws of European Union nations vary, some have a certain amount of Refugee visas as such have a certain amount of refugees that they will take annually, as such it would depend on the laws of the country, as well as how many the country can handle.. American takes in around 90-100K refugees a year, around 20K of those Muslim... for a population of 320 million that is not a great deal.. of course looking at the populations of some of your countries .. you would not take i 100K refugees if you have a population of only a few million.. your country would not be able to handle such an influx and would be detrimental to an economy that cannot rapidly increase and adapt.

Under Obama the US took in around 70-85K refugees .. in 2015 we only took in 70K.. the entire Europe took in 1.3 million refugees in 201
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/…
www.pewglobal.org/2016/08/02/n…



As to why your country takes it so many immigrants, if you look at Birth rates
www.independent.co.uk/news/wor…


Your country sees its lowest birth rate in almost 150 years, like many European countries when you exclude its immigrant populations have been seeing decreases in birth rates, so it is to their national benefit to have a new influx of citizens for both national and economic purposes. .. if they were to take in 1/10 of their current refugees of 2015, which saw 1.3 million refugees enter all of Europe in 2015 that would put them to American numbers..

This is from the Economist
www.economist.com/blogs/graphi…

The Guardian www.theguardian.com/world/2015…

Which speaks of why Europe as a whole takes  it more immigrants than most places.. due to its low birth rates they act as an equalizer to the economy to maintain a stable structure at which would decline if they were not there.

Which I doubt they will.. American birth rates are around 2 million a year, with an additional 1 million population increase for immigrants, refugees, asylum seeks etc.. but if those nations like yours with low birth rates greatly cut their immigrant intake.. I am unsure how that would bode in the long run for their economy which requires an influx of workers to continue to grow at the relative pace they are accustomed to.


It was impossible for me to keep this short, understanding aside from just the refugee, Muslim immigrants in general are a necessity to the economies of many European nations given the low birth rates of many of these countries.

I will try to keep it shorter next time but the comment or question of refugee and immigration is directly tied to economics.. a country that could not afford to take them in, would not do it.. Europe and the EU specifically are just in far better economic situations to handle such influx

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-03-03 01:15:33 +0000 UTC]

The Short answer, I have no say in EU immigration policies,  do I think a population of over 500M should take in the same as a population of 300M with comparable economic structures, I would say no, I would expect the population of several hundred million more to take in more than the 300M one.. but that depends on their policy.

I would ask you ... why would a population of 508 million take in only around 20K Muslim refugees? .. the US takes in on average around 20K Muslim refugees of the on average 80-100K refugees we take it.. why would a population of over 500M .. take in only 20K.. GRANTED refugee visas it is based on necessity not simply their religion..  different than just general immigrant who is not coming for refugee status, of which many of them are also Muslim.



THE LONG ANSWER - - it would be disastrous to their and your economy if they took in similar rates to the US, speaking of refugees in general but immigrants as a whole which of course a refugee is a type of immigrant - -since many Immigrants coming into Europe and America are from the Middle East and Africa with high Islamic populations.. 

The EU as a whole? well they take in far more.. why would 28 countries  of the EU take in the same amount as a single country, America?...  but I do not dictate what the EU policy is, though it would seem odd that a population of over 500 million taking in the same amount as a country with 320 million.. 

The laws of European Union nations vary, some have a certain amount of Refugee visas as such have a certain amount of refugees that they will take annually, as such it would depend on the laws of the country, as well as how many the country can handle.. American takes in around 90-100K refugees a year, around 20K of those Muslim... for a population of 320 million that is not a great deal.. of course looking at the populations of some of your countries .. you would not take i 100K refugees if you have a population of only a few million.. your country would not be able to handle such an influx and would be detrimental to an economy that cannot rapidly increase and adapt.

Under Obama the US took in around 70-85K refugees .. in 2015 we only took in 70K.. the entire Europe took in 1.3 million refugees in 201
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/…
www.pewglobal.org/2016/08/02/n…


What part of per capita did you not understand? Also out of those 70K in 2015 less than 30K were muslims.


As to why your country takes it so many immigrants, if you look at Birth rates
www.independent.co.uk/news/wor…


Your country sees its lowest birth rate in almost 150 years, like many European countries when you exclude its immigrant populations have been seeing decreases in birth rates, so it is to their national benefit to have a new influx of citizens for both national and economic purposes. .. if they were to take in 1/10 of their current refugees of 2015, which saw 1.3 million refugees enter all of Europe in 2015 that would put them to American numbers..

This is from the Economist
www.economist.com/blogs/graphi…

The Guardian www.theguardian.com/world/2015…

Which speaks of why Europe as a whole takes  it more immigrants than most places.. due to its low birth rates they act as an equalizer to the economy to maintain a stable structure at which would decline if they were not there. 

Which I doubt they will.. American birth rates are around 2 million a year, with an additional 1 million population increase for immigrants, refugees, asylum seeks etc.. but if those nations like yours with low birth rates greatly cut their immigrant intake.. I am unsure how that would bode in the long run for their economy which requires an influx of workers to continue to grow at the relative pace they are accustomed to.


It was impossible for me to keep this short, understanding aside from just the refugee, Muslim immigrants in general are a necessity to the economies of many European nations given the low birth rates of many of these countries. 

I will try to keep it shorter next time but the comment or question of refugee and immigration is directly tied to economics.. a country that could not afford to take them in, would not do it.. Europe and the EU specifically are just in far better economic situations to handle such influx 

Please do not insult my intelligence or try to explain to me our economical issues. For a example for every somali in the workforce we have 9.7 unemployed somalis. 

The refugees as a whole have De-Facto made the economical situation worse and there would plenty of people willing to come of ethnicities willing to contribute to the economy so cut the crap and answer the question. 

Why should EU take on a greater burden and risk than US (which actually had a hand in creating said crisis) or other countries for that matter.
Its not like Japan is getting any flak and Saudis are totally willing to trade with Myanmar.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-03-03 02:12:16 +0000 UTC]

As always, I will answer when I see.. and we shall see how long this will go on.. now going on for over a month.... so hopefully this will not be going on for another month, but that of course is up to you.

"What part of per capita did you not understand? Also out of those 70K in 2015 less than 30K were muslims."
Yes, I know you said per capita, and I said "no", then I went on to explain the no. If you took in the same per capita as America that would be just over 100K, the reason I said no since your question was do I think it would be okay if you did ... was your economics but also because I think this country, mine could do far more on that front... especially since it was our policy in many of these country that caused many of the issues.

Per your "less than 30K were Muslims" that was already said when I said 70K around 20K of those were Muslims..28K to be exact by that chart.

"Please do not insult my intelligence or try to explain to me our economical issues. For a example for every somali in the workforce we have 9.7 unemployed somalis. "

Does your government have that data? That says for every 1 Somali in your workforce, 9.7 are unemployed? If you can provide the data from your government which says this that would be great. I tried googling it and only found this from 2017
www.kvartti.fi/en/articles/imm…
Which said yes, the Somalia population has a high unemployment rate, for those there 15 years or more the employment rate is just over 31%, for newly arriving people, there 5 years or less, they only have an employment rate of around 11%

But if you could provide the for every 1 working, 9.7 is not, that would be appreciated. I ASSUME this is referring solely to working age, which your country has as 15-64. It could very well be true, I am just surprised it is that high so tried to look into it


"The refugees as a whole have De-Facto made the economical situation worse and there would plenty of people willing to come of ethnicities willing to contribute to the economy so cut the crap and answer the question. "
"cut the crap".. chest bumping bravado, interesting. anyway. your question has been answered, I said "no" then explained why I said no with respect to your country having wildly different immigration policies and economic needs comparative to America.. 

"Why should EU take on a greater burden and risk than US (which actually had a hand in creating said crisis) or other countries for that matter.
Its not like Japan is getting any flak and Saudis are totally willing to trade with Myanmar."

www.migrationpolicy.org/articl…
japan since mid 1990s have actually increased the number of immigrants that they take it, if you look prior to 1995 it was pretty much flatlined, after 1995 they begin taking in more.. due to their aging population, while yes, less than 2% of their population is foreign born, if you look at the number of immigrants

www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016…
in 2016, they saw a record high number of foreign residents with the one of the highest increases of people overstaying to are from Indonesia, which is a country that is nearly 90% Muslim...since your grand issue seems to be Muslim migrants specifically vs migrants in general.immigrants in general.

Trade of course is another matter than immigration...

Who said they "should"?

I said literally over a week ago in a comment that my country causes much of these issues, and Saudi Arabia, are we going to keep going in circles just to prolong this?

The EU and most European nations have far more lax refugee standards than the US, I already said both in my last comment and in a comment about 2 weeks ago that if they wanted to make their standards similar to America I would have no issue than that.

But I have no say in their laws, nor their economic interest
www.google.com/publicdata/expl…

That is the unemployment rate for the entire EU.. per their economies have gotten worse, since the massive influx of over a million refugees in 2015, their unemployment rates have steadily declined as it has been since 2013, right after the hardest parts of the European debt crisis.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Safor In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-03-05 18:19:49 +0000 UTC]

I said no since your question was do I think it would be okay if you did ... was your economics but also because I think this country, mine could do far more on that front... especially since it was our policy in many of these country that caused many of the issues.
 
and

I already said both in my last comment and in a comment about 2 weeks ago that if they wanted to make their standards similar to America I would have no issue than that.

Are mutually exclusive positions.
 
But if you could provide the for every 1 working, 9.7 is not, that would be appreciated. I ASSUME this is referring solely to working age, which your country has as 15-64. It could very well be true, I am just surprised it is that high so tried to look into it 

No its not that bad. Its the relative total number of people employed compared to the total number of people not in the workforce and/or unemployed.
For comparison the national average is 2.2 .

Merely increasing the number of the workforce (especially if poorly educated) does not increase the demand for workers.
Well expect for jobs designed for integrating these people but this is not by itself productive.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Safor [2018-03-06 02:24:05 +0000 UTC]

"Are mutually exclusive positions."
Actually they are not, one speaks of standards and one speaks of volume of intake.

You can have the same standards as far as how long your process takes, in America that process for immigration can take around two years... and yet have different numbers on how many immigrants you are willing to take after those standards are met.. European nations tend to have a higher amount of immigrants they will accept a year on their visa programs when compared to America.
 
So they are not mutually exclusive positions.

"No its not that bad. Its the relative total number of people employed compared to the total number of people not in the workforce and/or unemployed.
For comparison the national average is 2.2 ."

You literally said "for every somali in the workforce we have 9.7 unemployed somalis. "
.. so since you now say it is not that bad, I shall assume then there are no numbers that would back it up since as you just said, it is not that bad and thus move on.

"Merely increasing the number of the workforce (especially if poorly educated) does not increase the demand for workers.
Well expect for jobs designed for integrating these people but this is not by itself productive."

That would of course depending on the industry at which you are expecting them to start at, for blue collar jobs, your country ....well many European nation does a greater job at training workers without saddling them with debt as happens in America. As such if they take advantage of these programs and education system your country has then you could have a very vibrant constant influx of workforce.

Yes, low-skilled workers alone will not save your economic situation, thus a constant influx of these people without elevation would not maximize potential.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

godofwarlover In reply to ??? [2018-01-29 03:38:20 +0000 UTC]

Bad thing is people won't listen to this stamp

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to godofwarlover [2018-01-29 15:38:10 +0000 UTC]

Sad, but true.

I had a debate with a guy a few days ago who said "only a small percentage of them aren't terrorists". There are 1.8 billion Muslims on earth, if the vast majority of them, 1 billion + were terrorists in a world with 7 billion people.. we would already be screwed.  But he would not listen to reason. Oh well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

bobvlad In reply to AtheosEmanon [2021-12-29 05:35:45 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

godofwarlover In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-01-29 21:26:20 +0000 UTC]

People are stupid of course. They think the world is black and white, when it's usually grey

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to godofwarlover [2018-01-30 17:47:58 +0000 UTC]

agreed

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

bobvlad In reply to AtheosEmanon [2022-01-29 03:57:28 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

godofwarlover In reply to AtheosEmanon [2018-01-30 23:27:21 +0000 UTC]

Bad thing no one wants to see it that way

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Ringtailed-Loser In reply to ??? [2017-12-09 13:47:43 +0000 UTC]

I feel like some people completely ignored the message of the stamp and went straight for the "yeah, but".

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Ringtailed-Loser [2017-12-09 16:20:27 +0000 UTC]

I agree, as I said to someone else.. if 1.8 billion Muslims were all terrorists we would already be fucked... if even half of e 900M were we would be screwed.

.. and people also seem to forget that the vast majority of people killed by these Islamic terrorists are not Western folks or whatever but other Muslims.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Simpsonsfanatic33 In reply to ??? [2017-11-28 14:01:45 +0000 UTC]

I have a friend of mine at work and she is Muslim, but she is not a terrorist. She also has been battling cancer since 2004.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Simpsonsfanatic33 [2017-11-28 16:43:49 +0000 UTC]

:Thumbsup: hope she beats it.

I am an atheist, so in general not a fan of religion as a concept. But the whole automatic equation if you are a Muslim then OBVIOUSLY you must agree with Boko Harem, ISIL, Al Qaeda etc is just dumb.

Let us be honest, 1.6 billion Muslims on Earth, if every single one of em held that view we would be pretty fucked already.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bobvlad In reply to AtheosEmanon [2022-01-29 04:01:03 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SpicecreamSundae In reply to ??? [2017-11-03 03:38:22 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for this. I agree; of course Islam, or any religion, isn't always going to be radicalised.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

bobvlad In reply to SpicecreamSundae [2022-07-17 05:08:58 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bobvlad In reply to bobvlad [2022-07-17 05:10:47 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bobvlad In reply to bobvlad [2022-07-17 05:16:40 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

bobvlad In reply to bobvlad [2022-07-17 05:20:00 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bobvlad In reply to bobvlad [2022-07-17 05:18:52 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to SpicecreamSundae [2017-11-05 16:58:57 +0000 UTC]

fully agreed, glad you like it and thanks for the fave

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MegaAnimeFreak7 In reply to ??? [2017-08-18 04:45:37 +0000 UTC]

Ok, you're right. Most

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to MegaAnimeFreak7 [2017-08-20 16:46:02 +0000 UTC]

Most?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MegaAnimeFreak7 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-08-22 07:51:37 +0000 UTC]

Most Muslims do no commit atrocities. A small percentage are the ones committing the acts approved of in the Quran. But just because most aren't committing the crimes doesn't mean I agree with the religion that promotes it. The Radicals are getting their beliefs from somewhere, and it ain't the Bible. And before you bring Christianity into it, the Bible does not have most of its teachings preaching violence and the killing of infidels. That's what I meant by "most"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to MegaAnimeFreak7 [2017-08-22 21:01:15 +0000 UTC]

According to the bible, if one is to believe Sermon on the mount then the OT applies though the piece did not focus on Christianity, so unsure why you brought it up but.. okay...

Though for me, I see it as every religion has their season, Judaism had their grand fight over the faith around 2000 years ago.. Christianity had their grand battle over the direction of the faith around 1000 years ago.. and Islam seems to be having theirs now. how long will it take, no clue.. each of the previous ones took several centuries of fighting.. so to should this one on the scale I see it now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1