Veteran assaulted on way to Remebrance Ceremony
Discussion
Sway said:
You do realise that Israel has quite a few Arabs living there as citizens, with no apparent desire to 'repatriate' them?
Are you sure about that.Which just leaves the question of how to identify pro Israeli v anti Israeli Arabs and how do they trust and differentiate those who say they are pro Israeli when they are in fact anti.https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east...
That article doesn't reinforce your point.
He's calling for those Israeli Arabs who don't integrate to lose their citizenship, not expelling 20% of their population.
Allowing Israeli Arabs into the Israeli Army, or giving governmental posts to Israeli Arabs are hardly the actions of someone who wants to expel all Israeli Arabs.
Again, you're looking for ethnic reasons, not human ones. He's stating that those who put another nation above their own should be expelled, those who integrate are welcome...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaf_Massalha
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Societ...
He's calling for those Israeli Arabs who don't integrate to lose their citizenship, not expelling 20% of their population.
Allowing Israeli Arabs into the Israeli Army, or giving governmental posts to Israeli Arabs are hardly the actions of someone who wants to expel all Israeli Arabs.
Again, you're looking for ethnic reasons, not human ones. He's stating that those who put another nation above their own should be expelled, those who integrate are welcome...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaf_Massalha
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Societ...
Sway said:
That article doesn't reinforce your point.
He's calling for those Israeli Arabs who don't integrate to lose their citizenship, not expelling 20% of their population.
Allowing Israeli Arabs into the Israeli Army, or giving governmental posts to Israeli Arabs are hardly the actions of someone who wants to expel all Israeli Arabs.
Again, you're looking for ethnic reasons, not human ones. He's stating that those who put another nation above their own should be expelled, those who integrate are welcome...
Until the realisation dawns that they don't have the luxury of differentiating pro integrationist Israeli Arabs from anti Israeli Arabs.While the idea of such integration just defeats the object of the Jewish state anyway. He's calling for those Israeli Arabs who don't integrate to lose their citizenship, not expelling 20% of their population.
Allowing Israeli Arabs into the Israeli Army, or giving governmental posts to Israeli Arabs are hardly the actions of someone who wants to expel all Israeli Arabs.
Again, you're looking for ethnic reasons, not human ones. He's stating that those who put another nation above their own should be expelled, those who integrate are welcome...
Sway said:
Oh OK.
So you don't actually want to impose Israeli ideas here, but a non-existent Israeli model that happens to fit your views.
Makes sense.
No it is exactly the same discussion that is taking place there as it is here.That discussion simply being wether anyone thinks that different alien ethnic groups/cultures can be/should be integrated.As opposed to the idea of the seperate ethnic based nation state.Unfortunately the facts and history not being on the side of those who support the former ideology. So you don't actually want to impose Israeli ideas here, but a non-existent Israeli model that happens to fit your views.
Makes sense.
No it's not the same at all.
On the one hand, we have the Israeli's (and pretty much every other nation) who recognise that people do integrate in the vast majority of cases, and if so should be free to 'adopt' whichever country they wish to. Where people don't integrate, they should suffer the consequences (which typically would be repatriation (assuming they are citizens of another country, if not then the justice system is available).
On the other we have your view that regardless of actions, everyone of a different ethnicity should be kicked out tout suite.
If you can't see the difference then you're even more stupid than I thought.
On the one hand, we have the Israeli's (and pretty much every other nation) who recognise that people do integrate in the vast majority of cases, and if so should be free to 'adopt' whichever country they wish to. Where people don't integrate, they should suffer the consequences (which typically would be repatriation (assuming they are citizens of another country, if not then the justice system is available).
On the other we have your view that regardless of actions, everyone of a different ethnicity should be kicked out tout suite.
If you can't see the difference then you're even more stupid than I thought.
marked1 said:
Thought i was on the Daily Mail website for a second when i was reading through some of these posts.
May well be that some folk are getting more than a little fed up of being told what to think. The same folk are perhaps fed up of being labelled as racist for suggesting that the leeway being given to a certain type of religious follower has been taken for granted and said religious follower has been taking the Michael for too long. Happen the same folk who are getting fed up are also fed up of being labelled as racist for expressing any sensible concerns about the way things are going.Just a thought. Not particularly aimed at you but your post is a good enough one to reply to on the subject.
gpo746 said:
marked1 said:
Thought i was on the Daily Mail website for a second when i was reading through some of these posts.
May well be that some folk are getting more than a little fed up of being told what to think. The same folk are perhaps fed up of being labelled as racist for suggesting that the leeway being given to a certain type of religious follower has been taken for granted and said religious follower has been taking the Michael for too long. Happen the same folk who are getting fed up are also fed up of being labelled as racist for expressing any sensible concerns about the way things are going.Just a thought. Not particularly aimed at you but your post is a good enough one to reply to on the subject.
gpo746 said:
May well be that some folk are getting more than a little fed up of being told what to think. The same folk are perhaps fed up of being labelled as racist for suggesting that the leeway being given to a certain type of religious follower has been taken for granted and said religious follower has been taking the Michael for too long. Happen the same folk who are getting fed up are also fed up of being labelled as racist for expressing any sensible concerns about the way things are going.
Just a thought. Not particularly aimed at you but your post is a good enough one to reply to on the subject.
The EDL/BNP/Britain first/XJflyer mob have hijacked the discussion to the point that no sensible argument can be had (repatriate all immigrants FFS). Just a thought. Not particularly aimed at you but your post is a good enough one to reply to on the subject.
Of course it isn't racist to have concerns about Islamic extremism etc, but you find yourself on the same side of the argument as people like the above who do have a more racist motivation and get labelled as such.
I guess secular Muslims must get fed up of being labelled in a similar fashion.
Paul671 said:
The EDL/BNP/Britain first/XJflyer mob have hijacked the discussion to the point that no sensible argument can be had (repatriate all immigrants FFS).
Of course it isn't racist to have concerns about Islamic extremism etc, but you find yourself on the same side of the argument as people like the above who do have a more racist motivation and get labelled as such.
I guess secular Muslims must get fed up of being labelled in a similar fashion.
Exactly this. Of course it isn't racist to have concerns about Islamic extremism etc, but you find yourself on the same side of the argument as people like the above who do have a more racist motivation and get labelled as such.
I guess secular Muslims must get fed up of being labelled in a similar fashion.
Nothing wrong with questioning extremism and a lack of integration. Or indeed restricting entry to the UK.
Sway said:
No it's not the same at all.
On the one hand, we have the Israeli's (and pretty much every other nation) who recognise that people do integrate in the vast majority of cases, and if so should be free to 'adopt' whichever country they wish to. Where people don't integrate, they should suffer the consequences (which typically would be repatriation (assuming they are citizens of another country, if not then the justice system is available).
On the other we have your view that regardless of actions, everyone of a different ethnicity should be kicked out tout suite.
If you can't see the difference then you're even more stupid than I thought.
You really are deluding yourself if you don't think that the idea of large scale ethnic integration,as opposed to the idea of the seperate ethnic nation state,is an ongoing issue worldwide and in which the jury is still out.With the example of Israel being just about one of the worst examples you could have possibly chosen to back your argument in that regard.On the one hand, we have the Israeli's (and pretty much every other nation) who recognise that people do integrate in the vast majority of cases, and if so should be free to 'adopt' whichever country they wish to. Where people don't integrate, they should suffer the consequences (which typically would be repatriation (assuming they are citizens of another country, if not then the justice system is available).
On the other we have your view that regardless of actions, everyone of a different ethnicity should be kicked out tout suite.
If you can't see the difference then you're even more stupid than I thought.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/isra...
Paul671 said:
gpo746 said:
May well be that some folk are getting more than a little fed up of being told what to think. The same folk are perhaps fed up of being labelled as racist for suggesting that the leeway being given to a certain type of religious follower has been taken for granted and said religious follower has been taking the Michael for too long. Happen the same folk who are getting fed up are also fed up of being labelled as racist for expressing any sensible concerns about the way things are going.
Just a thought. Not particularly aimed at you but your post is a good enough one to reply to on the subject.
The EDL/BNP/Britain first/XJflyer mob have hijacked the discussion to the point that no sensible argument can be had (repatriate all immigrants FFS). Just a thought. Not particularly aimed at you but your post is a good enough one to reply to on the subject.
Sway said:
Paul671 said:
The EDL/BNP/Britain first/XJflyer mob have hijacked the discussion to the point that no sensible argument can be had (repatriate all immigrants FFS).
Of course it isn't racist to have concerns about Islamic extremism etc, but you find yourself on the same side of the argument as people like the above who do have a more racist motivation and get labelled as such.
I guess secular Muslims must get fed up of being labelled in a similar fashion.
Exactly this. Of course it isn't racist to have concerns about Islamic extremism etc, but you find yourself on the same side of the argument as people like the above who do have a more racist motivation and get labelled as such.
I guess secular Muslims must get fed up of being labelled in a similar fashion.
Nothing wrong with questioning extremism and a lack of integration. Or indeed restricting entry to the UK.
In which case London and the South East and Midlands and parts of the North will obviously be subject to a major reduction in the immigrant population levels with a corresponding increase in areas like Wales,Cumbria,Northumbria and Scotland etc.
Together with rationing all further immigration quotas to guarantee an indigenous majority population nationally.I doubt it being that the socialist agenda is all about creating an unrepresentative reverse racist component within the government by way of artificial local/national ethnic immigrant populations and majorities..
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 15th November 23:14
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 15th November 23:21
Sway said:
You chose the Israelis as a model - I just showed you that they don't follow it.
As for your link, again, there's nothing there showing that Arabs aren't integrating. Just that another lot of extremists are seeking to prevent them from doing so.
No it is just that those with a socialist integrationist agenda view anyone who opposes their ideology of social engineering as an extremist/racist.The fact that the policy was actually adopted by the Israeli government ( not surprising considering the idea of ethnic Arab integration defeats the object of the Jewish nation state ) seems to have been over looked in your typically biased view. As for your link, again, there's nothing there showing that Arabs aren't integrating. Just that another lot of extremists are seeking to prevent them from doing so.
Fair question.
I don't necessarily agree with the creation of 'enclaves' - I don't feel they assist integration, and can support the retention of anachronistic behaviours and beliefs.
However, I don't feel that an arbitrary % based on national averages is necessary either. What difference does a couple of percent make? There's also the increased likelihood of 'local' extremism (which is one of the reasons why these 'enclaves' have formed over centuries).
IMO, for those already citizens, then I think two things are key.
Firstly, changes to the education system so that children are educated to the values of the nation, not those of a non-integrated teaching staff. That would also apply to the abolition of all faith schools (including Christian). Just because people's parents believe in medieval practices doesn't mean their children are lost, whether it be bigging up Genesis over Evolution or subjugation of women. Science, respect and openness are things that children pick up very quickly, if these backwards beliefs are challenged with logic and reasoning.
Second, an attempt to engage and enfranchise those 'enclaves', not through pandering to them, but by demonstrating the benefits of adopting 'our' values, and proving that the British are not to be feared. The fact that most of them are impoverished, and lack inward investment leads to disillusionment and a withdrawal from mainstream society.
It's worked in the past.
As for new immigration, I think that we firstly need to try and define our nations values effectively, and set criteria for entry. These MUST include a decent level of ability in English. A demonstrated lack of racism and misogyny. A demonstrated ability to support themselves. Plus a level of respect for those values.
We need to recognise that we are a great country - one that many millions (in fact, probably billions) of people wish to live in, for the opportunities they bring. So, like America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we should use that to our advantage. Decide upon the appropriate level of immigration per year (to prevent pressures on services and permit an improved ability to educate and integrate into our society), then have a truly meritocratic approach to decided who does get the ability to initially reside, then become citizens of this fair Isle. Knowledge, skills, money are all valid measures, as long as the values test has been passed.
There have been plenty of periods where such an approach (whether intended or not) have led to immigrants assisting 'natives' in improving this country. Every time, it's been because the numbers were supportable, the quality of the individuals was high, and they shared sufficient values meant the potential (and as we've seen when these things haven't happened) antagonistic downsides have not occurred.
Apologies for the long post. I felt however in the interests of debate that it was worth spending a little time explaining my views fully, in light of a question well asked.
I don't necessarily agree with the creation of 'enclaves' - I don't feel they assist integration, and can support the retention of anachronistic behaviours and beliefs.
However, I don't feel that an arbitrary % based on national averages is necessary either. What difference does a couple of percent make? There's also the increased likelihood of 'local' extremism (which is one of the reasons why these 'enclaves' have formed over centuries).
IMO, for those already citizens, then I think two things are key.
Firstly, changes to the education system so that children are educated to the values of the nation, not those of a non-integrated teaching staff. That would also apply to the abolition of all faith schools (including Christian). Just because people's parents believe in medieval practices doesn't mean their children are lost, whether it be bigging up Genesis over Evolution or subjugation of women. Science, respect and openness are things that children pick up very quickly, if these backwards beliefs are challenged with logic and reasoning.
Second, an attempt to engage and enfranchise those 'enclaves', not through pandering to them, but by demonstrating the benefits of adopting 'our' values, and proving that the British are not to be feared. The fact that most of them are impoverished, and lack inward investment leads to disillusionment and a withdrawal from mainstream society.
It's worked in the past.
As for new immigration, I think that we firstly need to try and define our nations values effectively, and set criteria for entry. These MUST include a decent level of ability in English. A demonstrated lack of racism and misogyny. A demonstrated ability to support themselves. Plus a level of respect for those values.
We need to recognise that we are a great country - one that many millions (in fact, probably billions) of people wish to live in, for the opportunities they bring. So, like America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we should use that to our advantage. Decide upon the appropriate level of immigration per year (to prevent pressures on services and permit an improved ability to educate and integrate into our society), then have a truly meritocratic approach to decided who does get the ability to initially reside, then become citizens of this fair Isle. Knowledge, skills, money are all valid measures, as long as the values test has been passed.
There have been plenty of periods where such an approach (whether intended or not) have led to immigrants assisting 'natives' in improving this country. Every time, it's been because the numbers were supportable, the quality of the individuals was high, and they shared sufficient values meant the potential (and as we've seen when these things haven't happened) antagonistic downsides have not occurred.
Apologies for the long post. I felt however in the interests of debate that it was worth spending a little time explaining my views fully, in light of a question well asked.
XJ Flyer said:
Sway said:
You chose the Israelis as a model - I just showed you that they don't follow it.
As for your link, again, there's nothing there showing that Arabs aren't integrating. Just that another lot of extremists are seeking to prevent them from doing so.
No it is just that those with a socialist integrationist agenda view anyone who opposes their ideology of social engineering as an extremist/racist.The fact that the policy was actually adopted by the Israeli government ( not surprising considering the idea of ethnic Arab integration defeats the object of the Jewish nation state ) seems to have been over looked in your typically biased view. As for your link, again, there's nothing there showing that Arabs aren't integrating. Just that another lot of extremists are seeking to prevent them from doing so.
The far right in Israel have gained strength recently. Plenty of Jews see them as extremists. Why have they gained strength? I wouldn't claim to fully know - however they are under a huge amount of external pressure. Their policy of collective punishment is not going down well with anyone who respects humans as equals.
When under pressure, people tend to become more extreme in their views. Perhaps that's one reason.
If I may, I don't want to derail this thread further with talk of Israel. For one it's separate to the debate about the UK situation. I only mentioned Israel as a counterpoint to your mentions of adopting their approaches.
Guys guys,
I think we should all be careful about trying to get some common sense into the discussion. After all, the "I'm not a racist, but I tar all people of a group who are different than me with the same brush [especially those pesky Muslims]" brigade will soon be calling you a terrorist apologist (as if sticking up for Muslims = terrorist) and reporting you as per http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30052211
Just keep quiet (and you'll be ok...)
Oh and the very people who I speak about will no doubt chime in "I can't be racist against Muslims because Islam isn't a race duuhh! [phew saved that one]"
We want a grown up discussion they say - about time they start having a grown up discussion rather than (conveniently) hiding behind the "reverse racism card." Like the example of that roofer on here who said that he would refuse to have a Muslim as a customer and with some of the usual suspects sticking up for him - like others have said extremists on both sides and the two groups have more in common with each other than they do with (thankfully) the rest of "British society." There's scumbags in all walks of life - you can't have a grown up discussion with terrorists hell-bent on destroying the "Western way of life" and neither can you with some of the people we have frequenting these very boards. The people in the middle have to lead with this even if they are called "tree loving hippies/apologists etc..."
I think we should all be careful about trying to get some common sense into the discussion. After all, the "I'm not a racist, but I tar all people of a group who are different than me with the same brush [especially those pesky Muslims]" brigade will soon be calling you a terrorist apologist (as if sticking up for Muslims = terrorist) and reporting you as per http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30052211
Just keep quiet (and you'll be ok...)
Oh and the very people who I speak about will no doubt chime in "I can't be racist against Muslims because Islam isn't a race duuhh! [phew saved that one]"
We want a grown up discussion they say - about time they start having a grown up discussion rather than (conveniently) hiding behind the "reverse racism card." Like the example of that roofer on here who said that he would refuse to have a Muslim as a customer and with some of the usual suspects sticking up for him - like others have said extremists on both sides and the two groups have more in common with each other than they do with (thankfully) the rest of "British society." There's scumbags in all walks of life - you can't have a grown up discussion with terrorists hell-bent on destroying the "Western way of life" and neither can you with some of the people we have frequenting these very boards. The people in the middle have to lead with this even if they are called "tree loving hippies/apologists etc..."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff