• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mr Cameron: do we really want Turkey in the EU?

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In light of Cameron's recent breathtakingly butt-kissing speech in Turkey... it's time to ask some serious questions.
The below excerpt using a quote by Belgium's Van Rompuy from a few years previous.

Mr Cameron: do we really want Turkey in the EU?
Van Rompuy is right: Turkey is not, and will Never be, a part of Europe
By William Oddie // 28 July 2010
 
Last edited:
I think we've had this before.

But it's still nice to see our new fuhrer van Rumpey speak out against it.

After all, a gateway to the Muslim world is also a gateway from it. And we've got enough cultural clashes, ethnic tension and unemployment as it is without amplifying the problems.


Perhaps Rumpey can make a condition of entry: When every single EU nation manages to persuade its existing Muslim communities to banish each and every terrorist extremist from their midst, plus refusing their every petulant demand for special toilets or tailor-made tv scripts or legal systems, can we then even discuss Turkey's entry.
 
Last edited:
"Tabii ki Türkiye.”????
Reminiscent of Kennedy in Berlin 50 Years ago.. "Ich bin Ein Berliner."
Except.....


Worse Mistake in Cameron’s “Prison Camp” Speech
A Worse Mistake in Cameron
July 27th, 2010 pm David Frum

 
Last edited:

I think you don't understand whay he means with there is no islamic terror, doesn't necessarily means there is no terror. He doesn't regard Taleban terrorism as Islamic terrorism because of his ideology that Islam is peace.

He also says:
"We have to fully understand and analyse the terrorist who is a citizen in our country and the terrorist who is in another country. Because terrorism does not recognise borders, has no religion or creed, one cannot approach the problem by saying my terrorist is fine and yours is not,"
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/world/10884458.asp

It is not the first time I hear there is no Islamic terror on Turkish TV. Religion and terrorism are different concept.
 
Last edited:
Turkey will never be part of Europe, historically, geographically, culturally, and politically. When people think of Turkey, they think "Oh, the Middle East!" They don't think "Oh, Europe!"
 
If it pisses off the other European countries. Hell yes.

Europe wanted closer integration and interest from UK about the EU, well they're getting it.
Go Turkey! eace
 
He doesn't regard Taleban terrorism as Islamic terrorism because of his ideology that Islam is peace.
Click to expand...

Another reason to keep Turkey out. If their politicians live in deluded denial (or even wilful denial) then Turkey would surely represent a constant terror risk. And with the Americans already considering our capital to be Londonistan, the prospect of hordes more Muslims roaming loose around the city without need for visas can only make them even more jittery.

But I suppose that would make Cameron even more determined to bring Turkey in - continuing to stack our nation's destiny on the discredited 'Religion of Peace' and 'multicultural' theories for political ends is just the kind of shameful, toxic and downright deceptive ivory-tower ploy he's used to playing!
 
Last edited:
What is the use of EU.

They are not Politic power. They can't set their economic policies.

As to the future prospection of Eu. Do you think the aging demografic of the land be promising compared to the emerging market of the earth?

Turkeys entry to EU is not reasonable. It would be self destruction for Turkey.
 

It doesn't necessarily means that Erdoğan and Turkish policy doesn't regard Taleban as terroris organization. Every body in Turkey probably know their atack in Istanbul. You should not narrow your perspective with religion, everything is not religious issue.
 

Quite right. Did we refer to the IRA as 'Catholic terrorists'? Did we then tar all Catholics as following a religion of hate? Of course we didn't.
 
Andalublue said:
Quite right. Did we refer to the IRA as 'Catholic terrorists'? Did we then tar all Catholics as following a religion of hate? Of course we didn't.
Click to expand...

I have impression that, religion is too powerfull in western europea. They tempt to define anything with religion. There is islamic natiıon and christian nation in this narrow mindset.
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
Quite right. Did we refer to the IRA as 'Catholic terrorists'? Did we then tar all Catholics as following a religion of hate? Of course we didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think William of Orange even used harsher terms when he created the injustice that's still causing problems today. Over the course the conflict itself has become the center of attention but it used to be ethnicity and religion.
 
You should not narrow your perspective with religion, everything is not religious issue.
Click to expand...

No, but religion (a specific one we all know) has been thrust bang in the spotlight these past few years, with people on all sides struggling to comprehend its scale.



Put it this way, will Turkey's entry into the EU make your newspaper a better read, you car a cheaper drive or your beer taste better?

Will it improve the Pound in your pocket or the quality of the programmes on television or the performances of theatre actors?

Will it make your job safer?
 
Last edited:

Well, Cameron, I don't understand why you think I favour EU membership, which would have not worth of economic benefit, plut will have many adverse effect, on Turkish economy. You probably guessed that I do. Please read my post #10. I don't want my child to pay tax for aging European population and unproductive EU economy and system neither want to share my resources, interest in Caucasia and Mideast.

Why Turkey should be in EU?

It is nothing to do with cultural issues. Thats all politic and economic. EU is politic issue.

I have many atheist friends, I have never judge them according to their belieft. Their being religious people don't make much things. People should not be judged according to their religion. Why religion is much important? Religion is private issue, and should be private between God and individual. It is like interfering with sexual relationships between wife and husband.

I don't understand what "thrust bang in the spotlight" means, excuse my english.
 
Last edited:
Nice little debate. Just a few loose ends to tie.



Did we then tar all Catholics as following a religion of hate? Of course we didn't.
Click to expand...

There's a fundamental difference between the motivation of Islam and the motivation of Christianity, though both have seen violence and suffering imposed for them. I've gone into it many times, with plenty of links, though to recap Islam was established as a creed of war with no mention of love in its 'quick installation' manual the Koran.


I don't understand why you think I favour EU membership.
Click to expand...

I don't. That question was purely rhetorical.


I don't understand what "thrust bang in the spotlight" means, excuse my english.
Click to expand...

It means being the centre of attention and not surprising. It seemed like, before September 11, we were blissfully ignorant of fundamentalist Islam, particularly the Whabbyist sect. Now it's out in the open where we can all learn from it.
 

Violance and suffering is result of motivations of teocratic leaders, not actually the motivations of Islam and Christianity. I am interested in Islam as being a muslim. I don't know much thing about Christianity but I think they are peacefull religion. The fact that first muslims were persecuted, and they had to defend themshelf doesn't make Islam deprived of no mention of love. There are times peacefull people have to fight too.

I am trying to understand what is the difference calling IRA Catholic terrorism and calling taleban Islamic terrorism.

The problem is not the religion itshelf, the problem is in what politic purpose you use it. There are many fool of many religion eager to be deceived, because they pray their religion not to God.


Republic_Of_Public said:
I don't. That question was purely rhetorical.
Click to expand...


I think that was surelly fair question.

Republic_Of_Public said:
It means being the centre of attention and not surprising. It seemed like, before September 11, we were blissfully ignorant of fundamentalist Islam, particularly the Whabbyist sect. Now it's out in the open where we can all learn from it.
Click to expand...
 
I am trying to understand what is the difference calling IRA Catholic terrorism and calling taleban Islamic terrorism.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ was, as far as we know, a non-violent prophet whose religion has undergone many reformations to evolve into a fully benign and beneficial cultural experience, based on the goodness of man. Islam was a religion built for conquest, with any exhortations to goodness valid only between Muslims or cancelled by abrogation.

Both religions have had suffering perpetuated in its name since their founding, as well as the fact both religions took in war as a fact of early life. But Islam also is supposed to stand unchanged for all time, its crude calls to bloody and violent supremacism and genocide still as valid now as they ever were.

Hence the fact that Islamic terrorism is religious in nature whilst IRA terrorism was perpetuated to blast the British from Irish soil. You never heard the IRA shouting for death for Christ whenever they bombed Harrods or Canary Wharf!





The fact that first muslims were persecuted, and they had to defend themshelf doesn't make Islam deprived of no mention of love.
Click to expand...

You don't mean the bit where Muhammad was kicked out of Mecca for trying to force his new religion onto people, retreated to Medina to build up a following ostensibly based on peace before returning to Mecca to sack it in revenge - to the extent of murder, pillage and having one female community leader pulled apart live between two camels?!

Not the same Islam whose holy Koran orders Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (9:123), slay them (9:5), fight with them (8:65 ), strive against them with great endeavour (25:52), be stern with them because they belong to hell (66:9) and strike off their heads; then after making a "wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives" for ransom (47:4)?

(Though I wouldn't be surprised if the 'holohoaxers' at WH Smith purged all that from their versions of the book!)


I still can't find any equivilent of 'love thy neighbour', or 'Lord forgive them for they know not what they do' though. I'd love to be proved wrong on this point.
 
Last edited:

You fight with them when they are your enemy, you stop fight when they stop being enemy. Do you have other choice when diplomacy is fruitless?


The disbelievers. Disbelievers necessarily all around the world? The Disbeliever who atack you?

the ones above are fair question to think on.
If ones don't defend yourshelf in war, It doesn't make one peacefull, It does make one fool. Kuran regulated when to fight which is aproveable aproach. You are not allowed to fight with people who are in peace with you.

Republic_Of_Public said:
(Though I wouldn't be surprised if the 'holohoaxers' at WH Smith purged all that from their versions of the book!)
Click to expand...

Why?


Republic_Of_Public said:
I still can't find any equivilent of 'love thy neighbour', or 'Lord forgive them for they know not what they do' though. I'd love to be proved wrong on this point.
Click to expand...

You say you can't find which is probably result of searching. Can I get it as you have read the book?
I can find when I seek for it.


I can't find when I don't.
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
Jesus Christ was, as far as we know, a non-violent prophet whose religion has undergone many reformations to evolve into a fully benign and beneficial cultural experience, based on the goodness of man.
Click to expand...

What is the sense in comparing Islam and Christianity?

Republic_Of_Public said:
Islam was a religion built for conquest, with any exhortations to goodness valid only between Muslims or cancelled by abrogation.
Click to expand...

So there should be some orders to destroy existing peace in the holly source of the religion. Goodness is not limited between Muslims It is unmeaningfull.


Teocratic rules don't have to be fit well with the religion. It is matter of satisfieing earthly matters. You can know who has money as well as who has faith. Religious influence and money are both investment in one sense.
 
Still thinking on why we are talking about religion while the topic is EU membership.
 
You asked me a question of religion, so I answered.


I think a little taqiyya may be at work here, but that could just be my sceptical mind. However, there is some fodder for debate.


First off, Islam's always at war. And despite the many atrocity stories, Muslims always tell us it was always somebody else to blame for any fighting. Just as I suppose it was someone else's fault that the Moors came to Spain or that Islamic armies only reached Vienna during the 17th century.

Muhammad the gang leader needed some pretext to justify his violence and playing victim was always the most expedient: Muhammad: The Jihad Begins

Europeans had to have the Crusades to push the Islamics back: Violence in the Koran


Muslims are not these defenceless people always at the mercy of absolutely everyone else in the world. Muslims have always been more than capable of slugging for themselves, their prophet being the guiding light.




And that's love is it? Assuaging guilt more like it.



Goodness is not limited between Muslims It is unmeaningfull.
Click to expand...

If you're trying to say that goodness should be shown to everyone then I agree, but what I said is how things stand in Islam. Hence the whole concept of taqiyya and Muhammad telling his followers that Muslims must never believe any infidel (3:73), that disbelievers all hate the Muslims (3:118), that peaceful Muslims wiill go to hell (2:193, 2:206, 2:216), all non-Muslims are criminals (5:45) all disbelievers of other religions are evil (5:59), that disbelievers are hated by Allah and will suffer eternal fire (take your pick) or that Muslims have unlimited licence to kill infidels (4:101).

This is more than just retaliating against bullying. It's a blank cheque to do as you will, other than against other Muslims
http://www.bigpicweblog.com/exp/ind..._that_to_kill_one_man_is_to_kill_all_mankind/


The full list seems endless.
 
Last edited:
Djoop said:
Yes, I think William of Orange even used harsher terms when he created the injustice that's still causing problems today. Over the course the conflict itself has become the center of attention but it used to be ethnicity and religion.
Click to expand...

That's going back a bit beyond The Troubles, but you have a point. However, the Glorious Revolution was about religion, not ethnicity. It was also about dynastic struggles between rival members of the House of Stuart. The Irish campaigns of 1689-1692 were a manipulation of ethnic tensions towards a dynastic and religious end. King James was not Irish and yet his followers there were. They supported him because he was Catholic, no ethnicity involved in that allegiance. King William was Dutch, yet his supporters were English, Scottish and Irish protestants, so no ethnic element there either. That there was ethnic tensions between the non-Irish settlers and the Celtic Irish is certain, yet was not the cause of the conflict, nor even its engine. That was religion and dynastic pretensions.
 

Ok, you clearly know more about this than me
I always thought that the conflict, in part, was due to the ´colonisation´ of Ireland by the British. I saw this docu about the great famine in the 19th century the other day and I wouldn´t want to blame that on religion.
 

Ah, well that dates back significantly further. English colonisation of Ireland dates back to 1155 when the Pope granted Henry II of England overlordship of Ireland. As they has done a century earlier in England, Norman barons then took feudal possession of various lands by force of arms. Thereafter colonisation from England and Scotland took place in several waves. The Scots, by the way, were not exactly colonising, more re-colonising, as they had been Irish themselves originally before the Irish colonisation of west and south west Scotland in the 8th and 9th centuries.

Many of those who supported King James in the 17th century were descendants of Normans, Vikings and Celts. The common factor in their support of him was religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…