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

[Djoop]

Apologies, to be precise I should have said "Every religion which I've looked into". I'm woefully ignorant of Hinduism, and though I'd quite like to become less so, now isn't the time.

Taoism?

Though I could have expanded that into "...and many Big Ideas I've come across, too". Evolution, secularism, communism, capitalism... all of those have had atrocities committed under their respective names, or been linked to them.

Yes, and every time there was a need to combat these crimes, not the -ism itself persé, but the atrocities committed in its name need to be adressed and need not be relativised by the crimes of others.

Hitler was a vegetarian.

Not out of conviction but hey I eat meat out of principle ;-)

The crusades. Northern Ireland. AIDS in Africa. The Spanish Inquisition.

Northern Ireland, AIDS in Africa? The other two kind of prove my point, we need to make sure they don't happen again, not by christianity or by any other religion.

I agree, less atrocities would be nice - that's blatantly a truism. But don't make the mistake of tarring a group with the steriotype perpetuated by extremists.

O I never. When I speak about atrocities committed in teh name of Islam I'm not stereotyping, I hope muslims will voice their outrage about these events and I know many who do. Unfortunately, some of the posters on these boards are more worried about me tarring a certain group instead of being worried about these atrocities.

I'm sorry for the bad english, t's late and I drank too much vino.

 

[iangb]

O I never. When I speak about atrocities committed in teh name of Islam I'm not stereotyping, I hope muslims will voice their outrage about these events and I know many who do. Unfortunately, some of the posters on these boards are more worried about me tarring a certain group instead of being worried about these atrocities.

I'm sorry for the bad english, t's late and I drank too much vino.

I'm worrying about people who say that one of the larger religions in the world is inherantly violent, when this patently isn't the case. As for using Islam as an excuse - that doesn't sit well with me, either. I haven't seen people doing that, though.

 

[paris]

but according to the dictates of basic grammar, your statement "people from MI6 who have been involved in Peace talks around the world including the ME"

would indicate that "ME" was a noun included in the closest preceding noun "world" ... hence suggesting a geographical area for instance the Middle East.

Now, according to the dictates of basic psychology, your error suggests that YOU as a person have some serious issues which would explain your usual behavior consisting of attacking individuals

 

[Gardener]

would indicate that "ME" was a noun included in the closest preceding noun "world" ... hence suggesting a geographical area for instance the Middle East.

Now, according to the dictates of basic psychology, your error suggests that YOU as a person have some serious issues which would explain your usual behavior consisting of attacking individuals

I see you have somehow missed most of the postings of the person to whom I was responding. Why you would support all of her hypocritical, sanctimonious name calling is beyond me.


I guess it's o.k. for her to indulge in personal attack after personal attack, isn't it?

 

[alexa]

Taoism?

The comparisons in this thread to Islam made by both Andalublue and myself have been between Islam, Christianity and Judaism. If anyone went though there religious material they could come out sprouting hatred and ad nausium just like Rop.

Further unfortunately all religions can be used for sectarian violence. Look how some buddhists in Sri Lanka have used Buddhism and indeed the Buddha himself, apparently giving legitimacy to Sri Lanka being Buddhist and allowing Buddhists to act in the least Buddhist way. The Buddha's hair would indeed be standing on end.

You also fail to look at the politics and the involvement of Western Governments in this whole shambles. This allows you to refrain from getting any proper picture of what is going on and choose a minority to discriminate against.

 

[alexa]

I see you have somehow missed most of the postings of the person to whom I was responding. Why you would support all of her hypocritical, sanctimonious name calling is beyond me.


I guess it's o.k. for her to indulge in personal attack after personal attack, isn't it?

I do not follow you round Gardiner with a notebook of insults to put in after your ever post. 9 times out of ten I make a point of skimming past your posts and ignoring them.

This time I chose to call you to account for it.

 

[Djoop]

The comparisons in this thread to Islam made by both Andalublue and myself have been between Islam, Christianity and Judaism. If anyone went though there religious material they could come out sprouting hatred and ad nausium just like Rop.

Well I agree that we can find hatred in the scripture of all abrahamic faiths, you keep forgetting I'm quite critical of religion and it's influence in the political arena. However, I can't find the hatred in Rops posts and I happen to share some of his criticism. That said, I don't read all his posts because half of it is in bold, I'm not particularly fond of his style.

Further unfortunately all religions can be used for sectarian violence. Look how some buddhists in Sri Lanka have used Buddhism and indeed the Buddha himself, apparently giving legitimacy to Sri Lanka being Buddhist and allowing Buddhists to act in the least Buddhist way. The Buddha's hair would indeed be standing on end.

Again I agree with this viewpoint but I believe it's necessary to point out the violence. Christianity and Islam are closer to home and a bigger threat to me personally, once buddhists start threatening and murdering people I care about (like Theo van Gogh) you can expect me to be more vocal about them.

You also fail to look at the politics and the involvement of Western Governments in this whole shambles. This allows you to refrain from getting any proper picture of what is going on and choose a minority to discriminate against.

You wouldn't know because you never asked me my opinion about western involvement, if you would, you would find I'm not an absolutist, I can be critical of both. Critisizing one doesn't mean I support the other. I never discriminate, I challenge you to find one example, I'll wait...

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

If anyone went though there religious material they could come out sprouting hatred and ad nausium just like Rop.

Deliberately confusing exposure of hatred with promoting it is the self same mindset which allowed Adolf Hitler to rampage across central Europe until Chamberlain and Deladier finally found some courage to stand up to him.

And it's also typical of a woman who tried her hardest to deny that murderous communist dictatorships have anything to do with the parties from which they sprouted, then called me names for not agreeing with her.

 

[Andalublue]

Deliberately confusing exposure of hatred with promoting it is the self same mindset which allowed Adolf Hitler to rampage across central Europe until Chamberlain and Deladier finally found some courage to stand up to him.

You confront extreme Islamist hatred with Islamophobic hatred. You use the same bigotry and hyperbole as the Mullahs; your approach is the mirror image of theirs. The only outcome of such a confrontation is the perpetuation of hatred.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

No I don't as well you know; or if you do you sit on it to lengthen the arguing.

If I do strongly dislike anything to do with Muslims, I show my distaste principly towards Islam itself, Islamic extremists, terrorists and supremacists as well as the politically correct Left who insist on pandering to most of these.

And also as well you know, genuinely peaceful Muslims I leave alone, barring wanting them to confront certain issues (like wondering why they don't publicly run the extremists out of their communities if they also hate them so much).

If this doesn't register now I can say it again another time. Slowly slowly, 'til it goes in.

 

[Andalublue]

No I don't as well you know; or if you do you sit on it to lengthen the arguing.

If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't say it. Your posting history shows that you are undiscriminating in your hostility to all things Islamic. If you want people to believe otherwise, how about initiating a forum-wide round of praise for this initiative, without any snide caveats or transparent scepticism...
BBC News - Muslim group Minhaj ul-Quran runs 'anti-terrorism' camp

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

It's a good idea. It'll be an uphill struggle as it goes against the grain of many of the surahs, but I do applaud it. Nothing to lose, all to gain and it gives moderates something substantial if they choose to personally disavow extremism.

Like the Muslim Women Against Sharia group and the like, they're moderates to be backed if we want to see extremists banished and by extension Islam tamed.

In fact, I'd go further and say that the Muslim Council of Britain should be abolished and replaced with a similar body in charge of regulating ALL official Islamic activity. If any text or practice is anti-peace it would be expunged - even if it means deporting extremists, editing the Koran or outlawing halal slaughter in this country.


An uphill struggle indeed: BBC News - Muslim women 'targeted by extremists' at UK universities

If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't say it.

Some other people believed the world was flat too. Doesn't make it the truth.

 

[Andalublue]

Doesn't make it the truth.

As if, in the realms of religion or politics, there is such a thing as objective truth.

 

[Winston Smith]

It's not a question of agreeing as much as seeing what stares you in the face if you care to look.

Once once once again for some in this audience, whose selective memory is like Teflon, if many Muslims see it as a religion of peace then great - as long as when push comes to shove they still remain peaceful. If there was no Islam then there would be no jihads, fundamentalism, supremacism or anything else recurring time and again where Muslims congeal in huge numbers abroad.

But the truth's the truth. And if a religion is bad then no amount of wriggly moral equivilence will change that I'm afraid.

Christianity "goes the extra mile" and teaches love of one's enemy, etc., so in that sense it is a religion of peace in a way that Islam is not. Christianity and Islam have certain common teachings about justice and morality, however, which we in the West often ignore. If the so-called Christian nations would practice those virtues, we'd have a lot less to fight with the Muslims about. We should perhaps go so far as to act like good Muslims before we condemn the Muslims for not being good Christians.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

....there is such a thing as objective truth.

Lies, spin and theorum dressed as fact, sociology-style in other words, least in my case. They may not fit established and straight facts, but if it seems true enough that you feel it deep down then it may as well be.

...And just wait for me to be accused of it by those who practice it themselves! 5, 4, 3....

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

That's enough trash talk and attacks. I'll be dishing out points from this post on.

 

[kaya'08]

I'm not for the EU.
But from an EU perspective, yes, i think the EU really should want Turkey.
It is becoming an energy hub, it is a nation whose strategic location benefits greatly the missions of the West in the East, and it is a buffer between the instability we see in the middle East and the more stable European continent.
It is a country who has adapted enlightenment as a culture so i do not see that argument as valid.
It is going through a harsh time at the moment, what with the AKP and all, but its secular roots are too deeply grounded. These worries and posts about Turkey becoming Iran is hyperbole, pointless, and off course.
The AKP is a Muslim "Christian Democrat Party" if you will. Yes, they both have conservative views, but Germany will not become Rome and we will not become Iran.

It will be costly for the EU to accept Turkey, but the long term benefits will be great and many.
Just as Greece is costly for the EU - only the future does not look so bright for them.
I think this religious discrimination that is basing the opposition of Turkey's entrance is ignorant. It's the 21st century. Is religion still so domineering in our supposedly "secular" governments?

 

[Efendi]

Today EU is old, they should stop acting like young and atractive lady. I don't want my child to pay taxe for unproductive oldies of the continent. Neither do I want to share my interest in Caucassia, Mideast. EU negotiation is waste of time and energy. Membership would be greater waste. The continent has not worthy thing to serve Turkey.

It is also questionable Eu has worthy thing to serve even hershelf. The union has no even political power, can't make economic policies. Deep social problems, like racism, xenophobia. They can't solve it in democratic ways.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Deep social problems, like racism, xenophobia.

A bit too neat to slam Europe on the back of that.

I'm not going to have a pointless argument about who is better than somebody else but every region in the world has its own problems and prejudices against people. (Jews have often received the hatred and persecution wherever they go, so I'll cite them.)

And a lot of what's called 'racism' in the West is bogus anyway, one reason being that when European people have complained about large-scale, demographic-changing mass immigration and its effect on everything, they have been called racist by politicians and opinion formers.

For example, we have 8 million people already economically inactive, both white British and settled first or second generation immigrants. Yet we keep being told immigration must continue because there aren't enough people to work!

Another reason for that is that the European nations and the USA are unique. Their people are the only ones facing the prospect of becoming just one smaller ethnic community in their own homeland within decades, with competing cultures thrown in. And let's face it, that kind of heavy and permanent change to to a country at the deepest levels possible means a lot of people can feel as if too many things are being changed without permission.

 

[Efendi]

A bit too neat to slam Europe on the back of that.

I'm not going to have a pointless argument about who is better than somebody else but every region in the world has its own problems and prejudices against people. (Jews have often received the hatred and persecution wherever they go, so I'll cite them.)

Yes there are such problems in most of the world. But severity changes from region to region. It seem in EU it is very serious issue.

And a lot of what's called 'racism' in the West is bogus anyway, one reason being that when European people have complained about large-scale, demographic-changing mass immigration and its effect on everything, they have been called racist by politicians and opinion formers.

Isn't that politic issue? Politicians always like to call each other in negative words. There are racist groups like NAZI, who occassionally kill migrants. They are famous with burning Turkish houses.

For example, we have 8 million people already economically inactive, both white British and settled first or second generation immigrants. Yet we keep being told immigration must continue because there aren't enough people to work!

There are sensible people in EU too. I don't mean all the EU citizens are racist. EU has racism problem. It is part of the issue. The bigger part of the problem is there is xenephobia problem in the mass land. Correct me if I am wrong.

Another reason for that is that the European nations and the USA are unique. Their people are the only ones facing the prospect of becoming just one smaller ethnic community in their own homeland within decades, with competing cultures thrown in. And let's face it, that kind of heavy and permanent change to to a country at the deepest levels possible means a lot of people can feel as if too many things are being changed without permission.

You won't be abble to solve this problem as long as you can't find solution. US state seem to be different than EU. There were made of migrant, they naturally get harmonized. In EU there is a indigenious culture who feel as if too many things are being changed without permission.

I am not in your country, I don't like to give you an advice but you have to communicate and find solution, there is no other way of pacifieing your anxiety about the rapid changes in your countries. Because It is usual technique of solving dispute.

What I obseve in my messaging in the forums about these issue is, There are islamist groups in EU who opress many modern values like, women rights, democracy, freedom of expression. They conflict with most of the modern values. I think there are muslim who fit modern values, they should be supported as role model.

In EU there should be modern Islam institue, where modern Imams who are respectfull to modern values are educated as it is done in Turkey. As far as I know there is an Islam institue in France like that.

 

[Ben K.]

What I obseve in my messaging in the forums about these issue is, There are islamist groups in EU who opress many modern values like, women rights, democracy, freedom of expression. They conflict with most of the modern values. I think there are muslim who fit modern values, they should be supported as role model.

In Europe there is no shortage of propaganda, supported by the state or private interests, that promote a secular way of life. I'm not sure why the role models in question should be Muslim, certainly the culturally transformative figures in my society needn't have been from my brand of Christianity or even from Chritstianity itself to promote societal change in our context, but the fact is the secular Muslim role model has been promoted in Europe. I find the idea of Muslim "role models" in itself prejudiced. The role models should always be national (moreso idividual) in nature, not religious. What aren't we doing that we should be doing to promote the level of integration that other cultures have reached within it?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

What aren't we doing that we should be doing to promote the level of integration that other cultures have reached within it?

They could start by actually asking the peoples of their country for permission to change things further. Asking if they actually want demography-changing numbers of new arrivals to have to integrate in the first place.


The expansionist-for-its-own-sake EU wants Iceland to join it now, and treasonous Icelandic politicians are discussing already the possible plans to atomise the nation's supreme national sovereignty. The will of the people doesn't even count:

• 60% of Icelanders against EU membership - Gallup poll | Blog | UK Independence Party in the European Parliament


The Icelanders have one of the oldest cultures of democracy in the world, as well as a top-rate fishing industry, manageable crime levels, decent social strata, control of their own economy and legal system and friction-free monocultural ethnic majority. Unlike us, they haven't experienced rule by remote control, a destroyed fishing fleet, regular ethnic and cultural tensions, politically-motivated open door immigration or any of the other things we know and love the EU for.

Let them keep their freedom to self-determination in line with their proud heritage. They've been alright up to now.

 

[kaya'08]

They could start by actually asking the peoples of their country for permission to change things further. Asking if they actually want demography-changing numbers of new arrivals to have to integrate in the first place.

That's true, unfortunately nobody other than Brussels get a say on this, mate. Inter-EU migration, that is.
But if EU governments hoard in the outer-EU immigrants, then the rest of Europe pays.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Both the Icelanders and Turks need to have both sides officially set out in government pamphlets for them to decide.

Essentially it comes between having supreme national sovereignty and freedom or the extra security of being part of a supra-national collective, where most political, economic and social policies are decided for us by a trained political elite.

However, that 'security' is scarcely delivered in areas where such promises can actually be properly tested, so freedom and sovereignty wins the argument.


_________________________________________________________________

The EU is skilled, just as New Labour was, at lying with great sincerity. Most ordinary people may still not be fooled with EU fibs that there's GREATER democracy and freedom since its dead hand ruled every aspect of our lives, but well-bought off politicians are susceptible.

This guy reminds me of the EU. He was caught marinating a live cat to eat but came up with a masterpiece of deceit to try and explain it away that he could go far as an EU Commissioner....

http://www.theweeklyvice.com/2010/08/gary-korkus-charged-with-marinated-cat.html



And now, the real corrupt deal: http://euro-med.dk/?p=2032

WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM IS IT WHICH REQUIRES GOVERNMENTS TO COMMIT TREASON IN ORDER TO GROW?! We don't need these unelectable losers and frauds!

 

[Djoop]

I used to be in favor of european integration but they made such a mess of it it's beyond repair. If Turkey wants to join the EU at this point in time we seriously have to doubt their intelligence, they're better of without us.