Should I stay or should I go (EuroZone)

[JohnK]

I believe you are sad.

That's quite ok. I have seen enough to make an accurate judgement. It has taken a long time but the world is finally waking up.

 

[trixydoza]

the world is finally waking up.

And thank goodness for that.

 

[marki]

Border Disorder in Greece, More money is being poured into Greece for help with border control. ( not sure that is going to work) ..... Calais migrants setting tents on fire and refugees are moving to other parts of the camp called the North end. "the Jungle" to avoid bulldozers. rolleyes!! they are scared of being left in France like that's a bad unsafe place. Another funny thing is letting fly a Brit travelled on his girlfriends passport into Germany .........realised too late and security forgot to check his passport (oops) !!. he used his driver licence......good to know that works.
There is also outrage in EU if one is to believe the media a radical Danish Cleric preaching death to Apostate's and adulterers ....... fantastic ....no !


Continuing the German refugee saga, the European Court of Justice says the government would be allowed to compel some migrants to live in specific residential areas if it aids their integration into society .... Maybe they will take the Danish preacher? Or the Nanny ....The nanny accused of beheading a four-year-old girl in Moscow and waving her severed head outside a Metro station told journalists before a court hearing that ‘Allah ordered’ her to murder the child.


goodness the EU might just pack it all in? soon?

 

[JohnK]

goodness the EU might just pack it all in? soon?

Not looking good.

This is not what Greece needs at this time. This will be a huge drain on resources.

 

[whatmeworry]

Personal experience is "this happened to me". It's not subject to argument.
However when you move to "this happened to me and it means something about this general issue" that goes beyond personal experience.
There is room for discussion and even argument about the wider meaning of anyone's personal experiences.
Problems with integration in France go back decades, to the aftermath of French colonialism in Africa and the Algerian war.
They are at least partly due to a failure of government policy.
I am less familiar with the history of immigration in other European countries.
I don't pretend to have all the answers but I do know the problem is complex and the answers aren't simple.
Blaming one group or another isn't helpful.
To generalise about any group on the basis of race or religion (etc) is quite simply bigotry.
Invoking personal experience doesn't change that.
The strength of Europe has always been its diversity.
And Islam has been a part of that diversity for centuries. It's not a new arrival.
Incidentally Moorish Andalusia was a tolerant, diverse multicultural society where Christians and Jews had religious freedom at a time when Christian Europe was persecuting Jews.
Sadly that came to an end with the unification of Spain under Catholic monarchs.
Only the wonderful Moorish architecture survives.

Islamic countries launched jihad on Christian countries before Christian countries launched any Crusades.

Some older people in Europe still have knowledge of what their grandparents told them, of what the Ottomans did to them when their respective countries were under occupation by the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Boca68]

Islamic countries launched jihad on Christian countries before Christian countries launched any Crusades.

Some older people in Europe still have knowledge of what their grandparents told them, of what the Ottomans did to them when their respective countries were under occupation by the Ottoman Empire.

Ok, without wanting to start an argument, but that is utter carp!

The earliest Islamic States, The Rashiduns never did.

And almost all of the first "jihads" were against rival Muslim sects. i.e. Sunni v Shia or v Waqqism.

As esseeeayeenn, said very well, the first European Islamic states were very tolerant. It was the residing Pope or Duke or Queen that decided they should be expelled.

Now, not to over simplify, but the 1st Crusades were approx 900 a.d. In reality there was not an Islamic state then, just warlords. The Crusaders "won" quite easily. Won, means they raped and pillaged everything in site as trophys.... But, by no means as awful as a Jihad.....probably much worse!

By the time of the 2nd Crusade circa 1100-1150 a.d. things were different. Very different.

And you are probably right about the memories of the Ottomans circa 1900..? Doesn;t come close to the brutality of the Crusades circa 1150 to 1350. In this age , it would be called "ethnic cleansing"

 

[drron]

I'm sorry but the Crusades were launched initially by the advance of the Muslim armies on the Byzantine Empire-this was a Christian Empire.
The first large battle of the Crusades was the Siege of Antioch in 1097-Antioch was a Muslim held city.
And you are a little out in your descriptions of the Crusades as ethnic cleansing.It was the 4th Crusade which effectively sealed the fate of the Byzantine Empire.It was in fact Christian v Christian.

 

[Boca68]

I'm sorry but the Crusades were launched initially by the advance of the Muslim armies on the Byzantine Empire-this was a Christian Empire.
The first large battle of the Crusades was the Siege of Antioch in 1097-Antioch was a Muslim held city.
And you are a little out in your descriptions of the Crusades as ethnic cleansing.It was the 4th Crusade which effectively sealed the fate of the Byzantine Empire.It was in fact Christian v Christian.

Apologies for the century difference, my error,

But as I said , not Islamic states, warlords. And yes they advanced on Byzantine territory, but not in a Jihad. As warlords, it was simply a territorial grab. The Byzantines were weak and fighting amongst themselves and with others.

But I stand by the definition of ethnic cleansing. From the 1st Crusade onwards.

The 4th Crusade as its called, I agree, was in reality mob warfare by then. Infighting, subterfuge, scorched earth were the themes of the era. Doomed from the start.

 

[JohnK]

Islamic countries launched jihad on Christian countries before Christian countries launched any Crusades.

Some older people in Europe still have knowledge of what their grandparents told them, of what the Ottomans did to them when their respective countries were under occupation by the Ottoman Empire.

Ah the Ottomans. That's a fine role for a civilisation.

I lost family thanks to their genocide programs. I grew up in an area that was decimated by their long term occupation.

But you know what? Personal experience, personal suffering, personal loss means nothing to civil libertarians. Sorry you lose me everytime in your lack of understanding.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Ah the Ottomans. That's a fine role for a civilisation.

I lost family thanks to their genocide programs. I grew up in an area that was decimated by their long term occupation.

But you know what? Personal experience, personal suffering, personal loss means nothing to civil libertarians. Sorry you lose me everytime in your lack of understanding.

(1) What on earth do "civil libertarians" have to do with anything under discussion?
(2) The Ottomans were a hideously cruel empire. So were both the Roman and the Holy Roman Empires. The Vikings weren't great humanitarians either. The Aztecs were rather nasty. And no one expected the Spanish Inquisition.
(3) Personal loss and personal suffering are tragedies, but the perpetrators and victims can be found across all racial, national, ethnic, religious, caste and other divides. Blaming a particular group only leads to further personal loss and suffering.
(4) Sensible civil libertarians (not to be confused with libertarianism as a political doctrine) are concerned about striking an optimal balance between personal freedoms and government power which minimises personal loss and personal suffering.
(5) The alternative to civil liberties is complete trust in an authoritarian government. No thanks.
(6) To come back to the topic, there have been muslims in Europe for over a millennia. It hasn't fallen apart yet. It won't. It will become even more diverse, even more vibrant and even more worth visiting.

And I am deeply sorry for the loss of members of your family, as I am sorry for anyone who has lost family members to violence.

 

[drron]

Apologies for the century difference, my error,

But as I said , not Islamic states, warlords. And yes they advanced on Byzantine territory, but not in a Jihad. As warlords, it was simply a territorial grab. The Byzantines were weak and fighting amongst themselves and with others.

But I stand by the definition of ethnic cleansing. From the 1st Crusade onwards.

The 4th Crusade as its called, I agree, was in reality mob warfare by then. Infighting, subterfuge, scorched earth were the themes of the era. Doomed from the start.

You are actually out by 4 centuries.Muslim armies occupied the Iberian peninsula in 711-ie nearly 4 centuries before the Crusades.And it was called a Caliphate-ie not just a group of warlords.The Umayyad Caliphate commenced in 661.Even after losing their power base it continued with the Emirs of Cordoba then the Caliphs of Cordoba.

And as to ethnic cleansing it was the Jews who really suffered at the hands of the Crusaders often before they had left Europe.

 

[Abdul_A350]

The nanny accused of beheading a four-year-old girl in Moscow and waving her severed head outside a Metro station told journalists before a court hearing that ‘Allah ordered’ her to murder the child.

That has no more to do with Islam than the Lindt Cafe disaster. Just crazy people.

I have lost multiple siblings and multiple children to conflict. And unfortunately I must consider myself fortunate by comparison with some friends. It can be a little disappointing to flee oppression and be greeted with ignorance. Above all else, that ignorance seems like an opportunity lost and precious freedom wasted.

 

[Isochronous]

Where are the Buddhists and Sikhs plotting to blow up Parliament (Canada), fly planes into buildings (9/11), and decapitating and raping people by the thousands for refusing to convert to their religion?

 

[JohnK]

You're trying to bring logic into an age long argument.

All that needs to be said is the world is finally waking up.

 

[drron]

That has no more to do with Islam than the Lindt Cafe disaster. Just crazy people.

Unfortunately that position has a couple of facts against it.There are examples of similar attacks in the USA,UK,Canada,France,Belgium,Denmark,Sweden and Africa-multiple instances in most of those places.Two things are common to most-the attacker uses the word Allah and psychiatric reports are not revealed.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

And how many crazies in western countries throw the name of god around?
The aforementioned Sikh's assasinated Indira Ghandi and the aforementioned Buddhists in Myanmar are committing atrocities against the Rohinga.
It's universal.
That's why I have no time for any religion.

 

[Boca68]

You are actually out by 4 centuries.Muslim armies occupied the Iberian peninsula in 711-ie nearly 4 centuries before the Crusades.And it was called a Caliphate-ie not just a group of warlords.The Umayyad Caliphate commenced in 661.Even after losing their power base it continued with the Emirs of Cordoba then the Caliphs of Cordoba.

And as to ethnic cleansing it was the Jews who really suffered at the hands of the Crusaders often before they had left Europe.

Actually no, drron, I did not mention Umayyad Caliphate, for one simple reason. The person I was responding to, was suggesting Islam started Jihad "before" the Crusades. Or at least before any Christian religon did so. Which is incorrect. It is a common thing today, unfortunately. The, "well they started it" train of thought. You can argue what is warfare and what is retribution. But, IMHO , (very very humble btw) that is the kind of thought that is unfortunate. I'll declare my hand, I'm an atheist (Prepare to be bombarded now) I have no affilations to promote or dismiss, but the hate that goes about because of religion, scares me to death.

The Umayyads established a Caliphate for sure, but they did not engage in active religious or ethnic purges. That is the difference. Subtle, I know. But the background to my post is important.

But thank you for your input. I've learnt a lot

Whilst I agree with your statement about the Jewish population of the Levant and Egpyt, its a discussion for a proper forum, not here.

edit: back back to going to Europe, off to Istanbul on Sunday...and I will cross the divide, so to speak.

 

[drron]

I also have no religion.
However my point was there were certainly provocations before the Crusades.It is a bit harsh to judge people of the first and early second millennia by the standards of the 2000s.
As to purges it depends on which side you read.The Berbers in Spain in the mid 700s might disagree with you.They were most of the original invasion force but got a little testy that they had to pay the same taxes as non believers even though they had converted to Islam.

 

[JohnK]

The story of the Moors is quite interesting. One of the earliest Christian conflicts and part of the rapid expansion of Islam.

But they were nice people right? Just like the Seljuk Turks right? Just like the Ottomans right? Just like Boko Haram right?

For such a peaceful religion there are a lot of extremists. How does that happen? It just goes on and on.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

For those claiming they 'know' what's going on because of what they see and read in the media: Paul Sheehan suspended from Sydney Morning Herald following false rape story - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)