The Independent: Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel

[Mathew Steel 151]

It's been a while since we've got political on the site, and I'm very aware it can cause arguments. However, this article has really ticked me, for how pathetic it is.

 

 

www.independent.co.uk/voices/isis-terrorism-pakistan-donald-trump-media-press-a7585461.html

 

 

Quote:?"The message is clear: Western lives matter but brown, black and non-Christian lives aren?t worthy of a story.?The fact that these publications are simultaneously denouncing Trump for his racist policies, or waxing lyrical about the value of the Black Lives Matter movement, just adds to the irony of the situation."

 

 

The argument suggests that the reason people haven't been going nuts on Twitter and Facebook with their worthless, crappy hashtags, is because the victims of the attacks weren't white Christians. I could not believe my eyes when I saw this. How moronic does one need to be to come to such a conclusion? I'm all for free speech, and allowing people to believe what they wish, but I cannot help but criticise this belief. It's painfully clear that the only intention in this article is to push an agenda. The writer could not care less about the attack itself, but instead feels the need to try and push a narrative that we, in our Western societies, are inherently racist and prejudice.

 

 

Let's argue with the original argument.?

 

1. "Western lives matter but brown, black and non-Christian lives aren?t worthy of a story."?

 

Except the BLM movement has had more coverage from the Independent than it has from any other news source in the UK. Secondly, our societies do not condone racism. No decent person truly believes that any race is better than another just for being that specific race. and anyone who believes this and acts on it in a violent way, will be punished. I don't understand why the left believe that our cultures are full of racism, when our laws and values clearly oppose it.

 

As for "non-Christian lives", I've seen hundreds of articles from the BBC and other left-wing medias covering stories of Muslims opposing the recent terror attacks in the UK, as well as articles trying to say that Muslims are targeted for hate. Even Tommy Robinson, who the left label as a racist, has been interviewing a number of Sikhs in regards to their good work and progress in our country. In fact, the only time Christian lives are reported on specifically, is when there's been a terrorist attack by someone who is Christian. Again, pushing an agenda.

 

 

 

2. "The fact that these publications are simultaneously denouncing Trump for his racist policies, or waxing lyrical about the value of the Black Lives Matter movement, just adds to the irony of the situation."

 

I'm not even entirely sure what the argument here is. However, using personal adjectives to describe a policy is a clear sign of pushing an agenda. I don't like Trump, and I don't agree with a lot of his policies, but being harsh on immigration is not racist, and it infuriates me seeing people claim it to be. Sure, if Trump turns around and decides, "No black people allowed into the US" then yes, that would be racist.?

 

As for the BLM, the movement is a joke anyway. One of the leader's of the group is openly racist on their Twitter, and another was arrested for disorderly conduct, when he stole a confederate flag from someone, and started hurling abuse at said-person.?

 

Funnily enough, The Independent again, who posted this article - www.independent.co.uk/voices/facebook-abuse-video-black-lives-matter-blm-kidnap-is-racist-a7511466.html - have jumped on to defend the BLM, claiming that there is no maternal link between the BLM and the people who committed the act...you know, except for in the recorded video these people can be heard shouting "This is for BLM" and "White c**t" at the disabled white man. Ignorance truly is bliss, huh?

 

 

 

I don't consider myself a conservative, nor a labour voter, but I am sick of the left bombarding the media with non-factual, subjective, ignorant information. Don't get me wrong, The Sun is just as ridiculous, but if I were to make an article on all of their false reports, I'd be here years.?

 

I can't vote as I'm not of age, but with the election coming up I plead with those of you who can to do your own research. Look at more than one source, and don't jump to conclusions based upon little evidence. Don't be afraid to look at views that oppose your own, and do not, I beg of you to not, go around throwing the words "Racist, bigot, fascist, ignorant, and Islamophobe". Mainly because the majority of those who do so are unable to define the words, but also because it makes you seem like you're out of arguments.?

[Crusader1307 302]

Well thought through, Matthew. Good job of making your opinions known. As a Descendant of British, Irish, German and of course, Southern Confederate, I was constantly considered a "Leftist, Racist, ad nauseum".?

Logical People but have to open a History Book to see that we are all simply reliving The Past. It appears to me that The "Crusades" are very much in full sway again.

 

By "Sword or Ploughshare", we shall resolve our issues, eventually. Sadly, The History Books of the Future will cause our Children's Children to wonder, just "what the Hell" was our problem was.

 

Keep Soldiering On...........

[EaglePrince 261]

I understand your views, but I still have to say that when a tragedy like that happens in Pakistan or in Nigeria which involves hundreds of people being killed, it is mentioned once or maybe twice in media, while when it happens in a European country, they speak about it for weeks. But it may not be about race, but about the place, who knows. Maybe it's simply a big deal for them because something happened, e.g. in London. But this is simply about how media work, not about people, I don't think we should judge people here. So, I think similarly as you - but I just claim that the issue is present, but at media, not at people.

 

But regarding Christian lives being reported in media - one doesn't have to report that those people walking in Berlin or Manchester are Christians, that's just obvious.

 

Regarding accepting certain races, or nationalities into your country, I don't that what you describe would be racist. If you notice that people from some countries are more likely to do crime, or terror attacks when their come into your land, then YOU HAVE TO NOTE THAT, and not fear that you will be labeled as a racist. We live in 21st century, we know what is statistics, it has been a thing for a while now, so we can investigate what we want, and we can have an idea what is going on. If I notice some races of dogs are more aggressive towards me than others, I have to note that. Same with people. We are simply not all the same. We have different mentalities, we have different habits, and hey - we are biologically different as well. Yes, we are pretty much similar, but why claim how we are the same when we are not.

 

 

And like I was saying before - I believe that Europeans should be more pushing when it comes to promoting their culture, especially in their own countries. The best way to keep your people safe is to efficiently assimilate immigrants. Diversity may be strength, but it has also shown to be undoing of many empires. Look at Austria-Hungary. Their downfall came from not succeeding to assimilate their people. But here I'm not speaking about assimilation in a bad way, but more like it is the case in the USA. You are an American if you have the American citizenship, and national pride is being promoted there. "It is cool to be an American, and no matter if you are black or white, if you love our country you are one of us". I don't live in the USA, but that's how I got that. Someone correct me if I'm wrong?

[Mathew Steel 151]

I agree with you, Eagle. Stating facts are is not racist. I hope you understood the point I was making. I was criticising the people who use the term without fully understanding what it means. However, you cannot ban a race from entering a country. Here me out, the reason the majority of crimes are committed by black people are because there are more black people living in poorer areas in the country. In the UK, 70% of Bangladeshis, and 60% of Pakistanis and African-Caribbeans live in the 20% most deprived areas in the UK. They therefore have poorer facilities, and end up being less-educated due to lack of opportunity, down to money, and also a worse upbringing. In fact, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis have the worst academic achievement, where even the girls from these races perform poorer than white males. However, this isn't the case in every single country. In many countries, such as parts of Southern Africa and China, the results are very different. Therefore, to ban a race simply because 30ish % of crimes are committed by that race, is completely unfair.

 

I also agree that we should do more to protect our culture. Why should our culture change in order to please immigrants? Surely, the reason we have immigrants, is because they wish to live by our culture. Personally, if someone moves to our country, and doesn't want to play by our rules, they should be kicked out. Maybe that's unfair, but I do not care.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Mathew Steel

[EaglePrince 261]

Yes, it seems to me that our opinions are very similar, when it comes to this topic.

 

I would also note one more thing. In Serbia, like in any other country, we have Gypsies. And they are generally less educated, have lower incomes, etc., but they don't live in some certain cities, etc. There are many of them who live in my hometown, many of them went to my elementary school, I think they weren't discriminized, at least not for the fact that they were Gypsy kids, and yet - few of them move on with their education. Fewer of them attend high schools, and not to mention universities. That's why I think it's not simply about the town they live in, but about their families. They simply don't value education. And that appears to be a hardly ending cycle: their parents don't value education, they don't value education, their kids won't value education, etc... I believe it is similar with your immigrants in the UK.

 

Serbia is a small country, and yet there are many differences between those of us who come from different regions. On my faculty I even noticed how students from certain regions are more prone to cheating, and not feeling any shame for that. We should accept that people from some other countries are simply different, but we also have to note that there are always exceptions. And that is not about what somebody is, it is about how they were raised.

 

Take my example. My father is a Bosniak. That's a Slavic people, much similar to Croats and Serbs, but this are the key differences: Croats are Catholic, Serbs are Orthodox, and Bosniaks are Muslim. And yet, I don't feel like a Muslim. My mother is Catholic, and I grew up in an Orthodox country, and in a region where one can find many different nations which settled here thanks to Austrian Empire. So I wasn't raised as a Muslim, nor as a Catholic, but in fact neither of those two things matter to me. I was raised to be aware that there are many different religions in the world (and nobody can tell "whose religion is right"), many different nations, and that it is not right to judge an individual because of their ethnicity. I feel like a man from Vojvodina (northern Serbian province), like a citizen of Novi Sad, and a citizen of Serbia. And I am more like any Serb from Vojvodina than like some Bosniak from Bosnia. Same like many Serbs who settled in Canada or the USA whose kids barely speak Serbian.

 

But although you shouldn't ban a race from entering, you should make those checkups more strict for them, if they showed themselves to be more problematic. That's the best way for you to protect your own people from crime committed by immigrants (to say the least). I would love to be able to go the UK without a visa, or to the USA without a visa, but I respect your countries decision that you want to make sure that I am a "fine person" before giving me a permission to enter. The sad part is that you would allow us to enter your country only if we are employed, and perhaps you may even ask what are my incomes, but that is your way to protect yourself. In fact, with all these tragic events I sometimes feel frustrated that your governments don't do more to protect their people. Americans appear to do a good job with that, but Western European countries have failed by now. I hope situation will improve.

 

And about the culture. Yes! I think it is hypocritical how many immigrants claim to want to move to Europe because of democracy and tolerance, and because of oppression in their countries, and yet - they bring that same oppression with them in form of niqab, or hijab, etc. By this I mean oppression over women. If they are truly fleeing from something, they should leave that behind, embrace European culture, and people of Europe would accept them. It is your country, it is you who set the rules.

 

Maybe it is unfair to some individuals if they get kicked for not adopting, but it would also be unfair towards your children to keep those who come, and who want to force their oppressive ways into the country they came to.

[Mathew Steel 151]

You would be 100% correct. A study by Murray and Saunders concluded that African-Caribbean families have less motivation for boys who grow up without a father figure, which is so common in these families, that it's become bit of a stereotype. You might be interested to look into a sociologist named Bordieu, and his concept of "habitus" and "cultural capital". He believed that different areas teach different values and in turn you end up more "street smart" in certain areas compared to others. His "cultural capital" concept, is that the education system has values shared by the middle/upper-classes, and so if you also have these values, you have more cultural capital, and so perform better academically. Studies by Mac an Ghaill, and Bowles and Gintis also suggest that children from working-class families have values that cause them to suffer in education. For example, they have less emphasis on revision etc, because they believe that they won't succeed. More often than not, parents from working-class families haven't done well in school, and so, they pass on their bad values onto their children. So you are completely right in saying that it's not simply down to area. In sociology, we split it into three parts:

 

1. Material Deprivation Factors - BACKGROUND/POVERTY/FOOD/JOBS

 

2. Cultural Deprivation Factors - LANGUAGE/RELIGION/FAMILY VALUES

 

3. Interoperable Factors - Internal factors within the system, i.e. teachers, curriculum, and so on.

 

 

Each of these different points have an effect on the academic achievement of people in all ages. Functionalists, mainly David and Moore, like to believe that meritocracy is applicable in education. This is the idea that effort + ability = success, and that everybody has the same opportunity to succeed, no matter what the external factors are. It's also a concept shared by a lot of right-wing supporters. A very weak concept, may I add.

 

 

 

It's interesting to hear of your background. You seem to have had a taste of many different cultures as you grew up. I think the majority of people would see this as a good thing, and I'd imagine your far more open to different opinions and ideas because of it.?

 

As for judging someone by their ethnicity, I wouldn't say it's entirely unfair. Ethnicity relates more to a person's culture. For example, African. African's have a specific culture, specific religion, food, traditions etc. If someone African met you in the UK, you can learn a bit about them from their ethnicity. Race on the other hand, is simply what colour somebody's skin is. To make judgements off that, is ridiculous, as it tells you nothing but...well, the colour of their skin.

 

Again, I agree with you. I don't understand the left's reasoning as to why WE, in our own country, should have to change our values and beliefs and traditions, for the pleasure of an immigrant who doesn't want to live where they are. It's insane.?

 

 

 

ALSO, ANOTHER ONE -?http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/kabul-isis-explosion-attack-no-one-minutes-scilence-a7767341.html

Edited June 8, 2017 by Mathew Steel

[EaglePrince 261]

Quite interesting facts! I see you've done your homework. :)

 

Yes, I tend to be open, but still... But it is not that I say you can disregard ethnicities. I just wanted to say that what defines us the most is how we were raised. And, of course, those two are not mutually independent factors.

 

Regarding your link, yes, you are correct, most of the victims of ISIS, etc. are indeed Muslim.

90 people were murdered by terrorists in Kabul this week. Where is the minute's silence for them?

How many Muslims do Isis, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and others need to kill for us to realize that perhaps Islam isn?t the problem?

But... Even if Islam is indeed a religion of peace (which I believe it is, I think all major religions in the world are religions of peace, though they have been misused in many occasions throughout history), it does have some huge issues. Islam is being used to recruit people to join ISIS, etc., and it is not just that they misuse the religion, but it is done in mosques. Because of that, you accept more Muslims into your country, you become more vulnerable.

[Charles of Tours 70]

The message is clear: Western lives matter but brown, black and non-Christian lives aren?t worthy of a story.

Isn't it "ironic" that The Independent is a news site that can publish the stories that they choose to? Shocking!

I understand your views, but I still have to say that when a tragedy like that happens in Pakistan or in Nigeria which involves hundreds of people being killed, it is mentioned once or maybe twice in media, while when it happens in a European country, they speak about it for weeks.

Keep in mind that British news sites have a responsibility to report what's going on in Britain, French for France, American for the US, etc. There are some decent news sites for the countries you mentioned. I know that Nigerian news may not be as "credible" as CNN (sarcasm) but it is in English - that means anyone on this site, or any reader of The Independent, can read most Nigerian news on their own.

 

But you'll never see The Independent link you to said sites (except, perhaps sometimes, as sources hidden beneath/within the article) because as a company The Independent's responsibility is to make money for its owner. Again, this is why news in "white" countries is reported on first, because it will receive the most attention - people care more about what's happening in their own country or the one next door than what's going on across the ocean (with the exception of the US, and occasionally Canada, Australia, and New Zealand).

 

It is not a question of what is right or wrong, but what will make money. This is also why many "credible" news sites like CNN, MSNBC, and the BBC go left on most issues. You'll notice "right-wing" sites, like Fox and The Economist, have shifted leftward over the years. It's to make money - like it or not, Trump did not win the popular vote, nor did Romney nor McCain. Even George W. Bush only won the presidency thanks to the Supreme Court. More Leftist people = more Leftist consumers, which means you have to appeal to them in order to have an income in the news. Of course, this only further perpetuates a very particular "acceptable" point of view ...

[Mathew Steel 151]

Quite interesting facts! I see you've done your homework.

I have to! Otherwise I'd be a total trainwreck during exams :P

 

 

 

But... Even if Islam is indeed a religion of peace (which I believe it is, I think all major religions in the world are religions of peace, though they have been misused in many occasions throughout history), it does have some huge issues. Islam is being used to recruit people to join ISIS, etc., and it is not just that they misuse the religion, but it is done in mosques. Because of that, you accept more Muslims into your country, you become more vulnerable.

I wasn't trying to say Islam is a religion of peace, mainly because it isn't. My point was, it was the same type of headline where they say "Where is the minute's silence for them?" As Charles pointed out. British news should report on Britain, French news should report on France, and so on. Of course, it's important we know what's going on elsewhere, but to expect our news agencies to report on deaths in Pakistan for example, is stupid. Especially when it's such a common occurrence. We have to prioritise what gets reported, otherwise we'd be bombarded with lots of useless information, and miss out hearing the important stuff.

 

 

 

Isn't it "ironic" that The Independent is a news site that can publish the stories that they choose to?

I do find it funny how people claim they are less bias because they are allowed to write about either side. All that means, is that there will be bias towards right-wingers as well as left-wingers. Even so, I don't think I've ever seen a right-winged article written by The Independent. Although, I hardly take anything I read as fact when it comes to British media.?

Your point about it being about making money, I'd agree with you. It's just aggravating that with political correctness on the rise, we're seeing such a decrease in honest, truthful news.?

 

 

Anyway, I've thought about my own article headline - 66% of Muslims in the UK said they would not report on another Muslim joining ISIS. Why didn't The Independent report on this?

Edited June 8, 2017 by Mathew Steel

[EaglePrince 261]

Yes, Charles, that's why I wrote this.

But it may not be about race, but about the place, who knows.

Maybe it wasn't clear enough. For obvious reason, of course. Of course that news portal from Serbia would have a lot of articles about floods in Serbia, and few mentions about floods in Germany for example. That's normal, and those who read news regularly won't miss either.

 

But it's not only about making money. They intentionally avoid publishing news about rape victims by immigrants, or even articles such as the one Mathew just mentioned.

 

Still, this research may be incomplete, thus leading to a wrong conclusion. In my country we rarely report, and mostly because we're used to the fact that police often doesn't care, and if we reported something - we'd expect nothing to happen. So if someone from my placed moved to the UK, it is very likely that they too wouldn't report things like this fearing that this would be in vain, and even further - put them in danger.

 

For example, there used to be cases that ambulance wouldn't come because they were called by a mobile phone. What the hell, why does it matter that they were called by a mobile, it's about saving ones life...

 

Another example from here. When I want to report something, they would ask me from my personal information. How do I know that I won't have any problems because of that... What the hell, I'm telling them that somebody is doing crime, and as if they don't want to deal with that, they ask me for my information - my name, address, date of birth... As if I was the one who was doing crime...

 

So, for that research to be complete, they would at least have to ask them whether they would report their neighbor for playing loud music for example.

[Mathew Steel 151]

So, for that research to be complete, they would at least have to ask them whether they would report their neighbor for playing loud music for example.

Hmm, not sure I'd agree there. The reason so many Muslims wouldn't report it is because their religion teaches them that siding with a non-Muslim will get them into trouble. Again, Islam being the issue here. You may also be interested to know that about in the UK, we have about 2.8 million Muslims living here. 78% wanted cartoonists of Mohammed to be legally prosecuted. In the US, 2.6 million Muslims. 13% said violence against civilians could be justified, 19% were favourable or were unsure of Al Qaeda. As you can see, this issue is specifically Islamic. A lot of Muslim immigration comes from France, so let's look at that. France, 4.7 million Muslims. A 2007 poll, by Pew Research, showed that 35% of French Muslims said that suicide bombings could sometimes be justified.?

 

Your point about people not reporting things in worry of it not happening isn't really applicable here. We're not talking about someone stealing a bike, we're talking about someone joining a terrorist organisation. Failing to report on such things is illegal.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Mathew Steel

[Charles of Tours 70]

You may also be interested to know that about in the UK, we have about 2.8 million Muslims living here. 78% wanted cartoonists of Mohammed to be legally prosecuted. In the US, 2.6 million Muslims. 13% said violence against civilians could be justified, 19% were favourable or were unsure of Al Qaeda. As you can see, this issue is specifically Islamic. A lot of Muslim immigration comes from France, so let's look at that. France, 4.7 million Muslims. A 2007 poll, by Pew Research, showed that 35% of French Muslims said that suicide bombings could sometimes be justified.

I personally believe that the percent of Muslims that believe this or that doesn't matter too much, but the actual number of Muslims in the country. In 2015 the US had 321.4 million (known) persons residing here. The Pew article I found said there were actually 3.3 million Muslims in the US, amounting to slightly more than one percent of the total (official) population. - 1% of population of whom 19% aren't against Al Qaeda

 

The UK has 2.8 million Muslims in a total population of 65.14 million. - 4% of a population of whom 78% "je ne suis pas Charlie." This stat isn't exactly in line with supporting Al Qaeda or suicide bombings, but I was unable to find another Pew article with a more comparable stance. Still, this being a "minor issue" may have elicited a more accurate response from those questioned. This is essentially a statistic of those who would be comfortable without free speech (which is the line between a liberal society and a totalitarian one - whether it is Shariah or "simply" Marxism).

 

France has 4.7 million Muslims (or 7.7 if you believe Jean-Paul Gour?vitch) and a total population of 66.81 million. - 7% (or 11%) of a population of whom 35% support suicide bombings.

 

My conclusion is that as the percent of the Muslim population increases, it seems that so too does the percent of those who are openly "radical." Therefore, there is an exponential increase in the raw number of Muslims who support violence - according to Pew, not me (but I can't help interpreting these statistics, which aren't necessarily put together in a nice package all the time). I also assume, statistics being a flawed science, that Muslims from all around each country were questioned, and not exclusively those living in "no-go zones." This has an impact, as these "no-go zones" are essentially bits of Arabia transplanted into the cities of European countries, including the US. Here is a video about Dearborn, Michigan, the home town of Henry Ford. I assume these more "culturally enriched" areas sport a higher percent of "radicals" than the more "isolated" communities in the countryside do.

[Mathew Steel 151]

I think you're right. There are certainly more Muslims that are radical than we actually know. For example, Didsbury Mosque came out condemning the recent terrorist attacks. Many people would use this example to prove that British Muslims aren't radicalised. However, the Libyan suicide bomber of the recent attack in Manchester, had in fact attended this mosque. The mosque itself has had a long running of inviting hate-preachers. Abu Qatada delivered a speech in the mosque in 1999, there are videos and proof of this, yet the mosque's Imam denies this. Qatada constantly preached that non-Muslims should not be seen as equal, and was accused several times, even by the USA, of having ties with Al-Qaeda. He arrived in the UK from Palestine in 1993 and was later deported in 2013, after nearly a decade of trying to kick him out. The point I make here, is that although many Muslims appear to be rational, they are in fact not. Again, this isn't to say ALL Muslims are radical. There is still a large percentage of those who live by our values, and do not practice every part of the Quran (or Koran, however you wish to spell it).

 

It's very credible that with an increase in Muslim population, there will also be an increase in radicals. More radical Muslims there to convert non-radicals. More influence. More power. It's inevitable, especially in younger Muslims, that sooner or later, that some will become radicalised. I'd also agree that the more culturally diverse areas host a larger percentage of radicals. Going back to my earlier point, I can't help but feel the Muslim community can do far more than they are. I'll most likely get called racist for saying such things, even though it wouldn't make sense, but if 66% of British Muslims say they wouldn't report a suspected terrorist, then there's clearly a large issue at play.

 

I wanted to add, although it's off-topic, that I believe people have been unfair on Tommy Robinson. I don't believe he is a racist, and although some might argue he's radical, he's doing his part to fight radical Islam.?

Edited June 10, 2017 by Mathew Steel

[EaglePrince 261]

I agree, Mathew, that it's very likely that your correct about the reason why they wouldn't report something like that, but I'm just pointing out that the research seems to be incomplete, and as such it may be misleading. I mean, you're definitely right to some extent, the only question would be how many of them wouldn't report it because of that. Ehm, you're speaking to mathematician, we tend to be stubborn, as we like even those obvious stuff to be proven. :D

 

On the other hand, I see no holes in information given by Charles. It is quite interesting, and I believe that we can have a good explanation for that. One would be that less Muslims you have in your country, harder they are connected in your country, they simply care about their works, and they adopt into your society better (well, yeah, because in this case they have to). On the other hand, when there are so many of them, they may tend to stick together rather than hanging with other people, thus they don't integrate well into society.

 

There may be another explanation as well. Those countries that have less Muslims may have actually done a better selection of people who they want to accept. As we all know, France used to be very popular for immigrants because of their welfare program, and as a result of that - French attracted to much people who were simply going there for money, to use this welfare program, but not actually to work there.

 

Once again, as I used to say it before. I don't get those European governments. Whoever opens a history book, they will notice that settling your land with another nation can later result not in just terrorist attacks, but in bloody wars.

 

Check out how Austrians used to settle their bordering regions with Serbs (among others). As a result of that, Serbia wanted to claim this territory in which Hungarians used to live, and after WWI Hungary lost Vojvodina to Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (which will later be named Kingdom of Yugoslavia). Then Hungary tried to get back this territory during WWII, but as we know - they failed, Yugoslavia and its allies won the war. There were many bloodshed, but that didn't stop inevitable, plus - there were so many German families driven away from here after WWII. That's how Austria-Hungary lost its territories. They took too much people into their empire, they didn't assimilate them successfully, and it was their doom.

 

Similar to Kosovo and Metohija which used to be Serbian land, and later Albanians took it - first by becoming majority with their high birth rate, and then finished what they started in bloodshed. Desperate measures were taken to keep it under control, and that resulted in bombing in 1999.

 

I hope European countries won't think they are immune to this. These things happen to a country and to a nation when they are weakened, not when they are in power.

 

Diversity is not a strength when one part of the society is against others.

[Mathew Steel 151]

Diversity is not a strength when one part of the society is against others.

I may have to steal that quote from you ;)

[EaglePrince 261]

No problem. :D Although I am glad that we have similar opinions about this matter, I would be much happier if it was different. Although I may too pedant when it comes to relying on researches, I do feel that many Arabs simply don't like Europeans, white people, and Christians in general, and that they often look at themselves as the noble ones compared to us. What many of them wish actually is not to adopt in European countries, but they in fact hope that they will eventually conquer Europe demographically. Normally that wouldn't make a problem - when it comes to some other ethnic groups, but if they became majority they might try to push their values which mean no good. I'd say that even now we have a problem, since Europeans promote tolerance, while they promote their ways, so it's not even balanced. If Europeans promoted their ways, including Christianity, instead, then there might be some balance.

 

Right now we are more like "pagan" Greeks or Romans who didn't actually force their beliefs, and they didn't consider it a shame if somebody left that religion for Christianity. While in Christianity kids were thought they must not abandon their religion, and so Christianity became the official religion of Roman Empire. Of course, it's not just that, but that's one of the factors. It is really on of the factors why Ottomans didn't manage to turn Balkan nations into Islam. They say turning into Islam used to be more efficient in Bosnia because they used to be Bogumils (it is a sect, so to say, of Christianity, I think that our friend Crusader have written an article about them) which we're thought differently, and they didn't consider it so bad to convert to another religion. In other words, you could say they used to be more liberal. :)