The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
2 Pages V   1 2 >   Reply to this topic

The new voice of Europe.

It's late but very welcome.

Gamla Hälsingebock
post 11.Apr.2017, 01:21 AM
Post #1
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/201...amic-extremists

Marine Le Pen said on Monday.

“A multicultural society is a multiconflict society,”

The Lady rocks!!!
Go to the top of the page
+
Uncle Fred
post 11.Apr.2017, 09:33 AM
Post #2
Joined: 16.Apr.2008

Not sure I entirely agree with this statement, although I can understand where she’s coming from. Multiculturalism to one extent does work and there is proof all around the world. To start with European’s have integrated all over the world and don’t forget in many cases have forced it. In the UK Indian, Chinese and Caribbean people have bought some of their way of life to Britain. The Indian and Chinese food culture is loved by the British and these people have integrated very well in British society. I have friends that are Indian and Caribbean and are some of the nicest people I have ever met. I believe multiculturalism does work, what doesn’t work is multireligionism, again to a certain extent. Some regions live side by side perfectly while others want to impose their faith on overs which is wrong.
It is religion that is wrong not people, look at how many conflicts (past and present) have been religious related.
Go to the top of the page
+
Bsmith
post 11.Apr.2017, 12:16 PM
Post #3
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

There is really only one religion that is the problem: Islam. Islam does not tolerate other religions.
Go to the top of the page
+
Model T Ford
post 13.Apr.2017, 11:31 AM
Post #4
Joined: 31.May.2013

Some voice, Gamla, haven't heard Marie criticizing her father, the founder of the National Front. for blaming the Norwegian government for Anders Breivik's massacres.
Go to the top of the page
+
Nine X Nine
post 26.Apr.2017, 06:13 AM
Post #5
Joined: 26.Apr.2017

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 11.Apr.2017, 12:16 PM) *
There is really only one religion that is the problem: Islam. Islam does not tolerate other religions.


And Christianity does? The Catholic Church is responsible for more murder, deaths, and torture than Hitler and Stalin combined. Strangely enough we have Napoleon to thank for clipping the Vatican's wings in 1798. He stripped the Papacy of almost all it's military powers. Islam is most definitely not alone in its single minded belief that other faiths should be wiped out.
Go to the top of the page
+
Bsmith
post 26.Apr.2017, 11:27 AM
Post #6
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

QUOTE (Nine X Nine @ 26.Apr.2017, 05:13 AM) *
And Christianity does? The Catholic Church is responsible for more murder, deaths, and torture than Hitler and Stalin combined. Strangely enough we have Napoleon to thank for ... (show full quote)


Let's talk about modern times, shall we. Islam is still in the 16th century...except it has modern weaponry.
Go to the top of the page
+
Gamla Hälsingebock
post 26.Apr.2017, 02:53 PM
Post #7
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

All one needs to do is look at the partition of India to understand what Islam really is...
Go to the top of the page
+
Model T Ford
post 26.Apr.2017, 06:16 PM
Post #8
Joined: 31.May.2013

What about the Hindi terrorists?
Go to the top of the page
+
Bsmith
post 26.Apr.2017, 06:30 PM
Post #9
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

What about them?
Go to the top of the page
+
Gamla Hälsingebock
post 26.Apr.2017, 06:38 PM
Post #10
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

Who did they terrorize???
Go to the top of the page
+
Nine X Nine
post 27.Apr.2017, 03:50 AM
Post #11
Joined: 26.Apr.2017

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 26.Apr.2017, 12:27 PM) *
Let's talk about modern times, shall we. Islam is still in the 16th century...except it has modern weaponry.


And that is the whole problem in the world right now. Everyone want's a cut-off point where their own past misdeeds, genocides, invasions, and ethnic cleansing, are forgotten, or shouldn't count any more. The world doesn't work like that. You can't simply tell people that stuff you did in the past doesn't count anymore, just because it suits YOU not to be reminded of it.

The English despise the IRA and the Irish Republicans for years of bombings and urban warfare, but completely refuse to face up to the fact that they invaded Ireland by stealth, under the guise of protecting their own back door from invasion by the French or Spanish, because Henry VIII setup his own church and thumbed his nose at the Pope.

The middle east has been a mess for 100 years because the British and French stitched up the Arabs after WW1. The Brits and French convinced the Arabs to revolt against the Turks, to keep them occupied and unable to provide any real support to their allies The Germans. The reward for this was to be the British and French promising to make sure that the Arabs got all their lands back, that the Turks had been systematically annexing for the previous 80 odd years. However, once the war was over, the British foreign secretary, Sir Arthur Balfour, set up something called The Balfour Declaration and the British and French carved up the Arab lands for themselves.

Balfour then set about the first attempt to establish a Jewish homeland on the Arab lands. And Contrary to appearances, this wasn't out of any empathy for the Jews; it was quite the opposite. Balfour was a massive anti Semite and his logic was that the Jews could be repatriated to their own homeland, whereupon the Arabs would invade them within a decade and wipe them out. Unfortunately for the British and French,WW2 got in the way and the Jews came out of that with the unwavering protection of the USA. You want to know why the Islamic world hates the west? There's your answer. Because the British and the French screwed them over and them gave their land to the Jews.

In both cases, every generation is brought up by the previous generation to despise and mistrust those who have robbed or invaded them, and it goes on for hundreds of years. You can't simply call a time out and say, "oh, that was years ago. It doesn't matter anymore." It matters to those who lost out, or who were ripped off. It only doesn't matter to those who won or benefited.

A big part of learning history is to teach us the errors of the past, so we don't repeat them. Simply dismissing history as 'a long time ago in the past, so it doesn't count anymore' is exactly why we continue to make those same mistakes.
Go to the top of the page
+
Gamla Hälsingebock
post 27.Apr.2017, 04:49 AM
Post #12
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

I agree with most of what you said, except in 1170 The Norman English with the help of the Pope gained control of Ireland...

If you also like to use history to compare today's world with yesterday, then look at Islam, it was founded in 622.

In a hundred years it had taken Arabia, Jerusalem, Constantinople, North Africa, Spain and was in the heart of France before it was stopped, not to mention what it had taken in the east...

And later Eastern Europe the Balkans and Greece, It got stopped twice at Vienna!!!

So much for spreading a religion by the sword!!!

Now it is taking Europe, not by the sword but by birth rate!!!

Oh, where is Charles Martel when you need him AGAIN???

Islam does not belong in Western Europe...
Go to the top of the page
+
Bsmith
post 27.Apr.2017, 11:56 AM
Post #13
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

QUOTE (Nine X Nine @ 27.Apr.2017, 03:50 AM) *
And that is the whole problem in the world right now. Everyone want's a cut-off point where their own past misdeeds, genocides, invasions, and ethnic cleansing, are forgot ... (show full quote)



I'm not saying history doesn't count. However, we live in the present. Would you rather have a neighbor who is a serial rapist/murderer or a neighbor who's great grandfather was a serial rapist/murderer?
Go to the top of the page
+
Nine X Nine
post 28.Apr.2017, 08:16 AM
Post #14
Joined: 26.Apr.2017

[quote name='Gamla Hälsingebock' date='27.Apr.2017, 04:49 AM' post='911594']
I agree with most of what you said, except in 1170 The Norman English with the help of the Pope gained control of Ireland...


Id argue that the term Norman-English is something of an elastic description. The Normans were still very much a French speaking conquering elite in 1170. It was hardly like they were an integrated to any real extent. History refers to Anglo Normans, Cambro Normans, Scoto Normans, and Iberian Normans; all of whom were very much Normans first and foremost, but denoted by their regions of occupation.

Richard the Lionheart was the son of the Ireland invading (Anglo) Norman king, Edward II, and Richard famously didn't speak any English/Anglo Saxon language. He was one of history's most famous kings of England, yet in his 10 year reign, he spent less than 6 months in England.
The Norman's had not even begun to assimilate in to England in 1170. It was still 'us' and 'them'

By the Tudor age, you could argue that 400 years of Norman occupation had become an English-Norman dynasty, but it was hardly that in the first century after the conquest.
Go to the top of the page
+
Gamla Hälsingebock
post 28.Apr.2017, 01:29 PM
Post #15
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

You used the word English, I refined it to Norman/English,
since they did speak French at that time...
Go to the top of the page
+

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: