Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by forte

  1. 7 minutes ago, notme said:

    It isn't just money. Many are running from towns overrun by drug cartels who will enslave, rape, or kill them and the police are unwilling or unable to do anything to stop it. 

    Yes - totally agree.   Anyone that would risk their own life and the lives of their children to escape these situations are completely desperate. They would face death rather than remain in a hell hole of unimaginable terror.  I cant believe that there are people (especially Shia) who can justify (with laws from a country that they would in any other situation have no respect for) smugly turning their backs on them.  It is demoralizing.

  2. 6 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

    This is a good argument for why these illegal entries go home. This way they will not be subject to such inhumane treatment.

    For many, this is better than what they left or at least they think it is better. Bottom line is that there is more money which means hope for their kids.  Money is important as many live in poverty at a level unknown in the states.

  3. 34 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

    Current system is working well for many countries in Europe who have had sane immigration policies, like Switzerland. 

    No, you don't protect that, because you prosecute criminals whether they are legal immigrants or citzens or illegal immigrants or whatever their status is. What is your point? That legal migration promotes crime and exploitation? If it is, it just doesn't. What does promote crime is the entry of criminals, as you said, which is a problem, but that problem can be limited through strong background checks and documentation. In fact, this issue is more prevalent with illegal immigration, not legal. That's more of a methodology problem, not a systemic issue where one should advocate for the abolishing of borders.

    It is corporations who benefit from that status quo of allowing millions of immigrants because that turns into cheap labour and below minimum wage work, in effect exploitation.


    If they were legal immigrants, they would be able to sue such corporations that exploit them for greed. 

    Basically what you are saying is that the system worked for you and you will be the shill to protect it at all costs.  And, yes, Switzerland has done a great job at protecting and providing for their rich and for the rich of the world. 

    Once a well honed high end criminal is in your country, it is very very difficult to prosecute as their activities are ensconced in layers and layers of protection implemented by well paid attorneys and the like.  Most people know this. However, they passed the LEGAL immigration test of investing a minimum set amount of money in the country.  Again this is LEGAL.  Criminality is unknown until the Chinese justice system seeks to extradite them to face trial.  But LEGALLY that cannot be done as our country is fearful of what treatment they might receive in China.

    It would help if you would use this as a learning opportunity and at least investigate what some posters have written and gain some knowledge and use the new leads for new facts to look up. 

  4. 8 minutes ago, notme said:

    I've said nothing against detaining asylum seeking or illegal border crossing immigrant families until their case has been reviewed by a judge. It's what's been done for years. The system had serious flaws that needed to be addressed - like the recent review that concluded that more than a thousand unaccompanied minors were unaccounted for and at least four had been verified as released to human traffikers. But that means we need to make it better, not worse. 

    So much for "American family values".

    If there was a better migrant flow system that was safe for everyone, I am sure most people would abide by it and this mess would be history. 

  5. 1 minute ago, notme said:

    Mind you, this is not unprecedented. Thousands of Native American children were ripped from their families and subjected to horrific abuse in boarding schools, and let's not even start on how African slaves were treated. We need to rise above our cruel and subhuman past. 

    Yep.  It is wake up time, regardless of the discomfort of going against long established patterns of behaviour.

  6. 58 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

    I don't live in America, but I do live in a Western nation, just to get that clear. 

    Yes, greed is bad, poverty is bad. But what does that have to do with illegal immigration? Again you're not connected the dots, you're just naming bad things.

    Some people are born in a safe environment and others aren't, and while that shouldn't happy as the ideal is that everyone should be safe and sound, the fact is it is impossible to help everyone in the world. 

    It seems you're just taking an extreme approach which is let everyone in without being nuanced. No one should be against immigration by Muslims, Mexicans or Arabs, my position is it is smarter to promote legal migration.

    The problem is what defines legal immigration and how it is defined.  It is defined by greed, not need.  Migration needs to supersede this and from these needs there has to be a more equatable system.  The current system is not working due to a lot of factors.

    For example:

    I live in a city that has allowed huge numbers of LEGAL immigrants from China.  However, many of these immigrants are high end criminals and got in because they have money - lots of it.  They now live in "my country", continue to exploit workers in China at their no labour law industries, enjoy the trappings of their new life (as they live in a country that gives them all the rights that they deny their countrymen), pay no taxes as they have no income (on paper) from their new country and intimidate other new mainland Chinese immigrants who dont know the laws or language of the new country (and so will not report them to police) and have securely implemented their lucrative no paper trail scams set up, often before arrival.  They have a class structured culture that is run by their own "Golden Rule".  That rule is "He who has the gold, makes the rules".  

    Do you protect that? Because hiding behind some pseudo legalities in order to keep back the low end socio-economic crowd is what you are unknowingly supporting - like I said, you need to try and be objective and read more on this as unemotionally as possible.  Don't be fooled by terminology.  Search out what is really happening and how this is affecting others.  

    In regards to American domestic policy - the one percenters develop that policy - so who do you think is structured to benefit from it? Who do you think is structured to financially support it?  aka support the one percenters?  Keeping out those who would ultimately question their motives and subsequent policies, is in their best interest. 

    We, as Muslims, as humans, cannot continue to support the status quo as defined by those with questionable motives.

    LOL  As for dots - I connect the dots just fine. And I earned the right to do so - because I have studied for many years and have collected lots of dots and am always searching for more.  When one hasn't yet found a significant number of dots, world views can be very limited.  Until the dots are found, one's parameters are too limited to others' perceptions and to those who make the biggest noise.

  7. 4 hours ago, Sumerian said:

    Not true. There's millions of migrants across the world who have legally gone to different countries. I gave the example of the UAE, where there's more migrants than citzens, and they went there legally with the permission of their governments and the Emirati government.

    What rights are being denied? They could apply for migration. Read this;

    Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever, at just over 37,000,000 legal immigrants. Illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year with a net of at least 700,000 illegal immigrants arriving every year.


    Millions come to the US legally. So it really isn't an issue to come legally.

    As for the crimes of the US government, they are known especially to me since I'm Iraqi. But what is the relevance?

    Also, how far are you willing to go? Get rid of the borders for good? 

    Domestically, illegal immigration does not change the gap between the wealthy and the poor so I'm not sure what the relevance is.

    You need to do a lot more reading and study on migration and the reasons for migration for all concerned.  Migration used to happen naturally but man made greed (grab all you can and hold it in one place for a select few) and aggression (if you don't have it, steal it - again for the select few)  has created inhumane, desperate situations for many people.  

    You also need to ask yourself why one person is more deserving than another human - you migrated to the US but others should not have this same unfettered opportunity? It is typical for new migrants to want to stem the flow after they have reached a place of safety and economic security.  They feel their new found security and standard of living is possibly going to be threatened by new comers.  It is natural to feel this way.

    Should the American government have listened to Americans who did not want Iraqis/Arabs/Muslims/various-prejudicial-terminology identifiers... from entering the country?  You are trying to protect a system that desperately needs to change and it will change.  It can change with acceptance and tolerance or it will' be ugly and feel threatening.  But it is going to happen.  The numbers of the victims of this greed and intolerance are just too massive. 

  8. 4 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

    This isn't nationalism, this is an issue of national and economic security. We don't own the Earth, as the mountains, rivers and forrests are owned by the Imam (as). But what is equally true, is government is authoratative and the purpose for it is to help its own people. As per Islamic Law, the migrants who come in to a country without the permission of the authorities have committed a sin, because obeying the laws of the land is obligatory.

    i was not aware that crossing a man made border was a sin.  But, yes, I agree that once you enter a country, you need to obey the laws of the land.

  9. 1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

    I guess I was wrong when I said there was no difference between Trump and Clinton, she would never have done this. According to a twitter post I read, many who voted for Trump over Clinton because he was a lesser evil are responsible for this, because it's hard to imagine Clinton being worse on any issue than Trump has been (except maybe Syria, but even that is doubtful if the US had no NATO support to conduct an extensive bombing campaign), and she was definitely better on other issues, like climate change, Iran deal, immigration reform, etc. 

    Trump is not the first to do this.  As for what you may feel that she might have done (if in office) , among many other things, H Clinton backed the mass incarceration of young black males - she referred to them as "super predators".  And they were "in house" Americans.  Once you get out of house, she has shown that she has done even worse.  I think her current rhetoric in regards to "illegals" would have clashed with her actions.


    2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

    A border should be considered like the wall of someone's house, you only get in once the owner allows you in.

    You are assuming that we own the house.  In actual fact, we just have use it. 

    In Islam, there is no room for one to be a loyal and genuine nationalist. It is a question of identity, and one negates the other.

    Nationalism is incompatible with Islam, both schools having two opposite ideologies. These two assume two totally opposite poles in their spirit, essence, direction and goal.      


    6 hours ago, Sumerian said:

    So they should just accept people coming in illegally and hand out citzenship like that?

    People are going to come and when they come "illegally" it causes a lot of long term problems for many people (as I mentioned before).  If there was a more humane way of allowing people to access a better life, and they came through "legally", they could be documented and supported in a way that would benefit everyone.  People should not be denied basic rights because of a national border.  

    Also, to be blunt, The United States is powerful and wealthy based on a lot of the actions of the American governments over many years of maintaining slaves,  invading formerly stable nations, threatening and bullying, economically manipulating, causing massive and severe hardship for many people around the globe.  I would think that the all people who have been hurt by these actions, absolutely have a right to claim asylum; they have more than paid for it.  And that is a lot of people.

    Domestically, the only thing an impenetrable border will do, is to further develop and maintain the gap between the wealthy (referred to as the one percenters) and the lower middle class and poor.

    If you want to really reduce immigration, you need to improve the living conditions in the areas that these people are risking their life to leave.  

  10. On 6/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, notme said:

    I'm flabbergasted. While discussing the separation of families for internment due to undocumented border crossing, an elderly relative of mine just announced that she's certain it's all Bill Clinton's fault. I don't know what to say, so I just said nothing at all. 

    Clinton is no humanitarian.  He was responsible for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which established decades long mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession - most of the incarcerated masses were poor and African American.  Many lives and families were destroyed and have not recovered... could go on but I am off topic.  

  11. 39 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

    It depends also on the prison culture in the country. If Iraq implemented the Norweigan prison, even though the prisons are filled with combat ready and trained ISIS fighters, it will be a disaster.

    But yes, in Europe it obviously works.

    War combatants need more intense intervention.  Doesn't matter if they are ISIS or Americans in Iraq.  Same issues result.

  12. 4 hours ago, erik said:

    Today we had a discussion in class with my religion teacher about capital punishment. She's completely against capital punishment as she says we don't gain anything at the end by killing another human, but I told her that capital punishment also acted as a deterrant meaning that crime rates would decrease. I'm just wondering if this is actually true in countries under sharia law like Iran and Saudi Arabia or even in countries such as China. Do these countries that apply capital punishment have much lower crime rates than other countries?

    Check out the list of countries with the death penalty and then check out the list of countries without.  In which group of countries would you feel safest?

    Scandinavia has the most humane prisons in the world with very low recidivism.  Prisoners are treated justly and fairly (education, therapy, job training) and have less stigma and condemnation when released. The citizens trust the system and those released from the system.There is a lot to be gained in helping someone who is lost to be given opportunity and hope.  

    Biggest indicator of crime rate is despair.  There is a direct correlation between poor education, poverty and crime.

  13. 43 minutes ago, coldcow said:

    What am I ignoring?  I'm pointing out that the picture of "Rebecca" being labeled as the sniper that shot the Palestinian medic doesn't make sense.  There are plenty of Palestinians and other Arabs that literally want to wipe Israel of the Map.  I know there are some that try and say "oh, no, they mean just the zionist regime, not actually wipe out Israel."  But even if that's true, that they just want Israel to change names to Palestine and for everyone to get equal rights again, (1)  past experiences show us that whenever Muslims go back into a place as a 'conqueror' if you will, they exact mob justice.  Remember when the militias took back Iraqi villages from ISIS?  They tied people up by their feet and dragged their bodies behind trucks.  

    So, actions have consequences, right?  I'm not saying it was right, but throwing rocks at people is probably against the law.  (2) If the soldiers let a 5 year old keep throwing rocks, it reinforces in him  that he  can get away with it, and he'll get bigger and older and throw larger rocks.  And his friends will throw larger rocks as well.  I'm not saying it's right, but it's not like he was just minding his own business and got dragged away.

    Reframing what you said:

    (1) You have to keep Muslims down and in a subservient positions so that the Israelis can be free and unencumbered to do what they do best.... because we all know that Muslims are thugs and will resort to mob violence..... not just in this situation but in other places around the world as well. 

    (2) There is legitimacy to terrorizing and injuring (perhaps killing - who knows what they do to him once he is no longer in the range of a camera) an unarmed five year old child.

    You speak of integrity but have absolutely no knowledge of what it is or what it means.  

    (1)  Targeting anyone for murder - state sanctioned cold blooded deliberate murder - is reprehensible and, again, against international law.  It is a war crime and it is a hate crime. Going off on some tangent about how you think others think this way or that does not deflect from this.  She is not the first person targeted - nor will she be the last.  As the IDF acts with impunity.

    (2)  If you think terrorizing, beating and perhaps killing a small child for political purposes has any gain for whatever that regime stands for - you are greatly mistaken.  If they allow him to live (but you can kill a 5 year old pretty easily), he will be their enemy forever - along with his family and anyone else that witnessed that. Just your intention to legitimize such a cowardly act by several heavily armed men dressed in military protective gear as they get pleasure from hurting a small, thickly-dressed child says a lot about you.  

  14. 2 hours ago, coldcow said:

    How do we know she's the one that killer her?  It seems very unlikely that this would be make public knowledge.  Also, supposedly the Israelis are using snipers.  She doesn't look like a sniper, and she's not holding a sniper rifle.

    Who cares which honourable member of the IDF shot her??  She was targeted by the IDF, shot in the neck by the IDF and she is dead due to the IDF. 

    Shooting medical personnel is against the Geneva Convention.  It is a war crime.  However, Israel chooses repeatedly to ignore international law.  They can bully, harass, intimidate, starve, occupy (for generations), imprison and murder thousands of children and adults with impunity because they are backed by a mega power.

    I recently saw a video of a five year old being terrorized and dragged off by the IDF into an armoured vehicle.  Also against international law... I am curious as to what your apologetic for that is. 

    These are people with no moral compass or sense of humanity.  


  15. 21 hours ago, Laayla said:

    Why is pedophilia a psychiatric disorder and not homosexuality?  Who defines what is and what isn't.  Fifty or less years later are they also going to normalize pedophilia?

    The had (punishment) for these acts are severe because of the corruption and magnitude of damage it causes to society.

    What you do in the privacy of your home is your business but once you promote, encourage, and demonstrate your sexuality outside you are effecting the society and bringing corruption, hence the severity of the had on homosexuality.

    M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah 

    Pedophilia is a medical, mental health disorder that you can find listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, 5th edition (DSM 5).  It is clearly defined and delineated from similar manifestations of behaviour.  Here is more information:  http://jaapl.org/content/42/4/404   Hoards of medical professionals from around the globe, after YEARS of consultations and research and debate (the current edition of the DSM took over 15 years to develop) define what is a diagnosable disorder and what isn't.

    Medical diagnoses are based on objective research methodology results that are to be as free of bias due to tradition or superstitious beliefs, as humanly possible. A medical diagnosis is based on concepts that reflect legitimate evidence-based contributions. 

    A medical diagnosis is the first step in modern medical practice.  The purpose is to guide the management and treatment of the patient. In contrast to previous belief system approaches, where "disorders" were determined on culture or myth based systems, modern medical guidelines are based on examination of current evidence using modern diagnostic techniques and treatments that are to be free of bias, culture or myth.  Again, all humans have bias due to acculturation, but this is goal for which we continually strive. Consultations between medical professionals are common place to support the practice of objectivity.

    There is a wealth of information as to why homosexuality is not included as a psychiatric disorder that has come from many years of examination from many different angles.  If you are interested in exploring this further, there is plenty of information at your google finger tips.

    Society's excessive, extreme punitive approaches to homosexuals have probably caused more damage than homosexuals themselves.  There are some very famous examples of people who contributed greatly to society who were imprisoned, tortured and/or killed.  A modern example is Alan Turing.

  16. 20 minutes ago, .InshAllah. said:

    Being ginger is (statistically) abnormal.  But being ginger, unlike homosexuality, doesn't stop an individual from performing normal human functions such as natural sexual reproduction.

    I have never heard of a physical variation as being “abnormal”.  Ginger hair does not impact your behaviour or psychological makeup, including your sexual predisposition or orientation in either homosexuality or heterosexuality.  It is a nonvariant in homosexuality. It is unclear as to what you are trying to indicate.

  17. Dont know about great or not so great.  Probably a lot easier to be heterosexual though.

    Homosexuality is not a disability but an abnormality; that is, it is a sexual attraction that differs from the norm.  The norm is being heterosexual.  Anyone with an abnormality needs to develop life coping strategies to operate within the "normal" population.  This has led to some interesting strategies....they are many and varied.

    The laws and social stigma against homosexuality have embraced some extremely punitive and often violent actions being taken against this population in direct contravention of basic human rights.  If we value human rights for ourselves, we have to promote human rights for all peoples including those with abnormalities, disorders and disablitiies.

    The fight to re-criminalize or maintain the illegality of homosexuality vs the fight to legitimize it both legally and socially has led to the politicization of this abnormality and to some very extreme actions on both ends of the spectrum.  The positive of this fight is that it has created a freedom for homosexuals to lead a less clandestine life with more support, acceptance and medical intervention.  It has also perhaps has prevented some deaths from suicidal depression. The negative is that the outcome of this fight has impaired freedom of thought and speech.  Expressing negative views on homosexuality can have you be charged with "homophobia", hate speech, etc with punishments ranging from having a criminal record to being shunned, losing your job, etc.

    I have never seen any literary evidence that proves homosexuality to be harmful.  The species survives despite homosexuality.  There is a lot of research to show that homosexuals are products of nature, not nurture so would not be an affliction to the general population other than that of possible discomfort.  Sexually intimate behaviour from people of all sexual orientations in public is socially and sometimes legally unacceptable.

    I think that schools should teach about all abnormalities. Accurate information from a carefully developed educational curriculum source is better than ill informed or biased information.  I dont think it is health for primary students to be exposed to this (as is the push), but this information should be accessible to children before they learn it elsewhere.

    Conversations about gays often includes overlapping talk of pedophilia.  Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder where someone is exclusively attracted to children; the children are usually  defined as being under the age of 13.  There are gays who are pedophiles. However, the perpetrators of pedophilia are mainly male, and the targets of pedophiles are mainly female.  

  18. On 5/29/2018 at 11:08 PM, Sumerian said:

    Do you know how much this migration process costs? 

    WSJ; it will cost over $86 billion in the next few years.

    Germany needs immigration.  http://www.dw.com/en/germany-is-not-shrinking/a-37415327 

    I agree that opening the borders to whoever and whatever was insane.  Pandering to aggressive tactics of some of the migrants was also insane. Germany will be cleaning up the mess from that for a long time.  However, it should be noted that the clean up of the "undesirables" (a totally euphemistic term!) has been helped by other migrants.  Those that are problems are usually found by information given by migrants who know who they are and where they are from, and they especially do not want them around.  The next step is to actually turf them without ridiculously long processes.

    However, Germany's economy is booming (which is why Merkel despite her crazy ideas about migration is so popular).  Also, the population exceeds 82 million people so you are not looking at the same infrastructure problem that is challenging Sweden.

    Again of concern is the rise of the right, but they just had their biggest demonstration ever and they were totally outnumbered.  Germany is still stinging from the atrocities that took place during WWII and will be careful to uphold the rights of the vulnerable.  You can do really well economically in Germany.  Staying on the limitations of benefits will not be attractive in the long term for new comers.

  19. 1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

    This is the thing, how much of the extra population relies on welfare? You hear this on the media, is there a study on this or something? In the US mexicans are often blasted for relying on welfare, yet the people who receive the most welfare are white people. 

    Not according to this:  In 2012, an average of 41.6% of African Americans received means-tested benefits each month. About 18% of Asians or Pacific Islanders and 13% of whites received benefits each month. 36% percent of Hispanics of any race received government assistance. https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/whos-on-welfare-9-shocking-stats-about-public-assistance.html/?a=viewall

  20. 1 hour ago, Forgottenthinker said:

    At this rate there won't even be a Sweden left, just Swedistan. The people don't want this its the government which doesnt care for actual Swedes.

    Here is a fairly recent poll https://www.thelocal.se/20160905/poll-fewer-swedes-willing-to-help-asylum-seekers  According to this, Swedes want fewer asylum seekers but are not advocating for no immigration.  Yes, a substantial number of people require social assistance for daily living, special medical care and special educational services and it is very expensive.  But the majority of Swedes still vote for leadership who advocate for immigration and advertising their country as a haven for asylum seekers.  


    Out of the 10,000,000 who are actually tax contributing?  Not sure what numbers are the working population once you account for children, seniors and those of working age who are not contributing. 

    There is a rise in the right due to a chronic strain on resources - costs continue to rise. The right currently has favour of 20% in polls... but actual votes may be different.

  21. 19 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

    "Open borders" is not a good policy even if the people coming in are angels. There are economic problems with it.

    Especially in Europe, where it will be the job of the welfare state to take care of this "extra" population, and so there is a burden on the government. Housing, healthcare, education etc...

    Europe, esp Germany, need workers and that was the presenting need in bringing new people into their country.  They have a booming economy.  I don't agree with Merkel's  not screening asylum seekers and obviously, as there was no accountability, everyone crossing the border became a "refugee"... In addition to authentic refugees came people with questionable purpose from opportunists to criminals... but the majority will add to the economy.

  22. 38 minutes ago, Forgottenthinker said:

    Also remember, Mali is not at war and a majority of these migrants aren't even Syrian. They're from other African nations that are poor no doubt but not at war, so this makes them economic migrants not refugees. Syria and Libya were destroyed by the large European powers by funding rebels and overthrowing Gadaffi so taking in refugees from these two nations is a priority I agree Muhammad. But everyone else not from these nations need to be sent back they're just taking advantage of the open Libyan borders.

    Most of these migrants are economic but their situations are often pretty desperate.  I think countries should have the right to refuse new immigrants - especially if they are struggling to maintain the standard of living of the population that they already have - but countries like Sweden had a very welcoming open door to new comers and have admitted nearly 2 million (with great diversity of backgrounds, abilities and ethnicities) with no questions asked.  Sweden is a country whose population is less than that of some cities (pop. ~10,000,000)  The challenges have been much greater than they anticipated, and there is a rise in right wing politics, but the vast majority are still in favour of continued immigration.  The culture of the country is one in which the population is determined to make it work.

  23. Another good thing to come from this story (other than saving the boys life and the recognition and opportunities it has provided to his rescuer) is that it exposes a social need of newcomers. Apparently, the boy who was rescued and his father were from Reunion (off the east coast of Africa) and that his mother and siblings are to join them soon in France.  The boy's father had left him alone to go shopping and got sidetracked on the way home.  Yep, it was a stupid decision, not thought through, but it is one with potentially long term consequences for their family.  The child was removed from his care and the dad was taken into custody - although I think he has been released.  This highlights a need for multi-cultural support for newcomers that may not be being met.  He probably came from a culture where kids are left for short periods of time while extended family or neighbours kept an eye on them. He is now facing some fairly serious charges which could impact his ability to get work and support his family.

    Adding:  Not excusing the dad for his negligence; his child came close to being killed.  However, people in life changing transitions often make very poor choices. 

  • Create New...