Trump’s comments condemned by Muslims around the world

[arjunadawn]

Let me get this straight... Attack after attack, nobody can hear a peep from the "moderate muslims" condemning terror attacks.

But when a western presidential candidate says some words, all of a sudden, we can hear the "moderates" laud and clear

This should be broadcast from the roof tops. This is the story, not the contrived narrative the media offer.

If you did not hear a peep perhaps you arent looking. There has been quite a lot of condemnation from muslims but you cannot blame them if mainstream media refuse to broadcast it.

A simple google search will find it. Most harsh was from mala pm najib.

Yet again harsh jones proved to be wrong.

There has been some but no where near the shocking voice that is ringing out in response to Trump's comments. The difference is in magnitudes. If I relied on what the mainstream media had to say my observations would be very, very different. No, a simple google search does not remotely support more than a peep. Relative to the enormity of the threat visited upon the entire world, there is relative silence. It is increasingly clear to me how this will play out. The silent muslim majority will invariably "feel they have no choice" because they were "pushed" away from the fold. I believe there are hundreds of millions of peaceful muslims. My girlfriend for example. But I believe there are hundreds of millions of very dangerous muslims determined to destroy our world.

[arjunadawn]

Trumps remarks are about as rediculous as the hair on his head.

Well......Japan bans them.....no-one comments on that!

Japan does not ban them

Ah, Japan pretty much does ban. See any attacks in Japan? Japan has polices that pretty much make islam impossible to plant there. Few mosques and then further restrictions- on muslims. This old policy has recently been re affirmed. Again, you are not correct.

http://chersonandmolschky.com/2015/04/13/islamic-terrorism-japan/

http://conservativetribune.com/japan-shut-down-islam/

Wikipedia

[Linzz]

Let me get this straight... Attack after attack, nobody can hear a peep from the "moderate muslims" condemning terror attacks.

But when a western presidential candidate says some words, all of a sudden, we can hear the "moderates" laud and clear

There are some."Not in my name" but Islam is not a religion of peace when it's adherents are afraid to speak out

[Linzz]

Trumps remarks are about as rediculous as the hair on his head.

Yeah but he did joke about it when he asked what was the difference between the hair on his head and a squirrel? The answer was the squirrel didnt own 4 billion dollars

[simple1]

Trumps remarks are about as rediculous as the hair on his head.

Well......Japan bans them.....no-one comments on that!

Japan does not ban them

Ah, Japan pretty much does ban. See any attacks in Japan? Japan has polices that pretty much make islam impossible to plant there. Few mosques and then further restrictions- on muslims. This old policy has recently been re affirmed. Again, you are not correct.

http://chersonandmolschky.com/2015/04/13/islamic-terrorism-japan/

http://conservativetribune.com/japan-shut-down-islam/

Wikipedia

Again I have to ask why you don't fact check before linking to sites such as the above. Some of the info is from a proven hoax email, other so called facts are fabricated.

Edited December 9, 2015 by simple1

[JHolmesJr]

Speak out against what? The isis nutters are merely following the outdated teachings of the Koran to a T.

To speak out against that is being an apostate....to be beheaded.

[uptheos]

Muslims are right to condemn Trumps remarks. He's a kook. On the other hand, I would like to see more Muslims of fighting age in uniform, on the ground, kicking the crap out of Isis. Isil. Daesh -- whatever the flavor of the month hate freaks are calling themselves now. MUM -- Man up Muslims!

Oh dear no, as is often quoted 'Islam is a religion of peace'............convenient eh?

[dutchisaan]

Let me get this straight... Attack after attack, nobody can hear a peep from the "moderate muslims" condemning terror attacks.

But when a western presidential candidate says some words, all of a sudden, we can hear the "moderates" laud and clear

There are some."Not in my name" but Islam is not a religion of peace when it's adherents are afraid to speak out

Please help me out here, just name a religion that is only about peace?

[samran]

Trumps remarks are about as rediculous as the hair on his head.

Well......Japan bans them.....no-one comments on that!

Japan does not ban them

Ah, Japan pretty much does ban. See any attacks in Japan? Japan has polices that pretty much make islam impossible to plant there. Few mosques and then further restrictions- on muslims. This old policy has recently been re affirmed. Again, you are not correct.

http://chersonandmolschky.com/2015/04/13/islamic-terrorism-japan/

http://conservativetribune.com/japan-shut-down-islam/

Wikipedia

Tell that to my Bengali mate who I did my masters with. He's got a PHD in economics and has been living in Japan the best part of a decade. From what I see, he and his family are practicing his religion pretty freely and publically.

You are clearly an intelligent bloke, so I wonder why you swallow the drivel in the links you just posted.

[metisdead]

A post containing conspiratorial nonsense has been removed.

[arjunadawn]

Ah, Japan pretty much does ban. See any attacks in Japan? Japan has polices that pretty much make islam impossible to plant there. Few mosques and then further restrictions- on muslims. This old policy has recently been re affirmed. Again, you are not correct.

http://chersonandmolschky.com

http://conservativetribune.

Wikipedia

Again I have to ask why you don't fact check before linking to sites such as the above. Some of the info is from a proven hoax email, other so called facts are fabricated.

I went through numerous sites just now and one thing clearly emerges: the typical narrative follows an underlying pattern of how it is presented. Perhaps others had noted this earlier and posted rebuttal sites to this information, but I had not seen that. Teasing through these cites it becomes easy to discern an underlying central source for the narrative- a point raised in the rebuttal cites. It is clear that a bunch of this information derives from a central source, I suppose now rejected. I had not realized this before. I would now edit the above post if I could. (I have removed the full link as not to post it twice).

I find the question curious enough to keep reading however. Something about this story is disjointed. There must be some subtle imperative not to allow muslim refugees into Japan. While trying to vie for a security council seat Japan only let in 11 or roughly 10,000 refugees. There is more to this story and it is not just the demographic noise the public voice of Japan asserts it is.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/30/japan-says-it-must-look-after-its-own-before-allowing-syrian-refugees-in

[arjunadawn]

Ah, Japan pretty much does ban. See any attacks in Japan? Japan has polices that pretty much make islam impossible to plant there. Few mosques and then further restrictions- on muslims. This old policy has recently been re affirmed. Again, you are not correct.

http://chersonandmolschky.com/

http://conservativetribune.c

Wikipedia

Tell that to my Bengali mate who I did my masters with. He's got a PHD in economics and has been living in Japan the best part of a decade. From what I see, he and his family are practicing his religion pretty freely and publically.

You are clearly an intelligent bloke, so I wonder why you swallow the drivel in the links you just posted.

I have already noted I was misled. I did not detect the common thread in each narrative. I see it now. There is a common source. (I broke the above link on repost).

[samran]

Ah, Japan pretty much does ban. See any attacks in Japan? Japan has polices that pretty much make islam impossible to plant there. Few mosques and then further restrictions- on muslims. This old policy has recently been re affirmed. Again, you are not correct.

http://chersonandmolschky.com

http://conservativetribune.

Wikipedia

Again I have to ask why you don't fact check before linking to sites such as the above. Some of the info is from a proven hoax email, other so called facts are fabricated.

I went through numerous sites just now and one thing clearly emerges: the typical narrative follows an underlying pattern of how it is presented. Perhaps others had noted this earlier and posted rebuttal sites to this information, but I had not seen that. Teasing through these cites it becomes easy to discern an underlying central source for the narrative- a point raised in the rebuttal cites. It is clear that a bunch of this information derives from a central source, I suppose now rejected. I had not realized this before. I would now edit the above post if I could. (I have removed the full link as not to post it twice).

I find the question curious enough to keep reading however. Something about this story is disjointed. There must be some subtle imperative not to allow muslim refugees into Japan. While trying to vie for a security council seat Japan only let in 11 or roughly 10,000 refugees. There is more to this story and it is not just the demographic noise the public voice of Japan asserts it is.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/30/japan-says-it-must-look-after-its-own-before-allowing-syrian-refugees-in

Japan is notoriously difficult to immigrate to, for anyone. That fact alone is ignored when these types of links are put together as they imply Japan is singling out one particular group over another.

While the TV keyboard warrior crew might applaud the fortress Japan approach, the proof is in the pudding. A declining population, not renewed by immigration, contributing to a skewed demographic time bomb and a more or less moribund economy as we have seen for the past two decades. Towns dying, communities aging. Certainly no way to keep a nation strong in my book.

Edited December 9, 2015 by samran

[arjunadawn]

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, President of Egypt. Is the only Muslim leader I know of who is condemning Islamic Jihad. Yet he is tantamount to an enemy by EU and U.S. leadership ... Obama even criticized el-Sisi for bombing ISIS in retaliation for killing Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya ...

This is very telling ... The EU leaders in my opinion are afraid of the radical Islamic terrorists / ISIS... and Obama seems to be very reluctant to engage ISIS ...

And Trump is criticized .... Totally upside down ...

Trump has the support of a huge number of American voters ... and limiting Muslim Immigration and removing Illegal Aliens will become standard operating procedures when Trump becomes President in the 2016 Election under the Trump / Cruz Ticket.

Liberals and Leftist are totally blind to the Conservative and (real) moderate uprising going on in American ... After this incident Trump's popularity will only increase ...

Allowing anymore Muslims to immigrate into the U.S. in light of recent events is shear insanity ...

I completely agree with your comments. Egypt's second revolution was the Egyptian people rising up against Mosi, Muslim Brother Hood, which they had voted into power but realized that was a big mistake. Sisi sided on the people and sent Mosi back to prison where he escaped from in the first Revolution 2011.

Obama has how many Muslim Brother Hoods' in his cabinet?? It does not take a rocket scientist to see where Obamas' allegiance lays.

complete ignorance

"Obama has how many Muslim Brother Hoods' in his cabinet??"

Is that why the Obama administration supports the El-Sisi regime with billions of dollars in aid and weapons?

Obama was only ever able to leverage certain things over al sisi. By law, significant sums must go to Egypt as per Camp David Agreement (I think it was). Obama did immediately threaten then withhold vast discretionary funds. (Under other provisions, even by law, the president can exercise a degree of choice if he can assert A, B, etc. These monies were leveraged against al sisi). The GCC was clearly in concert with al sisi because no sooner than al sisi come to power an emissary of the GCC arrived with promissory notes and deals worth more than the US threatened to withhold. This, and the GCC air operations against targets without consulting with the US led the US to realize their withholding monies was a paper tiger. later monies were freed up. But yes, Obama did leverage monies in aid and weapons at first. It didn't work. The greater risk was losing Egypt entirely.

The real questions are actually being deflected by Trump's seizing the narrative: What are the plans for really and actually vetting not only refugees but others? What is the current state of the US visa system? What are the parallels between the marked influx in muslim immigration and the drought of christians? What is the authority for the refugee program in any event, or which and how are being exercised (Some provisions are argued against existing law others against UN obligations)? Where is the money coming from? Is there an oath of allegiance and what are the penalties? What is the state of the US student visa program and how is it demographically represented lately?

These and other questions are far more important than the blanket, divisive statement Trump offered. See, it makes no difference whether Trump represents a growing discord in America. All that really matters in a general election and later is whether or not there is a practical constructive tool to remedy the problem that is touched upon. By racing to this declaration Trump inadvertently (I hope) provides cover for the more immediate and valid questions.

[Linky]

Let me get this straight... Attack after attack, nobody can hear a peep from the "moderate muslims" condemning terror attacks.

But when a western presidential candidate says some words, all of a sudden, we can hear the "moderates" laud and clear

This should be broadcast from the roof tops. This is the story, not the contrived narrative the media offer.

If you did not hear a peep perhaps you arent looking. There has been quite a lot of condemnation from muslims but you cannot blame them if mainstream media refuse to broadcast it.

A simple google search will find it. Most harsh was from mala pm najib.

Yet again harsh jones proved to be wrong.

There has been some but no where near the shocking voice that is ringing out in response to Trump's comments. The difference is in magnitudes. If I relied on what the mainstream media had to say my observations would be very, very different. No, a simple google search does not remotely support more than a peep. Relative to the enormity of the threat visited upon the entire world, there is relative silence. It is increasingly clear to me how this will play out. The silent muslim majority will invariably "feel they have no choice" because they were "pushed" away from the fold. I believe there are hundreds of millions of peaceful muslims. My girlfriend for example. But I believe there are hundreds of millions of very dangerous muslims determined to destroy our world.

I can tell you that living in a muslim country that most wouldnt even know there was a terrorist attack. They are too busy getting on with their lives trying to earn a living.

[Linky]

Speak out against what? The isis nutters are merely following the outdated teachings of the Koran to a T.

To speak out against that is being an apostate....to be beheaded.

So the malaysian pm will be beheaded?

[arjunadawn]

Ah, Japan pretty much does ban. See any attacks in Japan? Japan has polices that pretty much make islam impossible to plant there. Few mosques and then further restrictions- on muslims. This old policy has recently been re affirmed. Again, you are not correct.

http://chersonandmolschky.com

http://conservativetribune.

Wikipedia

Again I have to ask why you don't fact check before linking to sites such as the above. Some of the info is from a proven hoax email, other so called facts are fabricated.

I went through numerous sites just now and one thing clearly emerges: the typical narrative follows an underlying pattern of how it is presented. Perhaps others had noted this earlier and posted rebuttal sites to this information, but I had not seen that. Teasing through these cites it becomes easy to discern an underlying central source for the narrative- a point raised in the rebuttal cites. It is clear that a bunch of this information derives from a central source, I suppose now rejected. I had not realized this before. I would now edit the above post if I could. (I have removed the full link as not to post it twice).

I find the question curious enough to keep reading however. Something about this story is disjointed. There must be some subtle imperative not to allow muslim refugees into Japan. While trying to vie for a security council seat Japan only let in 11 or roughly 10,000 refugees. There is more to this story and it is not just the demographic noise the public voice of Japan asserts it is.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/30/japan-says-it-must-look-after-its-own-before-allowing-syrian-refugees-in

Japan is notoriously difficult to immigrate to, for anyone. That fact alone is ignored when these types of links are put together as they imply Japan is singling out one particular group over another.

While the TV keyboard warrior crew might applaud the fortress Japan approach, the proof is in the pudding. A declining population, not renewed by immigration, contributing to a skewed demographic time bomb and a more or less moribund economy as we have seen for the past two decades. Towns dying, communities aging. Certainly no way to keep a nation strong in my book.

Yes, on further inspection I see the points you raise. Yet Japan's demographic plight is similar to all cultures who move toward the technological age. It can be argued that other western cultures are anticipating their decline and thus immigration aids the survival of the culture. However, as evidenced in these numerous threads, it can be equally argued that what is purchased is not sustaining the cultures but revising them. They are most definitely becoming something they were not previously. Should it be the case that this is the only way to survive in any guise, this should be a part of public discourse. Instead, the intractable problems of non assimilating cultures subsuming into cultures with declining populations are resulting in the numerous social issues we encounter daily. Japan may not be taking the same approach but coincidentally it also remains true that Japan is surviving as Japan. It is no surprise that someone invented an intentional rejection of muslims as an overlay to the Japan formula.

If the West requires such changes then someone should have the courage to discuss this. Example: I am against unlimited immigration as practiced by Obama et al but I am also simultaneously aware of another distressing truth- the US cannot survive as a nation with the demographic replacement birth rate it now has. The birth rate of Latinos is markedly highly. Therefore, the very thing that I object to may be the only thing that actually enables the US to survive. This is not even long term, but 1 generation + away. The thing is, though I see how irreconcilable these two positions are, there should be an honest public discussion about this. There is not. Why? America may survive but it will not be an America the world has known. Already the revisionists are changing even historical landmarks. The future for America, with regard to unlimited immigration, is a clash of cultures unless a comprehensive adult conversation is begun.

[Linky]

As some on here would know, my gf is muslim. Tonight she came home and asked me who Donald Trump is. First she had heard of him today when at lunch at work and his stop all muslims was mentioned.

She had no idea and couldnt understand why. So I told her about all the terrorists and bombings and all she could say is that its nothing to do with me, its those middle east ones that are not real muslims.

I just said it was ok as we have no intention of visiting US anyway. That was it. She just said ok and wandered off.

[arjunadawn]

There has been some but no where near the shocking voice that is ringing out in response to Trump's comments. The difference is in magnitudes. If I relied on what the mainstream media had to say my observations would be very, very different. No, a simple google search does not remotely support more than a peep. Relative to the enormity of the threat visited upon the entire world, there is relative silence. It is increasingly clear to me how this will play out. The silent muslim majority will invariably "feel they have no choice" because they were "pushed" away from the fold. I believe there are hundreds of millions of peaceful muslims. My girlfriend for example. But I believe there are hundreds of millions of very dangerous muslims determined to destroy our world.

I can tell you that living in a muslim country that most wouldnt even know there was a terrorist attack. They are too busy getting on with their lives trying to earn a living.

Sorry, don't buy it. I have only lived in muslim countries in my adult life; until recently. You minimize the sophistication of muslims. Most presumably at least means 51% of a given population. Of course the entire world knows what happened.

18,000 (5 per second) people signed a petition to ban trump in only one hour but less than 100 shows up for a rally in condemnation of the Paris massacre in NY one day or so later (now the petition to ban Trump is over 100,000 people as I write). These images are increasingly leading to an unassailable fact- silence is not unawareness, silence is choice. What conclusions is one really expected to reach? There was no such outrage over Paris, California, or really many others I recall. But this... this moronic statement from Trump (which increasingly reflects considerable populations of people left with no alternative conclusions)... this statement motivates muslims? This is more of the cognitive dissonance I speak to. Muslims are silent. Muslims are not generally the problem. (I can agree). Mulsims are not silent- and we witness feeble but often fraternal efforts to condemn, then such words quickly and radically compel that sleeping silent muslim majority to awake and inform us that they are present and listening, but that the previous issues just did not percolate enough for them to give a damn. This is now officially the conclusion I reach.

My conclusion allows that hundreds of millions may still desire fraternity and cooperative living but by and large, when they speak with one voice, it is not in condemnation. In this regard this event is a watershed.

Edited December 9, 2015 by arjunadawn

[Linky]

There was only minimal protesting when the terrorists hit beirut not long before Paris. Minimal from muslims and nothing from western countries.

Wonder why western people dont demonstrate when muslims are the victims. There has been more muslim victims of terrorists that anyone else.

[jacky54]

As some on here would know, my gf is muslim. Tonight she came home and asked me who Donald Trump is. First she had heard of him today when at lunch at work and his stop all muslims was mentioned.

She had no idea and couldnt understand why. So I told her about all the terrorists and bombings and all she could say is that its nothing to do with me, its those middle east ones that are not real muslims.

I just said it was ok as we have no intention of visiting US anyway. That was it. She just said ok and wandered off.

So does she blame the 'middle east ones' for 6k dead in the Islamic terrorist insurrection in the South of Thailand, or are they just more 'not real' Muslims?

[Linky]

As some on here would know, my gf is muslim. Tonight she came home and asked me who Donald Trump is. First she had heard of him today when at lunch at work and his stop all muslims was mentioned.

She had no idea and couldnt understand why. So I told her about all the terrorists and bombings and all she could say is that its nothing to do with me, its those middle east ones that are not real muslims.

I just said it was ok as we have no intention of visiting US anyway. That was it. She just said ok and wandered off.

So does she blame the 'middle east ones' for 6k dead in the Islamic terrorist insurrection in the South of Thailand, or are they just more 'not real' Muslims?

She is from the malay side of the border. She knows it well. No they are not real muslims. Though she does understand their frustration at how they have been treated. They are not known for heading to other countries or even other areas to terrorise. Theirs is a completely insular issue. Perhaps you could educate yourself about it before commenting.

Same as she doesnt blame all Americans for bombing countries and all Jews for terrorising Palestinians. Though she wonders how westerners think when they do and say nothing when muslims are terrorised. Thinks its odd.

[arjunadawn]

There was only minimal protesting when the terrorists hit beirut not long before Paris. Minimal from muslims and nothing from western countries.

Wonder why western people dont demonstrate when muslims are the victims. There has been more muslim victims of terrorists that anyone else.

Okay, lets back up. You raise a good point. First, I think we agree Trump's statement was stupid, but for different reasons. It was stupid and inflamed a population that I feel should have been first more aggressively enticed into great public condemnation of jihad before the various emerging events currently happening would actually rebound them into an isolation that is already believed. In other words, the vast muslim majority is the key factor in solving the current Third Great Jihad but little has been done to entice them further into fraternity. In fact, requiring no assimilation, authorizing concurrent sharia courts, etc., compels no common bonds. Current Western media and governments give them a pass on collectively voicing condemnation and fawn over the smallest of platitudes offered when they are turned to for their voice. This encourages separatism and isolation. Why should they give voice even if they object to jihad? The Westerns who would genuflect for them would not protect their kids going to school or socially insulate them from rock hurlers or being outcast. There is no incentive.

The Western policy of not calling islamic jihad..,. islamic jihad serves to continue this isolation. In fact, it provides a redoubt for them to stay detached. The absurdity of denying a connection of jihad to islam only serves to detach any central governing narrative regarding the muslim population and jihadis. Instead, it reduces the narrative to billions of people reaching the only conclusion they can, on their own, without benefit of context- islamic jihad must be islamic! This is what is happening. The West's policy of not calling a thing what it is and managing the narrative appropriately has disparate connections being made, and the worst presumed, and this percolates into the public space as complete rejection. This then isolates the silent muslim body further, the umma. In the modern world there is great power in being a victim. If you thought you could entice the muslim majority to the table of condemnation earlier it will become increasingly impossible once they are afforded further protective status as a victim. The road that this is all leading to is utterly predictable. Watch what now happens when the silent muslim world realizes that when they push back they actually have advantage.

So, you and i agree on some points: Why are Western people not demonstrating when muslims are the victims? In fairness, why are muslim people not demonstrating when muslims are the victims?

This does not answer your question but reveals a concurrent sickness. Why? Its simple: 1. There has been a near unbroken chain of violence in the middle east and islamic world for millennia. 2. There is an unspoken recognition that all "this" violence is their culture, their inheritance, their problem. But this question and answer does not have bearing upon the OP or the above unless of course it is offered to defend what many suspect- that muslims do have designs on the West for real or imagined reasons. (If they do not they are apostate because their faith is explicit- global islam).

[Linky]

As some on here would know, my gf is muslim. Tonight she came home and asked me who Donald Trump is. First she had heard of him today when at lunch at work and his stop all muslims was mentioned.

She had no idea and couldnt understand why. So I told her about all the terrorists and bombings and all she could say is that its nothing to do with me, its those middle east ones that are not real muslims.

I just said it was ok as we have no intention of visiting US anyway. That was it. She just said ok and wandered off.

So does she blame the 'middle east ones' for 6k dead in the Islamic terrorist insurrection in the South of Thailand, or are they just more 'not real' Muslims?

She doesnt blame all thais for killing muslims there.

[jacky54]

As some on here would know, my gf is muslim. Tonight she came home and asked me who Donald Trump is. First she had heard of him today when at lunch at work and his stop all muslims was mentioned.

She had no idea and couldnt understand why. So I told her about all the terrorists and bombings and all she could say is that its nothing to do with me, its those middle east ones that are not real muslims.

I just said it was ok as we have no intention of visiting US anyway. That was it. She just said ok and wandered off.

So does she blame the 'middle east ones' for 6k dead in the Islamic terrorist insurrection in the South of Thailand, or are they just more 'not real' Muslims?

She is from the malay side of the border. She knows it well. No they are not real muslims. Though she does understand their frustration at how they have been treated. They are not known for heading to other countries or even other areas to terrorise. Theirs is a completely insular issue. Perhaps you could educate yourself about it before commenting.

Same as she doesnt blame all Americans for bombing countries and all Jews for terrorising Palestinians. Though she wonders how westerners think when they do and say nothing when muslims are terrorised. Thinks its odd.

Ah the old not real Muslim excuse, even though they go to the Mosque, read the Koran and pray to Allah. Good to hear she does not blame Jews for terrorising Palestinians, as it's the other way around. The people terrorising Muslims are mostly other Muslims, oh not 'real ones' obviously!

[Linky]

As some on here would know, my gf is muslim. Tonight she came home and asked me who Donald Trump is. First she had heard of him today when at lunch at work and his stop all muslims was mentioned.

She had no idea and couldnt understand why. So I told her about all the terrorists and bombings and all she could say is that its nothing to do with me, its those middle east ones that are not real muslims.

I just said it was ok as we have no intention of visiting US anyway. That was it. She just said ok and wandered off.

So does she blame the 'middle east ones' for 6k dead in the Islamic terrorist insurrection in the South of Thailand, or are they just more 'not real' Muslims?

She is from the malay side of the border. She knows it well. No they are not real muslims. Though she does understand their frustration at how they have been treated. They are not known for heading to other countries or even other areas to terrorise. Theirs is a completely insular issue. Perhaps you could educate yourself about it before commenting.

Same as she doesnt blame all Americans for bombing countries and all Jews for terrorising Palestinians. Though she wonders how westerners think when they do and say nothing when muslims are terrorised. Thinks its odd.

Ah the old not real Muslim excuse, even though they go to the Mosque, read the Koran and pray to Allah. Good to hear she does not blame Jews for terrorising Palestinians, as it's the other way around. The people terrorising Muslims are mostly other Muslims, oh not 'real ones' obviously!

Good, you are starting to understand.

[jacky54]

Unlike your gf it seems

[Linky]

Unlike your gf it seems

You think she doesnt understand islam? You think the malay pm doesnt understand islam when he condemned isis outright as not following islam?

Care to list you studies of islam and the koran to indicate who knows more about it?

[samran]

Again I have to ask why you don't fact check before linking to sites such as the above. Some of the info is from a proven hoax email, other so called facts are fabricated.

I went through numerous sites just now and one thing clearly emerges: the typical narrative follows an underlying pattern of how it is presented. Perhaps others had noted this earlier and posted rebuttal sites to this information, but I had not seen that. Teasing through these cites it becomes easy to discern an underlying central source for the narrative- a point raised in the rebuttal cites. It is clear that a bunch of this information derives from a central source, I suppose now rejected. I had not realized this before. I would now edit the above post if I could. (I have removed the full link as not to post it twice).

I find the question curious enough to keep reading however. Something about this story is disjointed. There must be some subtle imperative not to allow muslim refugees into Japan. While trying to vie for a security council seat Japan only let in 11 or roughly 10,000 refugees. There is more to this story and it is not just the demographic noise the public voice of Japan asserts it is.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/30/japan-says-it-must-look-after-its-own-before-allowing-syrian-refugees-in

Japan is notoriously difficult to immigrate to, for anyone. That fact alone is ignored when these types of links are put together as they imply Japan is singling out one particular group over another.

While the TV keyboard warrior crew might applaud the fortress Japan approach, the proof is in the pudding. A declining population, not renewed by immigration, contributing to a skewed demographic time bomb and a more or less moribund economy as we have seen for the past two decades. Towns dying, communities aging. Certainly no way to keep a nation strong in my book.

Yes, on further inspection I see the points you raise. Yet Japan's demographic plight is similar to all cultures who move toward the technological age. It can be argued that other western cultures are anticipating their decline and thus immigration aids the survival of the culture. However, as evidenced in these numerous threads, it can be equally argued that what is purchased is not sustaining the cultures but revising them. They are most definitely becoming something they were not previously. Should it be the case that this is the only way to survive in any guise, this should be a part of public discourse. Instead, the intractable problems of non assimilating cultures subsuming into cultures with declining populations are resulting in the numerous social issues we encounter daily. Japan may not be taking the same approach but coincidentally it also remains true that Japan is surviving as Japan. It is no surprise that someone invented an intentional rejection of muslims as an overlay to the Japan formula.

If the West requires such changes then someone should have the courage to discuss this. Example: I am against unlimited immigration as practiced by Obama et al but I am also simultaneously aware of another distressing truth- the US cannot survive as a nation with the demographic replacement birth rate it now has. The birth rate of Latinos is markedly highly. Therefore, the very thing that I object to may be the only thing that actually enables the US to survive. This is not even long term, but 1 generation + away. The thing is, though I see how irreconcilable these two positions are, there should be an honest public discussion about this. There is not. Why? America may survive but it will not be an America the world has known. Already the revisionists are changing even historical landmarks. The future for America, with regard to unlimited immigration, is a clash of cultures unless a comprehensive adult conversation is begun.

A country will evolve or change regardless of immigration. The Thailand that my mother left 50 years ago is a different country. The Australia I left 20 odd years ago is a different country today.

It's evolution. It happens anyway.

From time to time nations suffer identity crisis. Particularly those in the 'new world'. Our idea of what our countries 'are' have only ever been transitory.

For me, the beauty of immigration is similar to the beauty of the free market. It makes things better and stronger.

Immigrants, particularly those to the west, in my experience for the most part are keen to leave behind what made their home countries difficult and they latch on to their version or understanding of what their new home is to their mind. Most of the time it is a simple thing, one we hold all in common - that these new homes are lands of opportunity, perhaps not for them, but certainly for their kids. And for the most part, they take on this idea and build on it.

It is the only way, otherwise the nation will wither away and die. The U.S. has reinvented itself numerous times. It will again. It is this ability to do so which keeps it strong and agile.

This idea is problematic for many - particularly conservatives. Which is suprising to me actually. For me a proper conservative prays at the altar of free enterprise - and all that comes with it. But they fear the re-invention bit that is so central to that concept.

[KarenBravo]

Muslims would say that , see how many rights you have in a Muslim country , you have zero, finally someone has woken up .

See how many rights you have in a Buddhist country.