The dutch general election. The biggest one so far for the right wing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

You quoted me saying 'our day to day lives' and said you were helping me with my guess. That was about us. People alive today won't truly know what day to day life's like in 100 years, and people alive in 100 years won't truly know what day to day life was like today. The bit you specifically quoted and referred to is about day to day lives.

I can't help but notice you weren't this fussy when at least three others used the same timescale in the thread, so I take it as something of a compliment that you particularly want to chat to me, but how about addressing the point? Or is this all a big deflection, in the hope of getting to a new page so primary school level maths errors are forgotten about?

---

By 'our' he means us non-muslims I think. That is the container for this entire discussion, us and them, scary stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

By 'our' he means us non-muslims I think. That is the container for this entire discussion, us and them, scary stuff.

---

Ever wondered why Saudi Arabia and Qatar don't take refugees, or permit the free movement of people? Your 'us v the muslims' theory is totally wide of the mark, i.e. you are making it up as you go along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

One of the great things about working with percentages alone is that if you add a small number to a small number then the percentage change looks huge. Add the same small number to a big number and it's almost negligible.

Using a combination of severncity's graphic (useful as it shows the raw numbers) and the Pew projections given (which I can't find on the net but would be interested to see):

2011 Muslims in the UK = 2,706,000 plus 94% increase until 2031 = 5,249,640.

2,543,640 more Muslims over the next 15 years

2011 non-Muslims in the UK = 53,370,000 plus 3.8% increase until 2031 = 55,398,060

2,028,060 more non-Muslims over the next 15 years


Doesn't seem quite so alarming now. My guess is that most of us wouldn't even notice the change in our day to day lives.

---

Great post. I'm still waiting for Vincent to provide a report supporting his contention that Islamists will be in control of the Netherlands in two generations. I'm in for a very long wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Ever wondered why Saudi Arabia and Qatar don't take refugees, or permit the free movement of people? Your 'us v the muslims' theory is totally wide of the mark, i.e. you are making it up as you go along.

---

This thread is littered with people talking about them like they are some other species, they are going to take over etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

This thread is littered with people talking about them like they are some other species, they are going to take over etc.

---

It's like Brexit all over again, anybody who votes to leave the EU must be racist. It's fake news!

The best way to find out how Muslim populations grow is to look at Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1950 the population of Pakistan was 38 million compared to 50 million in the UK. In 2011 the population of Pakistan was 174 million. It has increased nearly 5 times within the lifetime of many of us on here. In 1971 the population of Bangladesh was 68 million and now it is 161 million. Muslims like lots of kids. They are not too bothered about a bit of overcrowding during their short stay on earth because they think they will be going to a place in the sky with limitless resources. Look at Egypt. The population was 19 million in 1947 and it was 84 million in 2013.

When it comes to an accurate prediction of Muslim population growth all bets are off. What we know for certain is that their populations will be growing at a much greater rate than other groups and eventually they will be in the majority. Look at this 2010 paper from the University of Leeds which attempts to predict the ethnic balance of the UK in 2050. They have stuffed every formula and population variable you can imagine into their models and yet in their UPTAP-ER model they predict that there will be just under 2.5 million people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin in the UK in 2050! There are almost certainly more than that here already. If these academics can get it so wrong why should we take someone like Lardarse seriously?

http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/6777%5Cmrd...rkingpaper.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

It's like Brexit all over again, anybody who votes to leave the EU must be racist. It's fake news!

---

So you are admitting to being no better than the people who called all leavers racist? Good to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

The best way to find out how Muslim populations grow is to look at Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1950 the population of Pakistan was 38 million compared to 50 million in the UK. In 2011 the population of Pakistan was 174 million. It has increased nearly 5 times within the lifetime of many of us on here. In 1971 the population of Bangladesh was 68 million and now it is 161 million. Muslims like lots of kids. They are not too bothered about a bit of overcrowding during their short stay on earth because they think they will be going to a place in the sky with limitless resources. Look at Egypt. The population was 19 million in 1947 and it was 84 million in 2013.

When it comes to an accurate prediction of Muslim population growth all bets are off. What we know for certain is that their populations will be growing at a much greater rate than other groups and eventually they will be in the majority. Look at this 2010 paper from the University of Leeds which attempts to predict the ethnic balance of the UK in 2050. They have stuffed every formula and population variable you can imagine into their models and yet in their UPTAP-ER model they predict that there will be just under 2.5 million people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin in the UK in 2050! There are almost certainly more than that here already. If these academics can get it so wrong why should we take someone like Lardarse seriously?

http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/6777%5Cmrd...rkingpaper.pdf

---

You have made many more predictions in this thread than anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

The best way to find out how Muslim populations grow is to look at Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1950 the population of Pakistan was 38 million compared to 50 million in the UK. In 2011 the population of Pakistan was 174 million. It has increased nearly 5 times within the lifetime of many of us on here. In 1971 the population of Bangladesh was 68 million and now it is 161 million. Muslims like lots of kids. They are not too bothered about a bit of overcrowding during their short stay on earth because they think they will be going to a place in the sky with limitless resources. Look at Egypt. The population was 19 million in 1947 and it was 84 million in 2013.

When it comes to an accurate prediction of Muslim population growth all bets are off. What we know for certain is that their populations will be growing at a much greater rate than other groups and eventually they will be in the majority. Look at this 2010 paper from the University of Leeds which attempts to predict the ethnic balance of the UK in 2050. They have stuffed every formula and population variable you can imagine into their models and yet in their UPTAP-ER model they predict that there will be just under 2.5 million people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin in the UK in 2050! There are almost certainly more than that here already. If these academics can get it so wrong why should we take someone like Lardarse seriously?

http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/6777%5Cmrd...rkingpaper.pdf

---

By comparing these predictions with the 2011 census data:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...le-ks201ew.xls

it's apparent that the report's authors underestimated the growth in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnicity populations by a significant amount.

In the case of Pakistani ethnicity, their population in England and Wales in 2001 was 761,000. This was predicted to grow to 1,011,000 by 2011 when in fact the 2011 census figure was 1,124,511.

For Bangladeshi ethnicity the figure was projected to grow from 289,000 to 375,000 when in fact the 2011 census figure was 447,000.

So, over the decade the growth rate for Pakistanis was projected to be 32% but was in fact 47%, and for Bangladeshis the growth rate was predicted to be 30% but turned out to be 54%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

So you are admitting to being no better than the people who called all leavers racist? Good to know.

---

No, I am just repeating the liberal mantra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

If these academics can get it so wrong why should we take someone like Lardarse seriously?

---

:hehe: the ignorance in this thread is astounding.

My post was EXACTLY the same as JDerrida's, it's just that I know that you can't give a percentage increase without saying what the numbers are.

If you read a headline saying 'eating crisps doubles your chances of getting cancer' then you might be shocked and worried. If you read on and find out that the chances go from one in 20 million to one in 10 million, are you still so concerned?

It's the same with that post. The percentage increases look frightening on their own, but do some very very simple maths to get the full picture and it changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

No, I am just repeating the liberal mantra.

---

I didn't see it happen on here. I saw a lot of leavers go on and on about being called a racist, but no one actually doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

The best way to find out how Muslim populations grow is to look at Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1950 the population of Pakistan was 38 million compared to 50 million in the UK. In 2011 the population of Pakistan was 174 million. It has increased nearly 5 times within the lifetime of many of us on here. In 1971 the population of Bangladesh was 68 million and now it is 161 million. Muslims like lots of kids. They are not too bothered about a bit of overcrowding during their short stay on earth because they think they will be going to a place in the sky with limitless resources. Look at Egypt. The population was 19 million in 1947 and it was 84 million in 2013.

When it comes to an accurate prediction of Muslim population growth all bets are off. What we know for certain is that their populations will be growing at a much greater rate than other groups and eventually they will be in the majority. Look at this 2010 paper from the University of Leeds which attempts to predict the ethnic balance of the UK in 2050. They have stuffed every formula and population variable you can imagine into their models and yet in their UPTAP-ER model they predict that there will be just under 2.5 million people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin in the UK in 2050! There are almost certainly more than that here already. If these academics can get it so wrong why should we take someone like Lardarse seriously?

http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/6777%5Cmrd...rkingpaper.pdf

---

Interesting theory by the way. How does it explain India's population growth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Interesting theory by the way. How does it explain India's population growth?

---

As you can see, the Muslim population of India has grown considerably faster than that of any other faith group over the past 70 years, even though India lost tens of millions of Muslim residents to Pakistan (and what would become Bangladesh) during and after Partition.

Attachment 1293

Interesting find. I expect it can be accounted, at least partly, by the phenomenon that smaller numbers will go up'more quickly' in percentage terms than bigger ones (again) but certainly interesting that Islam has risen while Hinduism falls.

Would be good to know how much is down to birth rate and how much to immigration for foreign workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Interesting find. I expect it can be accounted, at least partly, by the phenomenon that smaller numbers will go up'more quickly' in percentage terms than bigger ones (again) but certainly interesting that Islam has risen while Hinduism falls.

Would be good to know how much is down to birth rate and how much to immigration for foreign workers.

---

Here is another table showing the actual numbers of Muslims at each census in India:

Attachment 1294

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Interesting find. I expect it can be accounted, at least partly, by the phenomenon that smaller numbers will go up'more quickly' in percentage terms than bigger ones (again) but certainly interesting that Islam has risen while Hinduism falls.

Would be good to know how much is down to birth rate and how much to immigration for foreign workers.

---

I think it is more down to Socioeconomic factors. The Muslim population in india is far poorer than the Hindu Christian population and this is always linked with a higher birth rate. Areas in india with a poor non Muslim population show just as highbirth rate.
If Muslim areas become more wealthy then their birthrate will drop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

I think it is more down to Socioeconomic factors. The Muslim population in india is far poorer than the Hindu Christian population and this is always linked with a higher birth rate. Areas in india with a poor non Muslim population show just as highbirth rate.
If Muslim areas become more wealthy then their birthrate will drop.

---

This is becoming even more apparent in recent times. Cities like Tehran and Istanbul have a 'western' birth rate despite being majority Muslim. I don't think people are properly taking into account that in western society kids are a massive financial burden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

This is becoming even more apparent in recent times. Cities like Tehran and Istanbul have a 'western' birth rate despite being majority Muslim. I don't think people are properly taking into account that in western society kids are a massive financial burden.

---

http://www.dawn.com/news/1203166

There are some interesting points in this article

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

I think it is more down to Socioeconomic factors. The Muslim population in india is far poorer than the Hindu Christian population and this is always linked with a higher birth rate. Areas in india with a poor non Muslim population show just as highbirth rate.
If Muslim areas become more wealthy then their birthrate will drop.

---

Given that Muslims in the UK are generally much poorer than other groups then their higher birthrate looks likely to continue, unless there is a big improvement in their economic fortunes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

I think it is more down to Socioeconomic factors. The Muslim population in india is far poorer than the Hindu Christian population and this is always linked with a higher birth rate. Areas in india with a poor non Muslim population show just as highbirth rate.
If Muslim areas become more wealthy then their birthrate will drop.

---

Yep, the living costs in Muslim nations are no where near as high as Western Europe.

Many poor people in Asia choose to take a chance on more children in the hope they can provide for each other.

I am sure Muslims thinking it is a sin to use contraception is a factor but how cheap it is to raise a child is bigger.

And Europeans are more enlightened, not thinking it is your duty in life to have 10 kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDerrida

Really !!

15 years ago, Halal meat production was seen as abhorrent, now it is in the mainstream of meat used in the UK.

I remember listening to arguments on the radio about 5 years ago between a Muslim and a vicar. The vicar didn't get a chance to express himself and the Muslim just bullied his way through the programme.

Those who have an aggressively Muslim agenda will push their beliefs, values, cultures and way of life onto the apathetic and those who do not defend themselves as aggressively back.

The only problem is that anyone who dares to defend 'our' beliefs, values, cultures and way of life will be termed a racist, Islamophobe, Nazi, neo Nazi, EDL, BNP or any other perceived derogatory term.

---

I first heard a program about the UK and Halal meat when drivng to Wembley to see our FA cup final, it was a shockingly high % then ( doesnt really effect me as i am Veggie )

some of the high street chains use 100% Halal meat ? ? ? why ? ? ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

I first heard a program about the UK and Halal meat when drivng to Wembley to see our FA cup final, it was a shockingly high % then ( doesnt really effect me as i am Veggie )

some of the high street chains use 100% Halal meat ? ? ? why ? ? ?

---

The Islamic takeover will be bad news for those of us concerned about animal welfare. Halal slaughter is horrific. Why have the big chains gone along with it? Because they know which way the wind is blowing. This is why our laws on bigamy will also be overturned. Islam is our future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

The Islamic takeover will be bad news for those of us concerned about animal welfare. Halal slaughter is horrific. Why have the big chains gone along with it? Because they know which way the wind is blowing. This is why our laws on bigamy will also be overturned. Islam is our future.

---

Isn't the issue whether or not animals are stunned before slaughter or not?

When this was all over the Mail and Telegraph a few years back the story seemed to be that 85-90% of halal meat from was from big slaughterhouses that pre-stunned. The animal rights campaigners were focussed on the 10-15% where that did not happen. Otherwise there was no practical difference in the treatment of the animals between halal and non-halal slaughterhouses?

A major issue was around labelling - which is patchy. The supermarkets were saying that using pre-stunned halal meat saved on labelling and meant muslims and non-muslims would buy the same product. There was spin both ways with that argument.

I haven't seen any reliable figures for what % of meat sold in the UK is halal - although it has clearly been rising.

The news reports also did footnotes on kosher meat, which it seems comes from animals which are never stunned before slaughter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...d-9331519.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-label-it.html

Is there any reason for carnivores to reject halal meat other than the stunning (animal welfare) concern? Or should we be outraged because this is cultural imperialism and before we know it we will all be beardy boys and girls wearing veils?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Isn't the issue whether or not animals are stunned before slaughter or not?

When this was all over the Mail and Telegraph a few years back the story seemed to be that 85-90% of halal meat from was from big slaughterhouses that pre-stunned. The animal rights campaigners were focussed on the 10-15% where that did not happen. Otherwise there was no practical difference in the treatment of the animals between halal and non-halal slaughterhouses?

A major issue was around labelling - which is patchy. The supermarkets were saying that using pre-stunned halal meat saved on labelling and meant muslims and non-muslims would buy the same product. There was spin both ways with that argument.

I haven't seen any reliable figures for what % of meat sold in the UK is halal - although it has clearly been rising.

The news reports also did footnotes on kosher meat, which it seems comes from animals which are never stunned before slaughter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...d-9331519.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-label-it.html

Is there any reason for carnivores to reject halal meat other than the stunning (animal welfare) concern? Or should we be outraged because this is cultural imperialism and before we know it we will all be beardy boys and girls wearing veils?

---

David chose to ignore this the other day and he will choose to ignore it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

I first heard a program about the UK and Halal meat when drivng to Wembley to see our FA cup final, it was a shockingly high % then ( doesnt really effect me as i am Veggie )

some of the high street chains use 100% Halal meat ? ? ? why ? ? ?

---

All meat production is pretty disgusting. Only veggies can really criticise halal without being a hypocrite. I don't know how anyone can see what happens in a 'regular' abbatoir and say yeah, this is the way it should be done, this is nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Isn't the issue whether or not animals are stunned before slaughter or not?

When this was all over the Mail and Telegraph a few years back the story seemed to be that 85-90% of halal meat from was from big slaughterhouses that pre-stunned. The animal rights campaigners were focussed on the 10-15% where that did not happen. Otherwise there was no practical difference in the treatment of the animals between halal and non-halal slaughterhouses?

A major issue was around labelling - which is patchy. The supermarkets were saying that using pre-stunned halal meat saved on labelling and meant muslims and non-muslims would buy the same product. There was spin both ways with that argument.

I haven't seen any reliable figures for what % of meat sold in the UK is halal - although it has clearly been rising.

The news reports also did footnotes on kosher meat, which it seems comes from animals which are never stunned before slaughter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...d-9331519.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-label-it.html

Is there any reason for carnivores to reject halal meat other than the stunning (animal welfare) concern? Or should we be outraged because this is cultural imperialism and before we know it we will all be beardy boys and girls wearing veils?

---

"Is there any reason for carnivores to reject halal meat other than the stunning (animal welfare) concern?"

You might as well ask "Is there any reason to reject ISIS other than the beheading of infidels concern?".

It is cruel and unnecessary. Why are Muslims – and Jews – allowed to slaughter without stunning the animal? This religious slaughter is increasing in this country. Why are they exempt from our animal protection laws? What other exemptions are in the pipeline?

Look at this clip to see how they do it :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shop...mal-abuse.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

"Is there any reason for carnivores to reject halal meat other than the stunning (animal welfare) concern?"

You might as well ask "Is there any reason to reject ISIS other than the beheading of infidels concern?".

It is cruel and unnecessary. Why are Muslims – and Jews – allowed to slaughter without stunning the animal? This religious slaughter is increasing in this country. Why are they exempt from our animal protection laws? What other exemptions are in the pipeline?

Look at this clip to see how they do it :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shop...mal-abuse.html

---

Let me try again.

Other than the animal welfare issue of stunning before slaughter is there any reason for you to condemn all halal meat - including the 85%+ that is slaughtered in a very similar way to non-halal meat? What else is 'cruel and unnecessary'?

I share the opposition to animal slaughter without pre-stunning. I eat meat, but I don't want animals to suffer by bleeding to death whilst still conscious.

But your comments appear to be about all halal (and kosher?) meat. Why? Is there something else (other than animal welfare) that makes you so upset about a process that in one slaughterhouse is deemed to comply with some religious rule, but is almost identical to the process in another slaughterhouse (the secular butchers!) where no-one has the halal certificate.

Personally, as a meat eating atheist, I don't care. I do care about avoidable animal suffering.

I suppose your ISIS comment is the give away. It is such a dishonest and ludicrous comparison that it suggests that animal welfare is not your main concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

All meat production is pretty disgusting. Only veggies can really criticise halal without being a hypocrite. I don't know how anyone can see what happens in a 'regular' abbatoir and say yeah, this is the way it should be done, this is nice.

---

I agree that all meat production is pretty grim, as a veggie though I think there should be a ban on non-stun slaughtering in abattoirs.

As for Jon's question..

"Is there any reason for carnivores to reject halal meat other than the stunning (animal welfare) concern?"

Religion?

"According to the 2011 UK census, Christianity is the major religion, followed by Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism in terms of number of adherents"

I really don't know the answer to this but do other religions care or get a say in it? what if Christians don't want their meat blessed by another god?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R

I agree that all meat production is pretty grim, as a veggie though I think there should be a ban on non-stun slaughtering in abattoirs.

As for Jon's question..

"Is there any reason for carnivores to reject halal meat other than the stunning (animal welfare) concern?"

Religion?

"According to the 2011 UK census, Christianity is the major religion, followed by Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism in terms of number of adherents"

I really don't know the answer to this but do other religions care or get a say in it? what if Christians don't want their meat blessed by another god?

---

Then they don't buy it. We live in consumer times, if there's a market for both then both will be provided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Then they don't buy it. We live in consumer times, if there's a market for both then both will be provided.

---

So I want to go to Pizza Express or have an Indian takeaway or go to certain Thai restaurants, where Halal is the sole meat on the menu, then my family have NO CHOICE.

I've been a vegetarian for over 30 years, so the animal rights matters a great deal to me as well as many others who may choose to eat meat.

I was in Bath recently and noticed a Halal sign at a Thai restaurant which hadn't been there in previous years.

I also popped into an Indian takeaway and asked if the meat they used was non Halal. They confirmed it was Halal meat. I asked that Halal is primarily used for 5% of the UK population (probably less in Bath), what about the rest of the population?

The man behind the counter (pleasant enough) stated that people aren't bothered about what they eat.

I find it sad that British apathy and indifference leads to the 5% to DICTATE what the rest of the population eats.

If Christians , along with Atheists and agnostics who despise or dislike Christianity (and surely ALL religions) and Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc. all shouted loud enough, would these companies revert back to non Halal meat ?

OR does Islam the vast majority of UK meat production and consumption ?

The very very very very simple answer to your question, if Christians shouted louder would these companies offer non-halal meat, is yes.

What choice do you have if you don't want halal but want pizza? Go somewhere else for your pizza.

If you really care about animal welfare, and I'm sure you do, you should be asking who they get their meat from instead of is it halal. There is plenty of non-halal meat available that is obtained in inhumane ways.

Regarding mass immigration of Muslims I have to ask how and why are they going to integrate into European societies, cultures, ways of life and beliefs.

We have Cardiff City fans having vastly different views on many things. City and Swansea fans or Newport fans.

We have indigenous people from different parts of Cardiff who have totally different values, culture, way of life and beliefs. These differences are spread throughout the UK.

We see the differences between some people from the Valleys and Cardiff.

We see the differences between the French, Germans, Swedes, Poles, Rumanians, Italians, British, yet we are from the same City, country or continent.

Look at the polarised views on Brexit and Trump/Clinton.

When we look at Muslims, Sunni, Shia, Wahabi and many others all have vastly differing views and beliefs.

When those who are concerned about immigration, ulterior motives and terrorism they will inevitably on the more extreme actions of the more extreme Muslims.

When those who aren't concerned, they will obviously focus on what appears to be the vast majority of non physically violent Muslims.

Looking at the history of Islam from hijrah (start of Islamic calendar) in 622 and from Muhammed's visitations from the Archangel Gabriel (Jibril), it is littered throughout it's history with violence, campaigns and efforts to rule where they can.

The Ottoman started in 1299 and ended in 1922, which was followed Ataturk's decision to make Turkey a secular country 1928.

The middle east, large parts of Africa and certain parts of Asia are poorly educated, have very low levels of literacy and are easily led.

Certain parts of their infra structures are still in the middle ages, with villages and many towns pretty much unchanged in centuries.

Even in major cities, the strength of Islam results in it being the ONLY way of life that many will have experienced.

Against these, and many more, backdrops is it any wonder that many Muslims from many of these countries will never even try to integrate with Western values, ways of life, cultures, beliefs. It is ALIEN to them. WE are alien to them.

I liken it to an extreme version of someone being in a coma or in jail for 40 years and being totally ill prepared for what modern society is and how their version of reality would be different to the new version.

I don't blame many of these Muslims for having a different version of reality to the Western version.

When we have such mass immigration, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to even try to integrate all. It is those who do not integrate that WE do not see, when we go to work, go to the pub, gym, library, etc.

They're the ones who are generally unseen and they are the vast majority in Europe, they go unnoticed by the general public.

They will still have massively strong identity of being a Muslim and due to many relying on others for communications, finances, work (in Islamic work places).

It is this unnoticed majority that have the potential to go from the lowest of the low in countries that are alien to them, to go to paradise as a servant of Allah when the time is required.

We are scratching the surface of what 'could' happen over the next few decades and so many in Europe are in denial, believing that there is NOTHING to worry about.

Apathy, denial and disbelief are dangerous allies to those who have sinister intentions towards the West.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDerrida

Regarding mass immigration of Muslims I have to ask how and why are they going to integrate into European societies, cultures, ways of life and beliefs.

We have Cardiff City fans having vastly different views on many things. City and Swansea fans or Newport fans.

We have indigenous people from different parts of Cardiff who have totally different values, culture, way of life and beliefs. These differences are spread throughout the UK.

We see the differences between some people from the Valleys and Cardiff.

We see the differences between the French, Germans, Swedes, Poles, Rumanians, Italians, British, yet we are from the same City, country or continent.

Look at the polarised views on Brexit and Trump/Clinton.

When we look at Muslims, Sunni, Shia, Wahabi and many others all have vastly differing views and beliefs.

When those who are concerned about immigration, ulterior motives and terrorism they will inevitably on the more extreme actions of the more extreme Muslims.

When those who aren't concerned, they will obviously focus on what appears to be the vast majority of non physically violent Muslims.

Looking at the history of Islam from hijrah (start of Islamic calendar) in 622 and from Muhammed's visitations from the Archangel Gabriel (Jibril), it is littered throughout it's history with violence, campaigns and efforts to rule where they can.

The Ottoman started in 1299 and ended in 1922, which was followed Ataturk's decision to make Turkey a secular country 1928.

The middle east, large parts of Africa and certain parts of Asia are poorly educated, have very low levels of literacy and are easily led.

Certain parts of their infra structures are still in the middle ages, with villages and many towns pretty much unchanged in centuries.

Even in major cities, the strength of Islam results in it being the ONLY way of life that many will have experienced.

Against these, and many more, backdrops is it any wonder that many Muslims from many of these countries will never even try to integrate with Western values, ways of life, cultures, beliefs. It is ALIEN to them. WE are alien to them.

I liken it to an extreme version of someone being in a coma or in jail for 40 years and being totally ill prepared for what modern society is and how their version of reality would be different to the new version.

I don't blame many of these Muslims for having a different version of reality to the Western version.

When we have such mass immigration, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to even try to integrate all. It is those who do not integrate that WE do not see, when we go to work, go to the pub, gym, library, etc.

They're the ones who are generally unseen and they are the vast majority in Europe, they go unnoticed by the general public.

They will still have massively strong identity of being a Muslim and due to many relying on others for communications, finances, work (in Islamic work places).

It is this unnoticed majority that have the potential to go from the lowest of the low in countries that are alien to them, to go to paradise as a servant of Allah when the time is required.

We are scratching the surface of what 'could' happen over the next few decades and so many in Europe are in denial, believing that there is NOTHING to worry about.

Apathy, denial and disbelief are dangerous allies to those who have sinister intentions towards the West.

---

I think the attitudes of people like you are more dangerous towards western values than 99% of Muslims out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

I think the attitudes of people like you are more dangerous towards western values than 99% of Muslims out there.

---

Please explain why, exactly, you feel that JDerrida's attitude is "more dangerous towards western values" than 99% of Muslims "out there".

I went out with a bird who worked in a halal slaughterhouse. She was stunning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDerrida

Regarding mass immigration of Muslims I have to ask how and why are they going to integrate into European societies, cultures, ways of life and beliefs.

We have Cardiff City fans having vastly different views on many things. City and Swansea fans or Newport fans.

We have indigenous people from different parts of Cardiff who have totally different values, culture, way of life and beliefs. These differences are spread throughout the UK.

We see the differences between some people from the Valleys and Cardiff.

We see the differences between the French, Germans, Swedes, Poles, Rumanians, Italians, British, yet we are from the same City, country or continent.

Look at the polarised views on Brexit and Trump/Clinton.

When we look at Muslims, Sunni, Shia, Wahabi and many others all have vastly differing views and beliefs.

When those who are concerned about immigration, ulterior motives and terrorism they will inevitably on the more extreme actions of the more extreme Muslims.

When those who aren't concerned, they will obviously focus on what appears to be the vast majority of non physically violent Muslims.

Looking at the history of Islam from hijrah (start of Islamic calendar) in 622 and from Muhammed's visitations from the Archangel Gabriel (Jibril), it is littered throughout it's history with violence, campaigns and efforts to rule where they can.

The Ottoman started in 1299 and ended in 1922, which was followed Ataturk's decision to make Turkey a secular country 1928.

The middle east, large parts of Africa and certain parts of Asia are poorly educated, have very low levels of literacy and are easily led.

Certain parts of their infra structures are still in the middle ages, with villages and many towns pretty much unchanged in centuries.

Even in major cities, the strength of Islam results in it being the ONLY way of life that many will have experienced.

Against these, and many more, backdrops is it any wonder that many Muslims from many of these countries will never even try to integrate with Western values, ways of life, cultures, beliefs. It is ALIEN to them. WE are alien to them.

I liken it to an extreme version of someone being in a coma or in jail for 40 years and being totally ill prepared for what modern society is and how their version of reality would be different to the new version.

I don't blame many of these Muslims for having a different version of reality to the Western version.

When we have such mass immigration, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to even try to integrate all. It is those who do not integrate that WE do not see, when we go to work, go to the pub, gym, library, etc.

They're the ones who are generally unseen and they are the vast majority in Europe, they go unnoticed by the general public.

They will still have massively strong identity of being a Muslim and due to many relying on others for communications, finances, work (in Islamic work places).

It is this unnoticed majority that have the potential to go from the lowest of the low in countries that are alien to them, to go to paradise as a servant of Allah when the time is required.

We are scratching the surface of what 'could' happen over the next few decades and so many in Europe are in denial, believing that there is NOTHING to worry about.

Apathy, denial and disbelief are dangerous allies to those who have sinister intentions towards the West.

---

Majority? Are you sure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Let me try again.

Other than the animal welfare issue of stunning before slaughter is there any reason for you to condemn all halal meat - including the 85%+ that is slaughtered in a very similar way to non-halal meat? What else is 'cruel and unnecessary'?

I share the opposition to animal slaughter without pre-stunning. I eat meat, but I don't want animals to suffer by bleeding to death whilst still conscious.

But your comments appear to be about all halal (and kosher?) meat. Why? Is there something else (other than animal welfare) that makes you so upset about a process that in one slaughterhouse is deemed to comply with some religious rule, but is almost identical to the process in another slaughterhouse (the secular butchers!) where no-one has the halal certificate.

Personally, as a meat eating atheist, I don't care. I do care about avoidable animal suffering.

I suppose your ISIS comment is the give away. It is such a dishonest and ludicrous comparison that it suggests that animal welfare is not your main concern.

---

"Other than the animal welfare issue of stunning before slaughter is there any reason for you to condemn all halal meat - including the 85%+ that is slaughtered in a very similar way to non-halal meat? What else is 'cruel and unnecessary'?"

Why do I need other reasons? You seem to be suggesting that non-stunning is only small thing. How many animals are killed each year in the same way as shown the video? The answer is about 114 million. I find that horrifying. I've been a vegetarian for most of my life, but if an animal has been looked after and it dies without pain then that seems tolerable. What you can see in the video is not tolerable.

What are our leaders doing about it? Nothing, of course. Slimeball Cameron said the would keep halal "safe in Britain". In a 2015 debate in Parliament about religious slaughter only a few MPs seemed to show any concern for the rights of animals. It was mainly MPs speaking on behalf of their Muslim and Jewish constituents and also Jewish and Muslim MPs saying there was no real problem and all this talk about religious slaughter was just anti-semitism and "Islamaphobia". At one time religious slaughter was illegal in the UK but it just shows how some small but well-organised religious pressure groups can get their way.

Another sign of Muslims punching above their weight is halal certification which is just a money making racket to further the aims of Islam. Many of the big brands in the UK are jumping through hoops on this issue.

Only Muslims are allowed to slaughter the unfortunate creatures who end up in these slaughterhouses. So much for equal opportunities if you are mad enough to want a job killing animals. Eventually most lamb and beef will be halal in the UK.

David Vincent, as a vegetarian what do you think of the slaughter of non-halal meat in the UK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

David Vincent, as a vegetarian what do you think of the slaughter of non-halal meat in the UK?

---

As I have written above I have no problem as long as the animal has been well looked after and it feels no pain when it is killed. What Jon59 seems to be suggesting is that there is no difference between halal killing where the animal is not stunned and non-halal killing where it is stunned. He says the two processes are "almost identical". I suppose if your brain is made of wood and sawdust it is hard to notice differences and to make distinctions. The stunning makes a big difference. With halal killing the animal is awake - which is probably an unfamiliar concept to Jon59 - and with non-halal killing the animal is unconscious.

The strange thing about Jon59's post is that before he says the two forms of slaughter are almost identical he says he is opposed to killing without stunning. Why is he opposed if there's hardly any difference? This is what happens when you try to support illogical dangerous religious cults - you tie yourself up in knots and you make yourself look slow-witted.