Why did Europeans open their arms to Muslims so much?

[irishScott]

The same reason we "open our arms" to hispanics.

 

[irishScott]

A: post war guilt. they dont want to repeat the holocaust, so they've been pavloved into accepting everyone and everything.

You sure about that? These guys don't seem that accepting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRZiTreKcCk

And that's Germany. Any country that wasn't Germany has no reason for holocaust guilt.

 

[realibrad]

You sure about that? These guys don't seem that accepting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRZiTreKcCk

And that's Germany. Any country that wasn't Germany has no reason for holocaust guilt.

Thats not fully true. Europe still has a guilt problem. Germany is by far the worst, but all of Europe has the guild complex.

 

[StinkyPinky]

It's the same in all western countries. People are so scared to be branded a bigot they will fall over backwards to welcome anything and anyone to make them appear tolerant.

Now, of course the majority of Muslims are not terrorists and I accept that, but the vast majority of terrorists are muslim. It also concerns me that whilst muslims are quick to whine about being discriminated against, most of them are awfully silent when it comes to condemning these types of attacks. They'll march down the street to condemn anti-muslim sentiment but I've never seen them march to condemn extremist islam.

 

[trenchfoot]

So then western European nations should be as tolerant to Muslim immigrants and citizens as the majority of Muslim nations are tolerant toward their Christian immigrants and citizens? Imagine what that would look like. Intolerance of other's religions seems to be decidedly one-sided.

Considering what I've heard and seen of the troubles Christians, as well as other non-Muslim religious practitioners are having living in Muslim nations, I really don't think the western view of being tolerant of all religions (from a national policy perspective) is shared by their Muslim religious leader's counterparts, with Indonesia, among a few others, being the exception, of course.

 

[ElFenix]

collective guilt over what they'd done to jews during WW2 (and pretty much all of history leading up to WW2). so, to assure themselves that they weren't the bloodthirsty barbarians they'd exposed themselves as, they allowed lots of immigration ("look, we're not racist!"). and then promptly kept the new immigrants on the margins of society.

 

[Vic]

Population growth is essential to economic growth. If the native population is stagnant or declining, then a country must make itself attractive to immigration in order to maintain its economic competitiveness.
PC has nothing to with it.

 

[kage69]

You sure about that? These guys don't seem that accepting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRZiTreKcCk

And that's Germany. Any country that wasn't Germany has no reason for holocaust guilt.

I don't think a country is responsible for the actions of one of it's citizens, but being responsible for the actions of say 50,000 citizens strikes me as a different animal completely. Also:

Figures for European recruits to the Waffen-SS


Albanian: 3,000

Belgian: Flemish 23,000

Belgium: Walloon 15,000

British Commonwealth: (English) 50

Bulgaria: 1,000

Croatia: 30,000

Denmark: 10,000

Estonia: 20,000

Finland: 1,000

Hungarians: 15,000

Latvia: 39,000

Netherlands: 50,000

Norway: 6,000

France: 8,000

Italy: 20,000

Russian: 60,000

Rumania: 3,000

Serbia: 15,000

Spain: 1,000

Sweden, Switzerland & Luxemburg: 3,000

Ukraine: 25,000

Others volunteered to join from around the globe – 1,500 from India for example.

 

[BoomerD]

Money. Cheap labor.

Just like the US of A turning a blind eye to the invasion from our southern border...the influx of cheap labor is a good thing for the companies who hire them...and not so good for the rest of the population.

 

[Vic]

Just like the US of A turning a blind eye to the invasion from our southern border...the influx of cheap labor is a good thing for the companies who hire them...and not so good for the rest of the population.

People say that, but can you prove it?

 

[PingviN]

Population growth is essential to economic growth. If the native population is stagnant or declining, then a country must make itself attractive to immigration in order to maintain its economic competitiveness.
PC has nothing to with it.

Sorry, but no. Immigrants from the middle east and africa have too high unemployment rates to ever be a contribution in an economic sense. It's a misguided sense of humanitarianism and far too many politicians seeing themselves as cosmopolites (while, I might add, living highly segregated from the problems their politics create).

 

[Vic]

Sorry, but no. Immigrants from the middle east and africa have too high unemployment rates to ever be a contribution in an economic sense. It's a misguided sense of humanitarianism and far too many politicians seeing themselves as cosmopolites.

You're basically proving my point for me. Countries with high emigration rates usually have poor economies. Countries with high immigration rates usually have strong economies. While correlation does equate to causation, this is not a coincidence either. Immigration policy is a form of government trade protectionism and, while usually well-intentioned, restrictions on free trade are rarely good for a country's economy.

 

[PingviN]

You're basically proving my point for me. Countries with high emigration rates usually have poor economies. Countries with high immigration rates usually have strong economies. While correlation does equate to causation, this is not a coincidence either. Immigration policy is a form of government trade protectionism and, while usually well-intentioned, restrictions on free trade are rarely good for a country's economy.

The reason why nations with high emigration rates have poor economics is because crappy economics sucks to live in, that's it.

 

[peonyu]

Several Reasons they did so. The most important reasons come down to money/labor - virtually all non-Europeans in Europe moved there after WW2 to fill in for the massive labor drain that the continent found itself in after 50-100 million young men died in WW2. The French and British in particular thought it was a good idea to take advantage of their colonies and allow some of their subjects to move into France and Britain proper...

The UK had 10,000 Muslims in 1950, today it has 2.7 million Muslims [mostly Pakistanis and Bengalis]. Also they allowed Hindus to move there and Africans etc but Muslims seem to be the largest bloc today. France allowed even more Muslims in than the UK did, they have 7-10 million Muslims today and likely had around 10,000 after WW2. Germany and other Europeans have done the same as the UK and France but not on the same scale...And i think Germany hasnt given citizenship to its Turkish-Muslim population [yet].

Bottom line is $$$. If it wasnt for wanting man-power in post war Europe, there likely would be very few/limited immigration going on in Europe today.

 

[peonyu]

So then western European nations should be as tolerant to Muslim immigrants and citizens as the majority of Muslim nations are tolerant toward their Christian immigrants and citizens? Imagine what that would look like. Intolerance of other's religions seems to be decidedly one-sided.

Considering what I've heard and seen of the troubles Christians, as well as other non-Muslim religious practitioners are having living in Muslim nations, I really don't think the western view of being tolerant of all religions (from a national policy perspective) is shared by their Muslim religious leader's counterparts, with Indonesia, among a few others, being the exception, of course.

If that were to happen then the world would be back in the 1500's, with the Spanish inquisition still going on. Of course Christian culture has evolved and learned to tolerate others - there is even a Mosque in Rome today, which in the 1500's surely would have been unimaginable ! Yet the Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina 100% ban ANY non-Muslim from entering either of those two cities [they are cities of more than 1 million people to, so they are not small by any means].

Regarding Muslim immigration - The sinister part about it is, what if in 100-200 years from now, Muslims become a majority in Europe and they still havnt changed their ways and still treat other religions like garbage ? Its possible that Muslims could have a conquest of Europe from within [ie- by having a high birth rate and immigration] and before you know it Europe looks more like Saudi Arabia than it does traditional Europe. Sharia law could take effect in certain areas, and before long entire nations could have islamic law. It sounds far fetched but it could happen, if the majority truely desire Islamic law then it will happen.

 

[raildogg]

Europeans opening their arms to Muslims?

I'm sorry, but I think I'm missing something here. Do you mean the same Europeans who have pillaged, robbed, looted, destroyed and subjugated the world for the last 1000 years? The same Europeans who drop bombs on people from 35,000 feet in the air?

Don't act like violence only goes in one direction. We humans are a disgrace and we all should look ourselves in the mirror first before pointing fingers.

A terrorist can kill hundreds, maybe thousands. The Western world can destroy the whole world many, many times over. Don't point fingers at others and accuse them of violence. Maybe it's you who needs to look in the mirror first.

All acts of violence are terrible and totally unnecessary. Too bad we accept certain forms of violence and not other types. It shows our hypocrisy.

 

[f1sherman]

Europeans opening their arms to Muslims?

I'm sorry, but I think I'm missing something here. Do you mean the same Europeans who have pillaged, robbed, looted, destroyed and subjugated the world for the last 1000 years? The same Europeans who drop bombs on people from 35,000 feet in the air?

Don't act like violence only goes in one direction.

That's a very true thing to remember.
Pretty sure that (past Crusades ofc.) all this started with some British crap in Palestine.
And the latest few rounds are on USA.

20 years ago, anti western sentiment within muslims was vague and nowhere popular as today.
I blame the information, or more precisely the explosion of information.
Coupled with several US sponsored fiascos and economic despair, we have what we have today - which is still about million times better than having bombs, rockets and drones flying above your house.
Or I dunno, taking my sheeps for a stroll, and ending up in Guantanamo

 

[peonyu]

Europeans opening their arms to Muslims?

I'm sorry, but I think I'm missing something here. Do you mean the same Europeans who have pillaged, robbed, looted, destroyed and subjugated the world for the last 1000 years? The same Europeans who drop bombs on people from 35,000 feet in the air?

Don't act like violence only goes in one direction. We humans are a disgrace and we all should look ourselves in the mirror first before pointing fingers.

A terrorist can kill hundreds, maybe thousands. The Western world can destroy the whole world many, many times over. Don't point fingers at others and accuse them of violence. Maybe it's you who needs to look in the mirror first.

All acts of violence are terrible and totally unnecessary. Too bad we accept certain forms of violence and not other types. It shows our hypocrisy.

Muslims have been worse than Europeans historically. Not that its a contest but virtually the entire expansion of Islam has been through conquest and war. 100 million Hindus died in India alone during their time under the boot of Islam, and Pakistan owes its very Muslim-majority existence due to forced conversions of its Hindu population in the past. Persia was destroyed by Muslims and its Zoroastrian religion oppressed into non-existence. Muhammad himself conquered Arabia by the sword. He set the standard for Islam himself. Of course violence goes in both directions and Europeans have done plenty bad, yet atleast Europeans have left something of value to the world during their pillaging - such as Technology. Computers, Flight, Space flight, Electricity, Cars, Air conditioning, Modern Medicine etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. What has Islam left in its wake ? Poor populations who force their women to wear bags over their bodies. Populations who think all they need to learn is the Quran. Period. Considering that type of culture, is it any wonder progress has been so stifled in Islamic countries ? It really is the religion and the culture holding it back.


Btw. The Crusades were because of Islam. Islam conquered historical Christian lands such as Egypt and the Levant. And Muslims began attacking Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem, that was the spark that led to the Crusades. Not to mention that Rome itself was attacked several times by Muslims prior to the first Crusade, and Spain was occupied by Muslims and so was Sicily and Southern Italy [all prior to the first Crusade]. Its easy to see who the aggressors were when things are put into context.

 

[raildogg]

Muslims have been worse than Europeans historically. Not that its a contest but virtually the entire expansion of Islam has been through conquest and war. 100 million Hindus died in India alone during their time under the boot of Islam, and Pakistan owes its very Muslim-majority existence due to forced conversions of its Hindu population in the past. Persia was destroyed by Muslims and its Zoroastrian religion oppressed into non-existence. Muhammad himself conquered Arabia by the sword. He set the standard for Islam himself. Of course violence goes in both directions and Europeans have done plenty bad, yet atleast Europeans have left something of value to the world during their pillaging - such as Technology. Computers, Flight, Space flight, Electricity, Cars, Air conditioning, Modern Medicine etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. What has Islam left in its wake ? Poor populations who force their women to wear bags over their bodies. Populations who think all they need to learn is the Quran. Period. Considering that type of culture, is it any wonder progress has been so stifled in Islamic countries ? It really is the religion and the culture holding it back.

Behind the mask of Islam is a human being. And by the way, let's not go too far into history since it's been heavily distorted. We don't know who Muhammed really was and nor could we understand him. Just like we can't understand Christ. Everyone has their own version of the story and they have their own way of understanding it. That's humans for you. Such beings like Christ can never be understood by egotistical human beings.

So what you're saying is that human beings are bad.

And what progress do you speak of? Only technology related or something higher? Something more spiritual? Take away the technology and what other progress humans have made? We still fight over stupid petty things. We still hate. We are still fearful and extremely prejudiced.

I know where your coming from. Humans used Islam (or some other religion) as a veil to advance their agenda. It is really sad how pathetic we humans are.

 

[peonyu]

Behind the mask of Islam is a human being. And by the way, let's not go too far into history since it's been heavily distorted. We don't know who Muhammed really was and nor could we understand him. Just like we can't understand Christ. Everyone has their own version of the story and they have their own way of understanding it. That's humans for you. Such beings like Christ can never be understood by egotistical human beings.

So what you're saying is that human beings are bad.

And what progress do you speak of? Only technology related or something higher? Something more spiritual? Take away the technology and what other progress humans have made? We still fight over stupid petty things. We still hate. We are still fearful and extremely prejudiced.

I know where your coming from. Humans used Islam (or some other religion) as a veil to advance their agenda. It is really sad how pathetic we humans are.

There has been a large amount of social progress in the West but yes there will always be violence. Human beings can definitely be bad, WW2 showed that by itself. And yes all we have to show for anything is technology, Im a agnostic so Im not convinced of a higher body, but as far as religions go I dislike Islam since it is used to oppress Women and anyone who does not conform to Islam in its various forms [thats not to say i dont like Muslim people, I do but the actual religion is very very MEH]. Atleast other religions have changed with the times, Islam hasnt. If the religion ever does reform and become more tolerant then ill change my tune, but i really doubt ill ever see that in my lifetime.

 

[MongGrel]

Behind the mask of Islam is a human being. And by the way, let's not go too far into history since it's been heavily distorted. We don't know who Muhammed really was and nor could we understand him. Just like we can't understand Christ. Everyone has their own version of the story and they have their own way of understanding it. That's humans for you. Such beings like Christ can never be understood by egotistical human beings.

So what you're saying is that human beings are bad.

And what progress do you speak of? Only technology related or something higher? Something more spiritual? Take away the technology and what other progress humans have made? We still fight over stupid petty things. We still hate. We are still fearful and extremely prejudiced.

I know where your coming from. Humans used Islam (or some other religion) as a veil to advance their agenda. It is really sad how pathetic we humans are.

:hmm:

 

[norseamd]

Europeans have done plenty bad, yet atleast Europeans have left something of value to the world during their pillaging - such as Technology. Computers, Flight, Space flight, Electricity, Cars, Air conditioning, Modern Medicine etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. What has Islam left in its wake ? Poor populations who force their women to wear bags over their bodies. Populations who think all they need to learn is the Quran. Period. Considering that type of culture, is it any wonder progress has been so stifled in Islamic countries ? It really is the religion and the culture holding it back.

Such ignorance.

Btw. The Crusades were because of Islam. Islam conquered historical Christian lands such as Egypt and the Levant. And Muslims began attacking Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem, that was the spark that led to the Crusades. Not to mention that Rome itself was attacked several times by Muslims prior to the first Crusade, and Spain was occupied by Muslims and so was Sicily and Southern Italy [all prior to the first Crusade]. Its easy to see who the aggressors were when things are put into context.

The Crusades started because of the war between the Byzantines and the Turks and had nothing to do with the Arabs at first who were tolerant to travelers to Jerusalem until the Turks conquered the city of Jerusalem and slaughtered everyone in a fucking cesspool of fucking inhumanity.

 

[Vic]

The reason why nations with high emigration rates have poor economics is because crappy economics sucks to live in, that's it.

Lots of places suck to live in and most of the people who live in those places never leave them.
So what kind of person does?

 

[Fern]

I don't think a country is responsible for the actions of one of it's citizens, but being responsible for the actions of say 50,000 citizens strikes me as a different animal completely. Also:

Figures for European recruits to the Waffen-SS
-snip-

And how many of those were ethnic Germans?

Not only did Germans move abroad, but the borders between some of those countries and Germany changed over time. E.g., IIRC after WWI France got a chunk Germany, including the German people who lived there.

Alsace-Lorraine, German Elsass-lothringen, area comprising the present French départements of Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin, and Moselle. Alsace-Lorraine was the name given to the 5,067 square miles (13,123 square km) of territory that was ceded by France to Germany in 1871 after the Franco-German War. This territory was retroceded to France in 1919 after World War I, was ceded again to Germany in 1940 during World War II, and was again retroceded to France in 1945.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/17404/Alsace-Lorraine

Fern

 

[Fern]

Several Reasons they did so. The most important reasons come down to money/labor - virtually all non-Europeans in Europe moved there after WW2 to fill in for the massive labor drain that the continent found itself in after 50-100 million young men died in WW2. The French and British in particular thought it was a good idea to take advantage of their colonies and allow some of their subjects to move into France and Britain proper...
-snip-

Yep.

And Germany brought in Turkish workers to help rebuild.

Fern