As I said, this is a strange argument. So the victims of a conflict should become citizens of the enemy power? Aggrieved Chinese victims of the Japanese occupation should move to Japan? Homeless Russians should move to Germany, or vice versa?
Can you give me any practical example of this principle?
Sure, there are plenty of such examples. The principle here is that it should be the moral responsibility of those involved in war to deal with the refugees or people that suffer from that conflict. The US and Western Europe has been involved since 2011, and is now involved more than ever.
An example I know best is from Pakistan itself, we took part in the Soviet Afghan war, actively funded , aided, trained anti-Soviet forces. We kept our borders hostile to the Soviets and the Afghan communists. But, we also took in millions of refugees. And this was damaging to Pakistan because we did not have the capacity to cope with the sheer scale of people, nor could we manage them in years to come, but, I do not doubt that it was indeed our moral responsibility back then to try and help those in need.
What is your moral or factual basis for your premise that a wealthy country that has poor people living in it owes anything to poor countries with rich people living in them?
Oh it doesn't. Iceland owes nothing to Syrian refugees. The US does, it has been involved in the war from the start, it has been involved in Iraq too, although this moral principle is not held by some and certainly not enforced, without any standing whatsoever, the end result would be that none would be willing to do anything at all about refugees at all. You'd have no-one taking a moral stand, whoever draws the shortest straw gets to have refugees crossing over as they did via the sea or by land, and if you don't accept them, or that high number of them, too bad they'll live there illegally, in limbo.
It just so happens that the richer nations do take more refugees, they take refugees because can sustain some numbers of them, and that they often do so.
Why haven't they been resettled? Your basic premise seems to be that Western countries are inherently more capable of solving problems. Do you think Pakistan should rejoin the British Empire? To be clear, that's a rhetorical question. My point is that all your arguments seem to in some way be premised on a total denial of national responsibility.
Stupid question, clearly either that was not a rhetorical question, as much as it was a meaningless question with no value beyond the words in themselves, or something made with a complete lack of understanding of the topic.
Where's the logic applied here? What's the relevance here to what I said?
Such as???
Do you want me to sit here and list the laws or biblical verses on Slavery, Homosexuality, even dietary guidance that you ignore?
You don't understand Christianity or the West. You live in the UK because it's better than Pakistan but you don't understand what makes it tick. Western civilization is fundamentally based on Judeo-Christian values - Ten Commandments, Golden Rule, Noahide Law, doctrine of salvation / tikkun olam, etc.
Rubbish. I don't know if you're living under a rock in the US. Judeo Christian values did not ring about the enlightenment era, nor the industrialist revolution, nor did they bring about the numerous and staggered civil rights and liberties victories arrayed across the History of the West.
You're not a Breitbart reader by any chance are you? Only right wing bollocks like that can get people to say things like this, factually incorrect and logically incoherent.
You confuse effect with cause. The entire Third World hit the starting line at the same time the Islamic world did - China, Brazil, Korea, India, on and on. The problems you describe are largely unique to the Islamic world (possible exception being Africa).
Actually, the Islamic problem, you don't actually understand, I hate to break this to you, but you probably have huge parts of the story missing.
I don't like this cycle, of you post something silly without argument, and in response all I can do is, claim otherwise and not go any further because of the lack of argument presented by you.
So for that, if you reply next time, please give me a detailed account, with specifics and examples as to why you observe the trend in the quote and how then you draw conclusions.
This has been tested and failed in both Israel (Christian Arabs settling down, while Hamas and Fatah become radical Islamic movements) and places like Latin America where there is both poverty and chaos and evangelical Christianity.
Again, it took extreme suffering and extreme circumstances that lead to the rise of the Islamic extremism phenomena, first seen in its new colours around the 70's and then properly manifest itself in the 80's. If you study it, you will see how little the rise of it had to do with Islam. Islam was a constant variable. Other variables changed, naturally, any scientist would be inclined to rule in such a situation that therefore, the cause should not be the constant or control variable.
It would defy logic, and indeed it does, and would put you at odds with some basic recent history.
So long as Muslims believe this, there is no future for Islam.
So long as you speak so confidently about stuff you have no idea about, you won't have anyone take you seriously here.
This is a core fallacy ubiquitous in the Islamic dialogue, and it is why so many Westerners feel quite comfortable blaming Islam for terrorism. The Islamic belief that success and wealth on the part of infidels are cosmic accidents, and that all that can be done by Muslims is to appropriate said wealth and success.
BS, where did I claim anything of the sort. I said the reforms of Christianity were always unintentional, accidental or meant for purposes other than the good of all, but selfish reasons. To this I hold. You think that this equates to me thinking that the undeniable success of the west is an accident? No.
How would you arrive at such a conclusion? You're foolish enough to believe that Judeo Christian values alone led you there. The history you seem proud of that you have no even grasped.
A word of advice, please don't project your absurdities on me, I had to read this quote three times, wondering where you pulled that 'cosmic accidents' stuff out of and attributed it to me or other Muslims.
If you do reply again, think a little, and remember, I have not arrived at prior conclusions that you're adamant on, I reject them and any projection of thought you may do on me, false though it is, if the logical prerequisite of your thoughts are not present. All it serves to do is either make you look incredibly ignorant and arrogant, or lacking awareness of your own debate.
A fundamental difference in Judeo-Christian versus Islamic belief that runs right to the core of our respective societies is the concept of personal responsibility, mea culpa, vs insha'allah. The distinction defines us as individuals, it defines us as cultures, and it defines the outcomes of our entire civilizations.
Total BS. I don't even know how you're making this comparison, those two examples are completely different from each other.
You're about as absurd as any other right wing, ultra conservative right now.
It seems to me you are self-consciously making an argument at odds with itself. Is Islam organically different from other religions such that it struggles with liberalization or isn't it?
That's because you've got a part of your brain switched off, again, you're projecting, you've ignored everything said before, arrived at your own conclusion. And now whining here that my last chunk of argument does not compile with whatever you've got filling your head.
Believe me, that is your problem, not mine. You can post stupid comments here and expect us to clean up after you, or draw you a map to an obvious and logically simple point to arrive at.
Other people seem to be perfectly capable of it themselves.
