Comments by "J Drake1994" (@JDrakeify) on "The Orlando massacre terrorist will fail. Here's why | Owen Jones talks..." video.

In the long run, they cannot win, because they are so ridiculously outgunned and outnumbered by the west. The only hope they have is to boost islamophobic sentiment in the West through a few attacks that are tragic but ultimately insignificant in the grand scheme of things, leading to the rise of right wing bigots like Trump, who will create millions of potential recruits for them. And we have been stupid enough to play into there hands thus far.
1
Problematic Bob it was actually 21.85%, I was looking at the 2001 stats, but you were also out by about 5 points. Also, whilst fertility rates are higher among muslims in the west, they also have moved to become more in lines with the general population as a whole the more time they spend in there new country.Even on current growth rates it would be the better part of a century before there was a Muslim majority. Furthermore, predicting population trends is very difficult. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, it was predicted the european working class would continue to grow for the foreseeable future, and yet in the second half of the century it declined considerably. In short, population projection fail to take into account a large number of factors and unforeseen trends that play out in reality.
1
Problematic Bob But if you look at the trends in fertility rates among the UK Muslim population, they have come down considerably over the decades, as has happened in other countries, so it stands to reason the slowdown will continue.
1
***** and Islamic State has to deal with there territory being pushed back by actual armies and air forces, and losing many fighters and resources whilst doing so. The terrorist attacks on the west are tragic but comparatively minor events which pose us no serious existential threat. Looked at objectively, Isis are coming off far worse. Trouble is that many in the West have absolutely no sense of perspective when it comes to the war on terror.
1
***** Now? There has been terrorism in western countries for the better part of a century.The IRA have mounted far more attacks on Britain then jihadists ever have. You also had groups like ETA in Spain, the Red Brigade in Italy, the Red Army Faction in West Germany, the list goes on and on. In America we see constant political violence from right wingers. Terrorism in the West is nothing new. But we came out of all these events fine, becuase one attack cannot bring down a civilisation. So stop being melodramatic, because the only way these events have much of a bearing on wider society is if it frightens some of us into thinking that there is some existential threat that just isn't there, and that leads to the rise of people like Trump who as POTUS would have the capacity to screw us over far more than a relatively small and underesourced army in the middle East ever could.
1
Chas Anastasi https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law As you can see, that 86% is actually higher than the national average. Of course, these results also show some strongly conservative viewpoints as well, but at the same time, British Muslims are likely to be more liberal than there middle eastern counterparts. Good luck finding 77% of Muslims who do not want sharia law over there as they do not want here. So there is certainly a degree of integration into British cultural values over time. Yes, the Muslim population is growing, but at the same time fertility rates among them are moving toward the national average, so it is reasonable to assume that growth will level off at some point. Ultimately the far more likely possibility is that they will integrate further into our culture to one degree or another. Look at every large scale migration in the west. The Irish who went to America and Britain, the African Americans in the Americas, the Italians as well, all of them, whilst still existing as distinct communities, have also integrated a fair amount as well.
1
Chas Anastasi Without a doubt there are issues between the African American community and the rest of America, but they are still generally better integrated into American society than most first generation waves of immigrants. Things arent perfect by any stretch, but they are without doubt a part of that country and its culture, and that is my point. People frequently tell me that London is not a majority English city, but that is not true. You are confusing the white British population, which stands at 44.89% as of the last census, with the British born population standing at 63.3%. British people are in the majority, unless you classify only white people as being British. I'd also argue that what matters is not your nationality but the extent to which you integrate into the British culture, which can be disguised by the statistics. Without a doubt there are issues surrounding integration in certain parts of the country which ought to be addressed, but its important to remember that this is not the case for the entire Islamic community, and that people do not think of themselves of just being Muslim, as the whole poll about nationality shows. Of course certain sections of a non integrated population concentrated in one area can exercise relatively small amounts of influence on structures of government, but on a national scale that is relatively insignificant.
1
Chas Anastasi You have hit upon exactly my point with African Americans when you say that "African Americans have a longer history and more rooted culture in the American social fabric, so in that sense they would be more integrated than 1st gen migrants from outside of Europe". The longer groups exist within a society, the more integrated they become in it. Of course they might retain distinctive cultural features but at the same time they are a part of the wider national identity as well. Of course African Americans, or Hispanics for that matter, do not have it great, but many of the issues that exist around certain sections of the european muslim population are not as much of a concern. Just because someone is white British, does not mean that there ancestors have all been the same. You could find many who have less of a family history in the UK than many non whites. Furthermore, many second or third generation immigrants have ancestors who helped to build Britain as well, in the short term by coming here and contributing, even if it is in the past century, but also in the long term, as many of these people lived in commonwealth countries before coming to the UK. Britain is a wealthy country because it once controlled a quarter of the world, and channeled a lot of the profit into building up the home island. Furthermore, plenty of men from other parts of the Empire fought for us in the past, particularly in the World Wars. The commonwealth has contributed to the growth of Britain as much as white British people have.
1
Chas Anastasi But the British are not just a by product of various invasions and unions with each other, the British identity has evolved considerably since then. If you look at the accounts of Medieval England from a foreign perspective, they bare little resemblance to modern England. In the centuries since, the British identity has been shaped by various events, particularly the Empire, which cultivated the whole 'stiff upper lip' image of Britain in the eyes of the world, and also changed our daily habits.Tea drinking and bathing were imported from India, for instance. So British identity has also been shaped by cultural exchanges throughout the world, to the point that today it is likely unrecognizable when compared to, say, five hundred years ago. Of course, there have to be some level of acquiescence to a wider identity for community building to work, but that does not have to mean total integration into a white British perception of identity at the expense of everything else. In fact, the more that is emphasized, the worse results it seems to produce, France is a good example of that. Nor does an identity need to be based of off the colour of someone's skin. The basic things that should be expected is an ability to speak the language and participate in society with people from outside your own specific community. In time, that leads to greater integration and a subscription to basic western values of tolerance, which in turn leads these communities to become a part of society but at the same time retaining a distinctive cultural identity within a wider national one. Part of the reason I brought up African Americans and Irish Americans is that they do that, as do Afro Caribbean immigrants here, and many British muslims too, although perhaps not as much as might be ideal.
1
Chas Anastasi I have some agreement with you on what you say about partial integration on the part of the community, and I also see your point that an overall group culture needs to be maintained at the same time. However, I dont think that the British culture is realistically under threat anymore than it has been throughout history when we have accommodated other cultures into it as it evolved. The traditions that are thought to define Britain, for instance the monarchy and all the pomp and ceremony that surround it, show no sign of dying out any time soon, and there isnt really an evidence that they are particularly threatened by the growth of different ethnic communities. The bigger threat to British identity comes from an increasing identification with its constituent nations rather than the union as a whole resulting in the very real prospect of the UK's breakup, which has largely been driven by the indigenous population. In fact, younger people, particularly those that are BAME, tend to identify as being British, rather than English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish. From that perspective, they are contributing to a homogenous British identity rather than threatening it. And I'm 21, btw.
1