Why Islam is a problem for the integration of immigrants

[RomanKing]

I don't think you understand what war is, and what killing means. Sitting on your ass, typing out this filth... You believe you are powerful now, don't you? That you are right. It feels right to you to kill and to destroy. Wait until war comes to your doorstep. Let's see how you feel about killing then.

Idiot.

I know full well what war is. I'm ex-Chilean military.

What liberals fail to realize is that events get to a point where war is necessary and liberals having caused these events of course don't want to admit that. Instead they'd rather live with terrorist attacks nearly every month.

 

[El_Machinae]

Religious zealots aren't difficult to understand, they're not interesting, and their specific motives really don't matter.

You have to kill them. The solution is simple.

Supposing I agreed, and there are many definitions of 'zealot' where I do, what's the acceptable ratio of non-zealot to zealot you're willing to kill? That's usually how these discussions boil down.

Ideally, the number would be 'zero non-zealots'. But that's not practical. By saving refugees, rather than leaving htem to die or murdering them ourselves, it's very possible that we're changing the casualty rate of 1,000:1 to 100:1. If we don't handle the refugee crisis properly, we ratchet up that death-rate an amazing amount.

 

[Ryika]

Haven't we tried "killing Zealots" for a while now? The outcome of that kind of violence seems to always be the same, the creation of even more Zealots.

 

[RomanKing]

Supposing I agreed, and there are many definitions of 'zealot' where I do, what's the acceptable ratio of non-zealot to zealot you're willing to kill? That's usually how these discussions boil down.

Ideally, the number would be 'zero non-zealots'. But that's not practical. By saving refugees, rather than leaving htem to die or murdering them ourselves, it's very possible that we're changing the casualty rate of 1,000:1 to 100:1. If we don't handle the refugee crisis properly, we ratchet up that death-rate an amazing amount.

Neighboring countries can take refugees and safe zones can be created in the countries with on-going conflict until the situation is stabilized. The bottom line is military intervention is necessary to end this.

There is no reason for these people to ever be entering into Europe, especially in the uncontrolled manner that they are. It's an embarrassment.

 

[RomanKing]

Haven't we tried "killing Zealots" for a while now? The outcome of that kind of violence seems to always be the same, the creation of even more Zealots.

Then I guess there is nothing that can be done. You might as well just roll over and die and accept that terrorist attacks, sharia law, and honor killings in Western countries is going to be the new normal. That your children will grow up in a far less free society where these kinds of people are the new majority.

And we also won't intervene militarily. We will continue to allow them to slaughter and savage the 3rd world as well. Killing and enslaving everyone who doesn't submit to their radical dogma.

You may be fine leaving that kind of a world for your children, but I am not. We have the means to destroy these savages. The left just hasn't had the will.

 

[Ryika]

Then I guess there is nothing that can be done. You might as well just roll over and die an accept that terrorist attacks, sharia law, and honor killings in Western countries is going to be the new normal.

There are a lot of things that can be done, but most of them require honest and open dialog about current problems, a willingness to see things for what they are, and to work towards reasonable solutions.
Unfortunately, most people on both sides of the debates don't really do that, on the left people get outraged when you do as much as suggest that Islam is not the perfect religion of peace that they want it to be, and on the right... well, your "solutions" a good example of what's wrong with the right.

 

[RomanKing]

It's people like yourself and those on the left who do not want to see the situation for what it is. The leftist vision of intergration has failed miserably and they've created a far less safe and stable world.

Your proposed solution is to "do nothing," or "more of the same," both of which have proven to be an utter failure.

War is the only answer now.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Immigration is a problem, just ask any native american(I.E. Navajo, Lakota, Sioux, ext.)

 

[RomanKing]

Immigration is a problem, just ask any native american(I.E. Navajo, Lakota, Sioux, ext.)

So you are proposing that Europeans make the same mistake?

 

[Ajidica]

It's people like yourself and those on the left who do not want to see the situation for what it is. The leftist vision of intergration has failed miserably and they've created a far less safe and stable world.

Your proposed solution is to "do nothing," or "more of the same," both of which have proven to be an utter failure.

War is the only answer now.

Are you trying to imitate the little Austrian guy with a funny moustache, or does it just come naturally to you?

 

[RomanKing]

Are you trying to imitate the little Austrian guy with a funny moustache, or does it just come naturally to you?

Liberals here are saying that they wouldn't have fought the Austrian guy with the funny mustache because:

bullets do not resolve political problems.

 

[Ajidica]

The Nazis had total political control over the Deutsches Reich; "Islamists" emphatically don't.
Furthermore, any sort of armed conflict "the West" engages in with "Islamists" would have far more in common with the Mau-Mau, Malaysian Emergency, and the Troubles (British); Algeria, Indochina, and OAS (French); Belgian Congo (Belgian); Independence Wars in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea (Portugal); Namibian Bush War and South African Border War (South Africa); the Rhodesian Bush War (Rhodesia); and the Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan (Soviet Union); than it would have in common with the Second World War or the Great War.

 

[RomanKing]

Are you saying that Nazism wasn't considered to be a "political problem" by the allies and the Soviets and that Nazism isn't a political ideology?

 

[Ajidica]

Are you saying that Nazism wasn't considered to be a "political problem" by the allies and the Soviets and that Nazism isn't an political ideology?

Please, tell me why you believe your apocalyptic clash-of-civilizations would bear more in common with the Second World War than with the Mau-Mau, Troubles, Malaysian Emergency, the Konfrontasi, French operations in Algeria and Indochina, French operations against the OAS, the Portuguese Overseas Wars, the Namibian Bush War, the South African Border War, the Rhodesian Bush War, or the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan?
Interesting that you seem to exclude the Soviet Union from the "Allies" in the Second World War.

 

[RomanKing]

Please, tell me why you believe your apocalyptic clash-of-civilizations would bear more in common with the Second World War

I never made such a comparison.

I stated that islamic terrorism is a political problem and so was Nazism. The solution to both was open war, occupation, and internment camps.

Fortunately, in the case of islamic terrorism we can work with existing stable governments to destroy it, and invade terrorists states like ISIS where there is no longer a functioning government. I would also like to remind you that immediately after the 2nd World War forced deportations were commonplace as well as a necessity to ensure lasting peace. The solution is very simple and we have the means to do it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Neighboring countries can take refugees and safe zones can be created in the countries with on-going conflict until the situation is stabilized. The bottom line is military intervention is necessary to end this.

There is no reason for these people to ever be entering into Europe, especially in the uncontrolled manner that they are. It's an embarrassment.

We cannot rewrite the past. We can only respond to the present. But if the neighboring countries are our allies, then we have a duty to offset their risk. And a lot more civilians will die with your plan than with mine.

 

[Ryika]

In a short span of time, people don't want to accept that the mistakes of the past have been made and can't be reversed.
In a large span of time, people don't want to hear of the past and repeat the mistakes that were made.

It's interesting how that works, isn't it?

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, it sets up a weird imbalance. You need to shift policy and prepare assets for the new policy while (at the same time) properly diverting assets to handle the old policy better.

I have no problem with the idea of setting up 'safe zones'. But that doesn't change the obligation to sieve off the strain on our allies

 

[Agent327]

In general, answers to "most violence is because" [single answer] isn't going to be very insightful. I'm sure it's a factor, it likely is. But it doesn't usually offer insight or a prescription.


I was. Is snide denigration going to be a more useful way of not answering my question?

I am not sure why you don't care if a significant portion of the muslims express support for suicide bombings. It's why I asked if there was some percentage that would bother you. I also explained why certain trendlines bother me, since above 2% acceptance is more of a cultural trend rather than mental illness.

Or are you just downplaying that acceptance? I mean, a reasonable number of people who would self-identify as 'Christians' in the West also express support for widescale war in the Middle East in order to 'solve' the problem they imagine. We dislike their support, but it doesn't freak us out. We're used to such verbiage, and merely think it's a sign of being pathetic rather than a wild threat to our future well-being.

Do you envision a liberal society that has a tolerance for the tolerance of suicide bombing civilian targets?

That's some, let's say cryptic reasoning. What I find surprising that, despite this supposed support for the use of violence (how is that expressed exactly?), the truth of the matter is that violence is only practiced by a negligible percentage of the general population. Now that could have something to do with the fact that the man-in-the-street simply wants to get on with his life - regardless whether he's Muslim, Christian, or what have you.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of victims of extremist violence are Muslims. Oddly, this seems to bother no one in the West. We only wake up on the few occasions that there is actually an attack on our doorstep, so to speak. Is that reason to panic, or to cry Muslim wolf? Doesn't seem proportionate - or appropriate.

Which seems more like a clear answer than a snide denigration.

 

[El_Machinae]

The support was expressed in a survey a few pages back. The amount of effort required to show support or lack of support was equal - very little..

Like I said, I'm not worried about Islamic violence in any statistical sense. It boils at less than 0.01% (which is my threshold). But the thread is about integration. And so, I really do think I am allowed to worry about the relative penetrance of toxic morals in a group of people joining my society.

But the people being questioned about suicide bombers were Muslims, right? So, if the main victim of suicide bombers are muslims, then why would we then accept a higher acceptance of "suicide bombing civilians to protect Islam" among muslims??? I mean, in the West, we don't care if the targets are muslims. But we'd not suggest that they were acceptable. As the major victim of such thinking, we'd expect the tolerance amongst muslims to be even lower. And, again, the question is raised "what percentage would concern you?" Isn't the goal to have a near-zero level of moral support for suicide bombing civilians? And, if it scores above 2%, it concerns me as an actual sign of an endemic moral error.