Why Islam is a problem for the integration of immigrants

[Ajidica]

Who are the barbarians? What is a barbarian?

I think I know who he is talking about.

Spoiler :

I agree, the Nazis and their Axis were lefty socialists.

Yes, that would explain why the only group to vote against the Enabling Act were the Social Democrats (KPD were already banned). Meanwhile the Catholic Center Party, coupled with the right-wing blood-and-soil nutters and the Monarchists decided to give dictatorial power to the little Austrian chap.

 

[Synobun]

I'll give you a hint. Many of them are fresh arrivals and enjoy a good snackbar.

I like snacks. Who doesn't like snacks?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I like snacks. Who doesn't like snacks?

Right wing extremists of the most extreme kind, apparently.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I like snacks. That's gonna get me kicked out of the country? I guess I'll stay mum about my enjoyment of snacks. Never knew that was a sign of barbarism.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'll need another hint! "Enjoys a good snackbar" really doesn't trim down the 'recently arrived' segment in a way that means anything to me.

Lol, no you're not, but that was a good one. Made me chuckle.

I still think you've confused me for someone else. Your statement upthread really makes no sense if you haven't.

Hmmn, yes, tautologically I guess my statement is pretty silly. I mean that they're a pretty important voting bloc. Can't really win without them. So policies like "throw out the barbarians" are going to make a reasonable portion of intelligent people chuck at its naive phrasing.

Though "get Mexico to pay for it" somehow convinced people that smacking a tariff on American consumers was the same thing.

 

[Gori the Grey]

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

Now it turns out you can get elected president that way, too.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Some people call this the "Information Age" I like to call it the "Stupid Age"

 

[Gori the Grey]

A lot of our stupidity is a function a sudden superabundance of information.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A lot of our stupidity is a function a sudden superabundance of information.

Wait...you mean access to the proliferation of big lists o' links isn't making us smarter by default?

 

[shadowplay]

I guess this isn't the thread to admit I kind of like Clif bars.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Out of this country, you barbarian!

Oh, I see from your location, you already are. Carry on.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

WTH is a Clif bar?

 

[Gori the Grey]

It's a trendy version of a Nature Valley Granola bar.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Who needs to think? That's what Google/Wikipedia/Apple Siri is for.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Who needs to think? That's what Google/Wikipedia/Apple Siri is for.

And big lists o' links provided by people of exactly the same stripe as yourself in your Facebook groups...those REALLY make thinking obsolete.

 

[innonimatu]

I hadn't noticed this was a feed the troll thread, my bad, should have guesses it from the title.

 

[El_Machinae]

If a political movement that's going to sweep through Democracies cannot even be summarized outside of a few vague statements, I am not sure it's really a valid prediction.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I hadn't noticed this was a feed the troll thread, my bad, should have guesses it from the title.

It started out as a discussion about immigration and now it's a fascinating insight into the mindset of the alt-right.

 

[Agent327]

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.

It's not your society; it's everybody's. That's basically what 'society' means. As soon as you start defining society in terms of 'us' and 'them', you're on a slippery slope. (And yet, plenty of people do this.)

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 can read this twice and still not get what you're asking. But see above.

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.

You'd have a better argument saying we don't want Muslims, because they are being targeted by Muslim extremists. But oddly, that's not the argument. (Personally, I'd start worrying if 5-10 % of the population are involved in terrorist attacks. Because seriously, that's a lot of people.)

 

[KmDubya]

When GB left office Iraq was stable and under control. Terrorist attacks in Western Countries were not commonplace, there was no civil war in Syria, Libya wasn't a failed terrorist state and millions of people weren't flooding into Europe with no end in sight.

I'm not here to defend GB, but in comparison to what's going on now GB did a far better job, which speaks volumes to how utterly incompetent the left is.

VP Biden actually admitted that Iraq was shaping up to be a resounding success. At least until Obama pulled out all the troops and let it implode which led to regional destabilization in Syria and an emboldened iran. So Romanking is correct in his statement here.

America had control, like they did in south vietnam.

After removing the US troops, the US government supplied enough military aid to keep South Vietnam viable. When the Democrats ceased funding the country quickly fell and the ensuing regional destabilization led to Pol Pot and the Cambodian genocide.

Most of those refugees will go home when they are reasonably sure they wont get imprisoned, shot or blown up when they return.

With free money, healthcare and everything else that the West is handing out, who is going to say 'hey lets head back to our mud hut and scratch out some subsistence farming in the desert?' The Turks who helped re-build Germany after WW2 never went back to Turkey and there was no war or anything to deter them other than it was economically better to live in a German ghetto than go back to Turkey.

The refugees aren't going anywhere and they will have many more kids than your typical Westerner and will eventually out breed and then out vote you.

I'm still struggling to understand why you think your "kill 'em all" approach to terrorism would work any better than when the British tried it in Northern Ireland.
God knows it certainly didn't work for the British, Portuguese, French, South Africans, or Rhodesians.

Actually in the case of the South Africa Bush wars with the communist insurgents in Angola, the SA military did achieve victory using military force. it was one of the few times that an insurgency was defeated and it was accomplished by large scale killing of civilians who supported the insurgents. Insurgents were tracked back to their village and then SA forces would kill everything in the village. As Gen Curtis Lemay said "If you kill enough of them they give up".

I worked with a lot of SA guys in Afghanistan who were there. Most were dismissive of the US's attempt at fighting insurgents without using adequate force. Once after receiving some indirect rocket fire into our camp the former 32 Battalion blacks wanted to follow the perpetrators, do the village they came from and put everyone's head on sticks. When told that we aren't allowed to do that they said you can't win without that level of commitment. Considering how ineffectual our policies have turned out I tend to agree with the guys who had been successful in that type of fight.