8-Jan-15 World View -- The West versus Muslim jihadists

[Contrarianoutlook]

Suppose you were King of Europe. What would you do? Deport all the
Muslims? Lock them up in camps? Close the borders to Syrian women
and children fleeing starvation and bloody massacres? Sink their
boats and let them drown in the Mediterranean? What would you do, and
why would what you would do be better than what the neo-Nazis would
do?

This is a very good question, if the situation was turned around With Europeans seeking asylum in their countries they would never show Hospitality to atheists or christians, they would never give welfare to create Instant economic parity between a 20 year old European refugee and 50 year old arab patriarch, they would never allow us to survive and as they seek to destroy Our countries neither should we let them destroy us.

The world is ugly and is it rational to committ suicide just to take a relative higher moral ground judged by communist standards of Hospitality?

The answer is obvious, only let sustainable amounts of immigrants in, and only those that want and prove that they can integrate like the Asian immigrants does. And if that means letting refugees die in their own countries then that is the future we must Accept. But of course socialist have their own agenda to destroy Europe so they would oppose the only rational solution.

[gerald]

Suppose you were King of Europe. What would you do? Deport all the
Muslims? Lock them up in camps? Close the borders to Syrian women
and children fleeing starvation and bloody massacres? Sink their
boats and let them drown in the Mediterranean? What would you do, and
why would what you would do be better than what the neo-Nazis would
do?

This is a very good question, if the situation was turned around With Europeans seeking asylum in their countries they would never show Hospitality to atheists or christians, they would never give welfare to create Instant economic parity between a 20 year old European refugee and 50 year old arab patriarch, they would never allow us to survive and as they seek to destroy Our countries neither should we let them destroy us.

The world is ugly and is it rational to committ suicide just to take a relative higher moral ground judged by communist standards of Hospitality?

The answer is obvious, only let sustainable amounts of immigrants in, and only those that want and prove that they can integrate like the Asian immigrants does. And if that means letting refugees die in their own countries then that is the future we must Accept. But of course socialist have their own agenda to destroy Europe so they would oppose the only rational solution.

Another solution is the one that the Spanish used against Muslim Granada in the late 1400's http://lostislamichistory.com/granada-t ... -of-spain/

In 1502, Islam was officially outlawed in Granada and hundreds of thousands of Muslims had to either immigrate to North Africa or hide their beliefs. By the early 1600s, not a single Muslim was left in all of Spain.

[NoOneImportant]

Solomani wrote:

You keep using the straw man argument of comparing NAZI "christians" with Moslem terrorists. I would argue that you can't be a NAZI and a Christian - plenty of Christians died at Hitler's hands. Even if you don't agree with that argument the fact of the matter is that someone calling themselves a Christian who then murders Jews is by definition not a christian. They are inconsistent with their stated belief system.

However a Moslem who murders non-believers - whatever that maybe defined as - is consistent with his belief systems. That makes Islam into a category more akin to NAZIsm, Stalinism and other totalitarian ideologies than a religion. Islam is a civilzational cancer. Any culture they touch they destroy. They never add to the culture they only take away. The first culture to be destroyed was Arabic. I think the only reason Islam isn't in all out open war with the West in terms of armies marching on Greece and Israel is that they don't have the means , opportunity or the capabilities. Fortunately for the world Islam creates backwardness and infighting.

And trying to argue that the contributions to society of Christianity is some how a sum total of evil is historically autistic. Modernity is a gift of Christianity. Islams gift? Backwardness and barbarism.

Finally to be very precise I am saying ISLAM not Moslems. Moslems are enslaved as well by this totalitarian ideology.

Additionally Area51x wrote:

Islam is unequivocally at war with the West. This war does not overtly manifest itself as phalanxes of warriors arrayed on the battlefield. That physical confrontation is not necessary given the generous nature of Western nations, who follow your prescription, allowing throngs of refugees to settle in their borders. As the percentage of Muslims increases in a country, their ideology becomes governance. The war is more subtle, relying on higher birthrates, early ideological indoctrination, settling in Western nations, and - as the population grows and feels its strength - agitating for Sharia law.

I agree with both of the above comments. At some point the Santa Claus syndrome fails; when the dog continues to bite you, at some point you must consider the merit of continuing to feed the dog.

John, you asked what would I do were I king? Let Muslims judge themselves: treat them as they treat Israel, and others. Permit no immigration of Muslims, treat them as you would treat anyone seeking immigration who is afflicted with a deadly contagion. Let them choose for themselves what they desire: life in a safe secure peaceful environment, or the practice of their terrorist ideology - the choice would be theirs.

[John]

> John, you asked what would I do were I king? Let Muslims judge
> themselves: treat them as they treat Israel, and others. Permit no
> immigration of Muslims, treat them as you would treat anyone
> seeking immigration who is afflicted with a deadly contagion. Let
> them choose for themselves what they desire: life in a safe secure
> peaceful environment, or the practice of their terrorist ideology
> - the choice would be theirs.

You evaded the question and provided only nice-sounding doublespeak.

So you would:

• Deport all the Syrian women and children back to Syria where
  they'll be tortured and killed?
• Same for the Eritrean refugees where they'll be tortured and
  killed?
• Shoot and kill those that come across the border from Turkey?
• Shoot their boats so they drown in the Mediterranean?
• All of the above?

Then, looking ahead to the future:

• How would you deal with people around the world saying that you're
  a worse Nazi than Hitler?
• What advice would you give to future historians who will be
  writing that "There have been two Holocausts in the last century, one
  of Jews and one of Muslims"?

[NoOneImportant]

No John. What I suggest is that two tacts be mounted. The first being to eliminate immigration for all Muslims indefinitely. The second tact comes from the US military. Any soldier who has shown a propensity to cause, or get into to trouble is discharged - thrown out of the military. Muslims who presently reside in Europe and the US are monitored. Cause trouble, associate with radical Islamists - strip them of their citizenship, should they be naturalized, and deport them. Prior to the current era, ca. 1945, deportation was long used as a tool to help assure the assimilation of immigrants.

What is certainly not the fix is to continue to delude one's self into believing that Muslims are not a problem, Muslim terrorist event, after Muslim terrorist event. If they don't like my fix they may stop killing the innocent. You, on the other hand, suggest doing what continues to turn out dead bodies wholesale - what we have always done.

Address the dog analogy, if you would.

[John]

> No John. What I suggest is that two tacks be mounted. The first
> being to eliminate immigration for all Muslims indefinitely. The
> second tack comes from the US military. Any soldier who has shown
> a propensity to cause, or get into to trouble is discharged -
> thrown out of the military. Muslims who presently reside in Europe
> and the US are monitored. Cause trouble, associate with radical
> Islamists - strip them of their citizenship, should they be
> naturalized, and deport them. Prior to the current era, ca. 1945,
> deportation was long used as a tool to help assure the
> assimilation of immigrants.

I have no idea what you're proposing. You've previously written:

> Grew up in Dearborn, MI - largest Muslim community in the U.S. The
> high school I attended was 30% Muslim - now it's 100% Muslim.
> Developed an unfavorable attitude first hand - Muslims are
> routinely strident, belligerent, and combative. After high school,
> I lived in Turkey for a year - at the time Turkey was the most
> moderate of the Muslim countries. Living in a Muslim country made
> me understand what I saw in high school. I can remember leaving
> Ankara in 1967 looking out the airplane's window thinking: "... no
> one will believe what I tell them about this place... God help the
> world if these people ever get money...." That was over 45 years
> ago, and now they have the money to buy arms, and explosives,
> i.e. the means to carry out their mentality; and there is no
> longer a powerful moral America with the will to stop them.

So tell me exactly what you would in Dearborn MI or in the suburbs of
Paris, if you had your way. How would you solve the "Muslim problem"
in those two cities, and other cities like them?

As for the dog analogy, it doesn't fit. If you have one dog biting
you, then of course you get rid of that one dog. But if you have tens
of thousands of dogs, and you suspect that some of them might want to
bite you, but you don't know which ones, then you have a problem,
because getting rid of tens of thousands of dogs is not an option
without mass slaughter.

[John]

Snopes: Claim: Dearborn, Michigan, has become the first U.S. city to implement
Sharia law.

FALSE

Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2013]

> "City in Michigan First to Fully Implement Sharia Law" — Is there
> any validity to this story?

Origins: On 28 October 2013, the National Report published an article
positing that Dearborn, Michigan (a city with a historically large
Muslim population), had become the first U.S. city to implement Sharia
law:

> In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan
> voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all
> aspects of Sharia Law. The tough new law, slated to go into affect
> January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics and
> economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse,
> fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.

> The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a
> limb amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking
> alcohol or abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In
> addition, the law imposes harsh laws with regards to women and
> allows for child marriage.

By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were
being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered
the item mistaking it for a genuine news article. However, the article
was just a bit of satire from the National Report, a web site that
publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target
Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New
CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at
Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples."

The National Report's disclaimer page notes that:

> National Report is a news and political satire web publication,
> which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly
> fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National
> Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to
> the truth is purely coincidental.

Last updated: 11 January 2015

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/sharia.asp

[gerald]

In terms of religious freedom, should we support human sacrifice?
---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice --- or are their limits to "religious freedom"? and what are those limits?

[NoOneImportant]

Regarding Dearborn, Paris, and London, I can tell you one thing you certainly don't do is to print all the street signs in Arabic, which is what Dearborn has done - it sends a clear message that assimilation is unnecessary.

The real solution was to re-evaluate the immigration of Muslims when Muslim terror arose in the 1960s, and 1970s. That, however, was not done. So as you so poigantly point out: now we have a real problem. But we have made real progress, as you are now at least considering that the random mass murder of innocents to, at least, be a real problem stemming from Muslims.

The first step in solving any problem is to quit denying that you have a problem. The willfully blind see nothing. Want a solution? Look for a common denominator in the terrorist events, and the perpetrators... oh, they are all young Muslim males. Could that be a problem? Categorically denying that Islam is a problem in the face of accumulating dead bodies is a larger issue than the terrorist events, as it assures a continuation of the endless stream of future dead bodies gratis Muslim terror. Acknowledge that Islam is a problem. With a billion plus Muslims in the world, if a single digit percentage of them are "radical" and predisposed to violent jihad in the West then that represents 10s of millions of radical Muslims - do nothing and you might as well fasten your seatbelt for this is going to be a really nasty ride. Even if the percentage of jihad Muslims is only a tenth of a percent, the resultant numbers are still in the millions of jihadi; jihadi who don't give a damn what happens to the kafir they intend on killing. Using those numbers, if we guestimate the number of Muslims in the West at 20 million (a WAG very conservative number,) we are still prospectively dealing with millions of radicals. To understand and acknowledge that there is a problem is the first step to any viable solution. To permit the dogs to rampage, and use as a rational, that there are so many of them we just can't do anything is, simply put, not viable. At a bare minimum, isolate the culpable then kill them, the dogs, that is.

Make clear to the Muslim enclaves already here that radicalism is grounds for immediate deportation; should they pursue Sharia, or radicalization then they and their families will be deported. As a result their families will either buy into jihad, and we'll get lots of jihadi, or we'll get lots of help from family members if they desire to remain in the West, in convincing the borderline disaffected Muslim to avoid jihad. Want to demonstrate for Sharia? Go ahead, you'll get a non-stop ticket back to Aman, Demascus, Legos, Peshwar or wherever your point of origin might be. Any difficulty that you may have when you arrive there is, quite simply, your problem, as you were given the opportunity to peacefully resettle, instead you chose to dissemble. Actions have consequences, make it so with Muslims; if they want Sharia they may return to their place of origin. Additionally, look for the presence of radical Imams. Be sensitized to the Masques, and Imams (yes... profile them); those who espouse the murder of the Jew, or jihad, get deported directly to Beirut; reenter the country illegally: do 5 years in prison; reenter again: do life.

Don't like my suggestions; then propose some of your own. Please don't tell me that the only solution is to do nothing, and just keep cleaning up the innocent dead bodies because there are just so many many Muslims that we just can't do anything - that is the golden road to eventual civil war. Note that we are talking a strain of thought that thinks it all right to engage in the "honor" killing of disobedient children.

[psCargile]

The younger generations in the West will not submit to any form of
Islam...

The reason I ask is because I have been aplying very generally the theory of evolution to religion in that as there are biological traits that benefit a species' survival and progeny, societies (meta-organisms?) generate traits that also benefit the society's survival, and are hence passed down to younger generations. I think that religion is such a trait. If religion was detrimental to a socieyt's existance, that society would die off and reilgion wouldn't be passed down. Mind you that I'm not saying that one religion benefits all societies in the world, but religions benefit those that prtactice it. Islam and the behavior of the practitioners of Islam may not be very good for the world, but it is very good for the Muslims. While I think Christians and Jews would resist Islam, I have doubts about the atheists, secularists, humanists, etc, who may not know what they would do until the sword is poised at their throats. Without knowing numbers, it just seems as if Christianity is waning (though certainly not in my part of the world where if there is a piece of land without a church on it, one is planned to be built--so at least I'm positive about the survival of the South) and I wonder if the concepts of liberty and rights outside the context of religious beliefs that gave rise to them will be enough of a motivation for younger, secular generations to repel Islam. I've been an atheist and know nihilism is no shield or sword. But I ask that Millennials speak for themselves. Perhaps they will remove my doubts.

In 2002, I read two of Bernard Lewis' books on Islam and came away with the thought that a caliphate would rise and take over much of the world simply because no one has, or has yet to show to have, the will to stop them. What has Western Civilization done to preserve itself? Our recent wars have not yielded favorible outcomes. And what do we do in the face of terrorism? Other than freezing assets and drone attacks, we march, we create Twitter hashtags, we blog, we generate snappy slogans of unity, we condemn, we threaten to hack website, we do the very least that we could possible do against a foe that laughs at us. None of these responses will soften the terrorists' hearts, to weaken their resolve, or give them pause to reflect upon their place among humanity. It seems that only a minority of us recognize a war is being waged, or will be waged against us. They have no qualms about killing us by any means they can, no rules restricts their methods, no laws hinder them. If we cannot defeat them by the higher standards of our civilzation, then we must return barbarism against barbarism, wage total war with absolute prejudice, a genocidal pogram. If we cannot reason with a people determined to kill us all by the convictions of their prophet, we must do all we can to protect ourselves. If we allow ourselves to be backed against a wall, mass slaughter will be our only option. I hope it doesn't come to this, but it seems like our civilization is offering its throat more than sharping it's blades.

People ask why the majory of "moderate" Muslims do not speak out, why should they when they only have the world to gain by the acts of fanatical warriors?