It's again that time of the year ... or Muslim bashing!

[Crossfire]

No, I am saying that fear and agression is a very very bad advisor when it comes to political decisions of such weight. For anyone who's interested what fear can lead to, even reasonable concerns, I suggest to wach Thirteen Days, with Kevin Costner about the Cuban Missile Crysis. No one can deny that at the height of the cold war you had a lot of fear, concerns and a sense of aggression between the Warsaw Pakt and the NATO. Of which some was based on real concerns but also a lot on irrationality. Fog of War is another great documentary about it and how the MAD man theory came in effect. Point is, if people like Le May had it their way during the Missile Crisis, we most probably wouldn't be standing here and arguing about what ever if Islam is part of Europe or if there should be a ban on Muslims etc. What people realized very quickly after the cold war is that the Soviet union was not as evil as everyone thought. Despite the fact that it was a dictatorship. But the truth is often enough somewhere in the middle. And we should be simply careful with decisions that effect more us than the Muslims. Take the US for example. We are talking about a population that is making what? 1% of the nation? Even if there are dangers and concerns, we should keep a sense of proportionality.


Because they are not always made on logical arguments but rather feelings and emotions. We are living in democracies. Freedom of religion is one of the pillars it is build upon. And we have sworn on keeping Human rights, the Geneva convention and man other humanitarian values. If we close our borders completely to Muslims, even temporarily, we will prove the radical groups right, which say that something like this would happen and where the west is out there to destroy Islam.

And I am afraid, you won't stop terrorism by simply closing the borders. We're not in the castle age. Particularly when the sources of the problems we face are at least partially caused by our actions. I believe, we can do better. Particularly if we really believe in all the values that came out of the enlightement, we're so proud about.



Germany alone sold last year, twice as much weapons to some Arabian nations like the year before. Nations that took zero refugees and that we call our allies. And among the biggest weapon dealers, are France, UK and the US. Exactly those nations that also suffered and still experience terrorism and violence in the recent years. It's not far fetched to think that there is a connection. Particularly when you also consider the recent wars and interventions. I can only say it again, try just for a min (seriously!) to imagine a different situation, where for example Iran killed since 2001 100 000 American or European citizens! What would we do?

And we haven't even touched on the domestic issues, like failed immigration, poverity and many other social issues.


We are simply talking here about a highly complex issue of vast proportions. And I am afraid, there are no simple solutions.

Something else that we had at the height of the cold war was the threat of mutually assured destruction. Unfortunately, this is hardly a deterrent for people to whom bringing about the end of the world is not only theologically tenable but also their actual real world goal and victory-condition. Its a different animal entirely.

Im still not hearing any actual solutions from you. I understand that you rightly see this as a complicated and delicate issue but I get the vibe that you will accept nothing short of a perfect answer to the Muslim problem. This is irresponsible, naive and a failure to grasp the ethical implications of a state NOT drawing a line in the sand and taking drastic action when its citizens are slaughtered en masse within its own borders. This is happenning with alarming regularity and there must be a point where the gloves come off.

 

[valcik]

Young Afghan refugee chimped out in German train, going full Allahu Akbar with axe and knife, slashing four passengers. Three heavy injured, one slightly, attacker shot down by police since he attacked them too:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36827725

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

Not openly, no. Well not yet. But in Serbia gays have been killed for example. That was in the 90s though, and things have improved somewhat. However, the AfD has now members in the parliament that openly scream to throw gays in prison. How far is it from prison to torture, or how some would call it treatment? And how far is it from there to camps? See, that's the problem here. None of us can look in to the future. And simply out of self preservation, I am the kind of guy who says better to be critical about it now.

Some of you guys are so keen on freedom and liberty, freedom of spech and all that. But you're pretty quick to give it away because of your concerns.

When did I ever suggest increasing government authority to combat this crisis? Government is the one bringing the bastards in.

As for the AfD members, a video would be nice.

 

[Serge 13]

http://www.euronews.com/2016/07/19/...r-german-city-of-wurzburg-several-critically/

...now to help people accept the fact that Jason was actually an Afghan national and that he was shot dead by the German police this morning.

 

[Izak]

And that's assuming, for the sake of discussion, that there is an actually relevant western right-wing party even suggesting such a thing (hint - there isn't).

Eh, there are a couple of relatively popular fascist political parties in Hungary and other Eastern European countries that probably wouldn't be adverse to this.

Close enough to what I said. That's still 1.1 billion atheists/agnostics/etc VS 5.8 billion religious people. Either way, it's a completely stupid statement to make that anyone who's religious shouldn't breed. If all religious people were "retarded" then pretty much 90% of every single person you knew wouldn't be able to function in normal society.

Just ignore the bigoted idiot, if he read two of the most significant texts in human history and couldn't find anything of worth in either of them then it's his loss, or more likely, he's never read them and is judging the majority of humanity without actually learning about their beliefs.

I understand that you rightly see this as a complicated and delicate issue but I get the vibe that you will accept nothing short of a perfect answer to the Muslim problem.

Probably don't want to call it the "Muslim problem" unless you want to invite comparison to the Nazis, not saying that the stuff you posted was unreasonable, just a little thing to follow.

 

[Throatpunch]

Because they are not always made on logical arguments but rather feelings and emotions. We are living in democracies. Freedom of religion is one of the pillars it is build upon. And we have sworn on keeping Human rights, the Geneva convention and man other humanitarian values. If we close our borders completely to Muslims, even temporarily, we will prove the radical groups right, which say that something like this would happen and where the west is out there to destroy Islam.

How does not allowing radical groups in prove that the west is out to destroy Islam? This is some fuzzy logic.
Your arguments are just gish gallops now.
To defend all the great enlightenment values that everyone else wants to destroy, we need to be stronger than we are being. If we pussy out on something as simple as changing the dammed constitution, we are might as well roll over and let them kill us. Which is what idiots like Manuel Vall's want to do now.

We are simply talking here about a highly complex issue of vast proportions. And I am afraid, there are no simple solutions.

Dammit why must everything be complicated with you.
Here is a simple solution to ISIS and terrorists. Have a massive bombing campaign, get boots on the ground, and kill them all.
Anybody who might be a terrorist sympathiser or seems radicalised over here should be thrown in jail.

to imagine a different situation, where for example Iran killed since 2001 100 000 American or European citizens! What would we do?

Are you sympathising with the fucking terrorists now?

 

[Crossfire]

Here is a simple solution to ISIS and terrorists. Have a massive bombing campaign, get boots on the ground, and kill them all. We need to show that we arent weak.

I agree wholeheartedly. Daesh needs to be swiftly and ruthlessly crushed. Once that's been accomplished, we need to keep a military presence there and be committed to it for the long haul. I know that's an unpopular and uncomfortable proposition but just imagine how different the last half of the 20th century would've been if the western allies had've packed up and left Germany and Japan in 1955.

Probably don't want to call it the "Muslim problem" unless you want to invite comparison to the Nazis, not saying that the stuff you posted was unreasonable, just a little thing to follow.

I understand what you're warning me against and appreciate that you aren't likening me to a Nazi. So, thank you.

That said, I believe that the only way we are going to make some kind of headway on this issue and reach a satisfactory solution is to speak in honest terms. In my opinion, we are facing a Muslim problem. That is as plainly as I can state it. If I were to dance around that terminology so that some disingenuous people out there can't so easily find fuel with which to make unsubstantiated personal attacks against me, I would be speaking in dishonest terms. To play these games does nothing but needlessly obfuscate an already contentious issue.

 

[Izak]

Have a massive bombing campaign, get boots on the ground, and kill them all.

America has tried to bomb guerilla fighters into oblivion before, didn't work out too well for them then, wouldn't now. The problem with terrorism is that it can't be solved through beating the shit out of it, you have address the social issues surrounding it. If I were to offer a solution it'd probably be for the Western powers to support reasonably liberal governments in the affected Middle Eastern countries and educate the people on the importance of interpretation and religious pluralism until fundamentalism and extremism are stamped out peacefully, similar to what was done during the Enlightenment actually (though the Enlightenment also saw its fair share of religious and anti-religious violence).
Of course, I don't actually know enough about the issues at hand to say whether that'd work, I doubt any of us do, but it'd certainly work better then stamping out a cell organisation - That is to say an organization that's scattered throughout the innocent civilian population - with bombs, that'd just lead to more terrorism.

 

[Throatpunch]

America has tried to bomb guerilla fighters into oblivion before, didn't work out too well for them then, wouldn't now.

It is working very well.

Middle Eastern countries and educate the people on the importance of interpretation and religious pluralism until fundamentalism and extremism are stamped out peacefully

That is a reasonable point of view, but I think its flawed.
I dont think you can educate these people to be nice. They are just too fundamentalist. If they are fundamentalist enough to go blow themselves up, I dont think its possible to teach them to believe in religious pluralism. They have believed in these religions for years and years, and I doubt you can just educate them to tolerate others.

 

[Buxbaum666]

And before you complain abour "hurr durr wikipedia" they all have their sources.

Also:
>wikipedia
really dude?

This is pure and baseless conjecture. The fact that all these European countries with rape and sexual assault problems are also the ones with the most moslems disproves your little "theory".

That's utter baloney.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-rate

The top 6 countries are Christian. Curiously, muslim countries like Albania (#110) or Bosnia (#103) are much lower on the list. That said, comparing crime statistics internationally is notoriously unreliable for several reasons. Rape is one of the most underreported crimes and a large majority of perpetrators will never see a jail from the inside. One reason for this is the stigma that comes with sexual assaults and victims being too ashamed to report it. Sweden, the go-to country for "rapefugee" alarmists, is actually a prime example: it's the number one country in terms of sexual equality and people trust the police. Those are two major factors that raise the willingness of reporting sexual assaults.

Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Swedish_rape_statistics

In any case, it's your little theory, that doesn't hold water.

Refugees are twice as likely to rape a woman,

I call bullshit. Can you back that up?

You bang on about these statistics but you dont actually put them in your posts. Do they exist?

Yes. Look 'em up: official police statistics. Everything from key ("Schlüssel") 110000 - 140000 is pretty much related to sexual assault, the following keys are mostly lesser porn/prostitution offenses.
Some examples:
Rape statistics ["Vergewaltigung", the law was adjusted a few times]

[1=key] [2=crime] [3=year] [4=cases] [5/6=prevalence/100.000, 6 uses new census numberrs] [13/14=non-German suspects; total number/percentage]

Gang Rape ("Vergewaltigung durch Gruppen")

[keys=same as before]

If you think I left out the most incriminating offences, feel free to peruse the actual file. I gave you the keys to look for.

The massive sexual assaults on new years eve are probably not yet included Fact is that they happened, yes. Nobody can deny that. The legal system should handle the perpetrators and these crimes should nullify their refugee status. It's sad that most of the offenders will probably never be found. They are scum and screw over things for the many people who come here to find some peace.
Generalized suspicion against all refugees can't be the answer nor should we disregard the fundamental right to asylum. I don't always love my country very much but our constitution is solid and it should stay that way.

You'd only have to sink several boats for the rest to stop coming. And that would improve the situation.

Let's just murder a few thousand people and they will stop coming. :rolleyes: Man, you sure are a massive dick. Yeah, I said it. I know it's not constructive criticism but I think it's a fact backed up by plenty of evidence.

Here is a simple solution to ISIS and terrorists. Have a massive bombing campaign, get boots on the ground, and kill them all.

So simple! Why has nobody ever thought of "just kill all the terrorists!" before? We could've achieved world peace ages ago if we just would've thought of that earlier. Good thing Doomsdayprepper came along and told us what we have to do. Today will go down in history as Doomsdayprepper Day and people will erect statues in your image everywhere, labelled "harbinger of peace".

Anybody who might be a terrorist sympathiser or seems radicalised over here should be thrown in jail.

Good thing all terrorist sympathisers wear mandatory armbands with a "T", then.

Are you sympathising with the fucking terrorists now?

Are you saying every Muslim that was ever killed was a terrorist?

 

[Throatpunch]

Good thing all terrorist sympathisers wear mandatory armbands with a "T", then.

No, but some of them are vocal and active on social media.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...81/How-terrorists-are-using-social-media.html

Are you saying every Muslim that was ever killed was a terrorist?

No. I think what Crni Vuk was saying was that terrorists are angry about accidental civilian deaths during the Iraq/Afghanistan war and that they deserve sympathy. Which would be fine and I would sympathise if their solution wasn't to kill everyone over here.

So simple! Why has nobody ever thought of "just kill all the terrorists!" before? We could've achieved world peace ages ago if we just would've thought of that earlier. Good thing Doomsdayprepper came along and told us what we have to do. Today will go down in history as Doomsdayprepper Day and people will erect statues in your image everywhere, labelled "harbinger of peace".

It seems to be working pretty well right now

 

[Izak]

It seems to be working pretty well right now

That means nothing, if I posted a video of an American soldier being blown to kingdom-come would that mean that the USA is soon to collapse?

 

[Throatpunch]

That means nothing, if I posted a video of an American soldier being blown to kingdom-come would that mean that the USA is soon to collapse?

ISIS is actually collapsing.
These are just two of the many fronts in both countries where the militants are being squeezed, stretched and pushed back, Front-line commanders no longer speak of a scarily formidable foe but of Islamic State defences that crumble within days and fighters who flee at the first sign they are under attack. The U.S. military estimated earlier this year that the Islamic State had lost 40 percent of the territory it controlled at its peak in 2014, a figure that excludes the most recent advances.

In eastern Syria, the seizure late last month of the town of Shadadi by the Kurdish YPG — aided by U.S. Special Forces — was accompanied by the capture of nearly 1,000 square miles of territory.The operation was planned to take place over weeks. Instead, the town fell within days, said a senior U.S. administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

“Shadadi was going to be a major six-week operation,” he said. “The ISIS guys had dug trenches and everything. Instead, they completely collapsed. They’re collapsing town by town.”

 

[Vergil]

Context. He posted an article that was largely unsourced in the areas where he was making claims. Not to mention I'm arguing against crni who is too lazy to bother clicking on just about anything I post anyway so excuse me if I don't go the extra mile to post every individual source separately when responding to him.
Say, is that from the thread where instead of arguing against me you just posted "fuck off" in reply to everything or was it another one hmm?

The top 6 countries are Christian.

This is some Olympic level cherry picking. Those top 5 countries also just happen to be 4 countries in Africa and 1 small island country in the middle of the Ocean. Nice of you to conveniently leave that out. Not to mention number 6 is the European country with the most lenient immigration policy and the stats for Sweden on rape are 6 years old and even show a steady increase in rape there so congratulations on destroying your own argument within the first post.

[keys=same as before]
View attachment 4476
The massive sexual assaults on new years eve are probably not yet included

Again, you destroy your own argument before anyone else even has a chance to. The massive rape attack on New Years Eve still hasn't been included so how can we trust the validity and thoroughness of this source? I mean fuck if 1,000+ sexual assaults in one night haven't been added what else are they missing?

 

[Crossfire]

America has tried to bomb guerilla fighters into oblivion before, didn't work out too well for them then, wouldn't now. The problem with terrorism is that it can't be solved through beating the shit out of it, you have address the social issues surrounding it. If I were to offer a solution it'd probably be for the Western powers to support reasonably liberal governments in the affected Middle Eastern countries and educate the people on the importance of interpretation and religious pluralism until fundamentalism and extremism are stamped out peacefully, similar to what was done during the Enlightenment actually (though the Enlightenment also saw its fair share of religious and anti-religious violence).
Of course, I don't actually know enough about the issues at hand to say whether that'd work, I doubt any of us do, but it'd certainly work better then stamping out a cell organisation - That is to say an organization that's scattered throughout the innocent civilian population - with bombs, that'd just lead to more terrorism.

I would argue that the western world hasn't fully committed itself to an armed conflict since the second world war. As an extension of that point, I believe that if the west were to really commit itself to fighting enemies like Daesh, they would be summarily crushed. The same goes for the Vietcong and others. As a civilization, we have become squeamish about conflict and anxious when it comes to getting our hands dirty. Such unpleasantness is the price we must pay for the comforts and liberties we enjoy.

What you're suggesting makes sense and could definitely work under the right circumstances. However, it is entirely possible that what Europe saw with Christianity and the Enlightenment was the result of conditions that can't be replicated. Maybe we just lucked out, a happy accident resulting from thousands of years of cultural forces bouncing off of each other. Maybe it isn't even possible for such a thing to happen in the Islamic world. It took European civilization centuries to undergo this shift. The only way to know for sure is to commit ourselves to this project and spend centuries trying to shape the Middle East.

EDIT: Furthermore, western civilization is unique in the sense that concepts like democracy and religious freedom go as far back as ancient Rome and Athens. Such things run deep in the western tradition. I'm unsure if there is anything even remotely analogous in the political traditions of the Middle-East, East-Asia, Africa, etc. They're concepts that we take for granted but within the broader span of human history they are the exceptions to the rule. Some people are of the opinion that so long as we're super nice to everyone, they'll just follow in our wake and adopt our modern, secular and humanistic values. We may have to be willing to accept the possibility that this isn't going to happen.

 

[Crni Vuk]

That is a reasonable point of view, but I think its flawed.
I dont think you can educate these people to be nice. They are just too fundamentalist. If they are fundamentalist enough to go blow themselves up, I dont think its possible to teach them to believe in religious pluralism. They have believed in these religions for years and years, and I doubt you can just educate them to tolerate others.

We can't educate them because they are radicals, and they are radicalls because they are uneducated. So we should not even try it.

That's kinda very convenient. And I don't like the implication, that from all those thousands if not millions of people we're talking about, seemingly no one is capable of realizing his errors.

We are talking about people after all, and even the most fundamental and radical people you can imagine, are still not so far away that they don't act and think like humans do. They don't sit around all day praying and thinking about ways how to kill infidels, just as how a Nazi wasn't thinking 24 hours a day how to exterminate jews and what the best torture is. That's not how humans roll. But if we pretend, that we shouldn't even TRY it at least to reach people, particularly when it is obvious that you CAN reach even die hard fanatics sometimes - see the guerillas of the columbian joungle, well then what the terrorists say about us, isn't just mere propaganda anymore.

And yes, everything is fucking complicated ... because well ... it simply is.

How does not allowing radical groups in prove that the west is out to destroy Islam? This is some fuzzy logic.
Your arguments are just gish gallops now (they always have been but its got worse). Stop writing novels and actually address my question properly.

Who's talking about radical groups? Since when have I or anyone here said those should be allowed to enter?

To make this clear, for once and for all. I am talking about muslims, whinch includes EVERYONE. Yes, SOME muslims are radicals, but not all Muslims are radicals. Even if you think that it is a dagnerous religions, it would be lunatic to suggest that no clue billions of people would be radical fanatics. And unless you have a fail-proof system to know exactly what everyone is thinking, I don't see how a bann on Muslims will help us or how that would be practical or even reasonable. If you have someone who was a member of ISIS, then of course you shouldn't let them simply pass! For example, there are even Germans that converted to Islam and fought for ISIS. You know what happens when they return? They will have to face a trial. And the same is true for ANY other member of ISIS who dares to enter Germany. Because simply being a member of ISIS is already a crime in Germany.

Dammit why must everything be complicated with you.
Here is a simple solution to ISIS and terrorists. Have a massive bombing campaign, get boots on the ground, and kill them all.
Anybody who might be a terrorist sympathiser or seems radicalised over here should be thrown in jail.

Well, here is one question for you. Do you want to treat the symptoms or the cause?

No. I think what Crni Vuk was saying was that terrorists are angry about accidental civilian deaths during the Iraq/Afghanistan war and that they deserve sympathy. Which would be fine and I would sympathise if their solution wasn't to kill everyone over here.

What I am saying is, that even a radical organisation like ISIS or any other, is made up of humans and humans are diverse creatures.
The reason why someone decides to join a radical organisation and to fight for them are as diverse like people. And it can't hurt to try to understand the mechanic behind it, the reason and motivations of peple that fight for such Organisations. FOr the same reason as why some people spend time to understand how seemingly peacefull people can become prison guards and torturers and mass murders in the third Reich. If you understand something, then you might have a chance to actually prevent it.

Are you sympathising with the fucking terrorists now?

Causal investigation =/= justification.

Just because I try to understand the motivations of people, doesn't mean I agree with their actions or motivation.

 

[Izak]

Say, is that from the thread where instead of arguing against me you just posted "fuck off" in reply to everything or was it another one hmm?

That was from the thread with some shit about David Duke, favourite politicians, I think.

I would argue that the western world hasn't fully committed itself to an armed conflict since the second world war. As an extension of that point, I believe that if the west were to really commit itself to fighting enemies like Daesh now or others, such as the Vietcong, historically, those enemies would've been crushed. As a civilization, we have become squeamish about conflict and anxious when it comes to getting our hands dirty. Such unpleasantness is the price we must pay for the comforts and liberties we enjoy.

Well yeah, if we completely committed to it, conscription and all, then they'd probably collapse within days but that's just a completely unrealistic scenario. ISIS isn't Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, they're a couple of considerably successful upstarts but they don't have the ability to threaten Europe or the Pacific Islands, they're not a big enough threat to justify sending hundreds of thousands to stamp 'em out.

 

[Throatpunch]

Who's talking about radical groups?

YOU.

If we close our borders completely to Muslims, even temporarily, we will prove the radical groups right, which say that something like this would happen and where the west is out there to destroy Islam.

We can't educate them because they are radicals, and they are radicalls because they are uneducated. So we should not even try it.

Nice strawman, never said they were uneducated. But they are so radical that there is no point in teaching them to be religious pluralists.

Well, here is one question for you. Do you want to treat the symptoms or the cause?

Perhaps if we took your route and just let them off while wasting time trying to figure out motivations they would still own that 40% of territory.
Also, nice cartoon from 2001. Totally relevant to now.
The simple solution of military action works. As I said to Izak, ISIS is collapsing.

These are just two of the many fronts in both countries where the militants are being squeezed, stretched and pushed back, Front-line commanders no longer speak of a scarily formidable foe but of Islamic State defences that crumble within days and fighters who flee at the first sign they are under attack. The U.S. military estimated earlier this year that the Islamic State had lost 40 percent of the territory it controlled at its peak in 2014, a figure that excludes the most recent advances.
In eastern Syria, the seizure late last month of the town of Shadadi by the Kurdish YPG — aided by U.S. Special Forces — was accompanied by the capture of nearly 1,000 square miles of territory.The operation was planned to take place over weeks. Instead, the town fell within days, said a senior U.S. administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly.
“Shadadi was going to be a major six-week operation,” he said. “The ISIS guys had dug trenches and everything. Instead, they completely collapsed. They’re collapsing town by town.”
http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/19/isis-is-on-the-verge-of-collapse-claims-british-colonel-5398565/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...onal-air-strikes-support-ground-a6797486.html

They don't sit around all day praying and thinking about ways how to kill infidels,

Where did you get the magic crystal ball that told you what Islamic extremist sit round doing all day.

 

[Izak]

Also, nice cartoon from 2001. Totally relevant to now.

Actually it is, the US marginalised Al-Qaeda and after a brief period of peace, ISIS popped up and started beheading westerners. Who's to say that that won't happen again? There are still a whole bunch of Islamic extremist organisations waiting for their time in the spotlight.

 

[Throatpunch]

Actually it is, the US marginalised Al-Qaeda and after a brief period of peace, ISIS popped up and started beheading westerners. Who's to say that that won't happen again? There are still a whole bunch of Islamic extremist organisations waiting for their time in the spotlight.

And when they get that time in the spotlight we destroy them. Simples.