Ok, we have a double suggestion so far: Stop inmigration plus deportation :up:

The first one is easy to do, the second not that much. How do we deport muslims that are born here and have our nationality? Where do we deport them? Which country would admit f.e. a british radical muslim, deported from Britain because of being a radical muslim?

But anyway, the answer is good enough to proove one point I was willing to remark: Neither solution has talked about BANNING the Islam as a religion. I have heard many comments about the Islam being a bad ideology, so why don't we simply ban it? How come we talk about deportation, etc., and not about banning the ideas?

Where does it say that this fight has to be conducted with violence?

Isn't it possible to interpretate that the fight has to be dialectical? When you beat someone with arguments in a peaceful discussion, and he runs out of counterarguments, you are in fact turning him into submission. The sensation someone has when he looses on a discussion and runs out of arguments is the sensation of defeat and submission to the winner. Why does that this single part of the Quran have to mean physical violence?

Take this examples from the Bible:

This is related with the banning of Islam I mentioned before: We do NOT have a single argument to ban Islam as a religion, we just have arguments to ban and act against certain radical interpretations of the Islam. Same as against certain radical interpretations of the Bible, or against racism, f.e. Do we ban christianism also, just because their holy book says things like these? Or do we ban radical interpretations of this book?

We can't accept that the difficulties to identify some radicals must conduct to a general deportation of muslims, no matter which interpretation they do out of Quran.

It isn´t? What would you call it then?

So what do we do with Islam?
 

Hi Hitman,
I'm preparing an on topic answer for later today. This announcement is to put your mind at ease...
:rotfl:

My fascists everywhere on this site. :nope:

If a black community wanted to get rid of a Klu Klux Klan office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

If a Jewish community wanted to get rid of a Nazi party office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

This has nothing to do with race, creed or color. This has to do with whether an established belief system is essentially contrary to anything and anyone else who does not abide by it.

You say it isn't. I say it is. That does not make me a fascist.

Sorry to rain on your parade.

Just to clarify this, are you talking about every single Muslim on this planet or just radical Muslims/Jihadists that do something that is against the law in the country they live in? "Get rid of Muslims" is a broad statement, and as such it´s inacceptable.

Refer to the article I posted yesterday, one page back.

Western society has done similar things before. Maybe not mass deportation but mass isolation of so-called "communistic" countries by mounting an "iron curtain" and treating every citizen of those countries as a "commi". Surprisingly, it seemed to be a success. And one can't even really argue that communism ideas are bad (I do not mean totalitaristic attempts/experiments of their implementation).

In the article it suggests:

Avon L, Could you please enlighten us to what you would do in your own words?

Avon Lady 2200 years of no capital punishment. Fair enough, so explain a missile up your arse/ass and being exploding in a thousand pieces, without a judge or excutioner :|\

Did I call you a fascist? That would be errr a bit offbase. I was reacting to the FAtob or however he's called and to the suggestion in the article. Deportation was used by facism (not Nazism though they thought about Madagascar once...) and communism ....

If blacks wanted to force KKK women to have abortions, what is that? Makes no sense does it. He said arabs are welcome but they must not be too muslim...HOW DO YOU MEASURE THAT?

I am worried about the deportation thing, immigration heck France stopped it already. I don't see how you can deport millions of people (and what critrea to choose a real muslim or not) without an authoritarian government which would threaten the liberties of the rest of us.

Otherwise I am sure the people concerned would not sit passively but we could provoke a civil war. You say it is not a matter of race and creed Avon Lady? In the hysteria such a move would entail what would happen to Arab christians or for example in the UK or Canada Indian Hindus??? They "look" like muslims to the lumpenproletariat....

Please answer everyone:

HOW TO DEPORT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN A DEMOCRACY.

It's called war.

I've heard rumors that if a foreign entity has been attacking one's country and killing its citizens in several non-Geneva-Conventional ways, and plans on continuing to do so, that you are allowed to defend yourself by even killing such perpetrators before they've had a chance to smoke another cigarette.

That must be news to you, I suppose.

Furthermore, the vast majority of Israel's political and military echelons today do not for even a minute consult with Jewish law in any which way when making decisions to deploy such attacks. This is no different than the behavior one would expect from any other country, no matter of their religious or philosophical orientation.

Or did you think otherwise?

A matter of personal taste.

Oops. My mistake. Sorry.
Was Winston Churchill a fascist?

[i]""Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble... A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions…"

The results were the expulsion of Germans after WWII, a controversial topic on its own but nevertheless a non-fascist historical precedent.

And remember, all that would never had been necessary in the first place had the world taken the Reich's words at face value 7 or 8 years earlier. How many 10's of millions of inncoent lives were lost because of the policy of appeasement? Even back then, Churchill and others had the foresight to warn of the pending catastrophe.
Maybe you can't. No one invented a Nazi-meter in WWII to measure the Naziness of Germans and their cohorts. We'd all be naming our children Otto and Eva had we been stupid enough to get boggled down on things back then at such a microscopic level.
I am worried about the Sha'aria thing.

I am worried about the Caliphate thing.

I am worried about the Jihad thing.

But I am also worried about the deportation thing.

It's ugly, cruel and shattering. It's inhumane normally. These are not normal times. They will be less so as the years go by. And with each passing year, it will become more difficult to consider.
Indeed, in times of national crisis or in a state of war, liberties are threatened and unintended injustices are carried out. It's always been like that. Sad but true.
You said that - not I.

I do not know what a Muslim looks like. Describe one to me.

Heck! Do you think I can spot every Jew I pass by?

Some form of actual identification of faith is essential.
Planes, trains, boats and buses.

During WW2, US Government put all the US citizens of the Japanese origin in camps. Up to day, US are still recognized by the whole world as a democratic country.

It feels like war nowdays as well. Isn't it? So what is the choice?