They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque

[Skybird]

Clive,

just because I see you being online and haven't seen you since long - have you gotten my apology from some months ago: for me having messed up that old second chess match of ours? It's still a sting in my soul that I left you stranded due to my own fault and thoughtlessness.

Please see the very last post here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=141556

Oh my.. Same old news over and over and over again. Islamic madness agains the entire world.

0.26-0.33

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Ok there is a lot that you wrote that I must take issue with Lance

That's cool. Many people have many issues with things I say about weighty topics like this. There are many instances where I do not embrace the generally accepted perspective, and I have good reasons for doing so, though they often take a good deal of explaining by virtue of the fact that they are not the generally accepted perspective.
Please allow me to apologize for the inconvenience I have caused you by prompting your excellent and thorough response - as well as the great deal of reading you are about to have to do, should you so choose. My sympathies in advance to your mousewheel.
----------------
What I am about to say is intended to prompt you to rethink your views concerning the history of US interventionist policy, or at least challenge them.

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

If the US had not entered WW2 (assuming of course Japan had not attacked)

And why did Japan attack? Was it because of some kind of indoctrinated distrust of the US? Was it because of a credible threat to the Phillipenes, which the Japanese stated in numerous diplomatic communiques that they would not attack? Was it because the Japanese desired Axis domination of the world?

As I'm sure you've guessed, the answer is "none of the above". Japan went to war with the US because of the strict diplomatic stance that the US adopted.

FDR, a self-proclaimed anglophile, wanted to get into WW2. His "New Deal" had done little for the US economy, which remained in decline until (1943,IIRC) the mid-forties. The former is evidenced by his shameless adoption of the lend-lease policy in the face of congressional and popular opposition.

Moreover, FDR was a person of the worst character. He attempted to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, with the intent of establishing a means of circumventing the seperations of powers established in the US constitution. He was a potential dictator in every sense of the word, no different than Hitler or Stalin in that he desired to eliminate freedom to further his own agenda. Fortunately, his own political party helped block his initiative, and the Supreme Court was left alone - a victory for self-determination. FDR was far from finished, though.

From 1939 to 1941 he encouraged a series of diplomatic initiatives aimed at getting Japan to declare war on the US, presumably with the intent of getting the US into a war with Germany. These intiatives had one overriding purpose; To pick a fight with Japan. No matter what concessions the Japanese made, the US consulate rejected them.
We are both educated people, NS. We both know Japan wouldn't have declared war upon the US unless there was no percieved alternative.
What would Japan stand to gain? What would it stand to lose? The military and political leaders of Japan were wrong about many things, but they were not idiots. Faced with the perceived inevatibility of conflict with the US, Japan did the only rational thing; It launched a surprise attack in order to gain initiative- a gamble which ultimately failed.
--------------------------------------------
Now, let us move on to the European front.

There was absolutely no reason for the US to assist England in her struggle, mostly because the US populace was rightly dissatisfied with the outcome of the Great War and the Versailles Treaty.

If you would like, we can discuss the causes of WW1 in great detail, but I am certain that we will both arrive at the same conclusion; WW1 was both uneccesary and foolish, a conflict brought about by the whims of men who were given virtual fiat power over the destinies of their nations.
The results of WW1 speak for themselves. Millions of people on both sides sacrificed for the purpose of shifting millions of other people from one form of fiat, imperialistic control to another. Pure insanity, if you ask me.

US involvement in WW1 turned what would have been a German victory into a political quaqmire wherein nations not responsible for the Allied victory squabbled endlessly over fiscal and territorial concessions. President's Wilson's ideal of a League of Nations was torn apart in favor of exacting concessions from Germany, a power which had been "winning the war" in every sense of the term until the US got involved.

The Versailles treaty tore nations apart, and assembled nations which never should have existed. Iraq was born by cartographers who lumped Jews, Kurds, and Shiite and Sunni Muslims into one geographical area for the sake of expedience. The result should have been predictable.
Czecheslovakia was made with the intention of creating a French ally, and instead resulted in the predictable disharmony of Czechs and Slovaks, who hate each other. Yugoslavia was ostensibly created with the same intent as Czecheslovakia, and it yielded similarly favorable results.
I could go on and on about the harms of the Versailles treaty and the US war involvement that allowed it, but I'll rest my case here.

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I don't want to imagine what would have happened. Germany probably would have won in the end due to many reasons (their manufacturing would have been more intact due to the lack of constant US bombing raids, they probably would have succeed in starving out England, and they would have had far more resources to conquer Russia). If Nazi Germany had won they would have finished the final solution and murdered all the Jews in Europe and the middle east, then moved on to wiping out all the Baltic and other 'inferior' races. They would have also gained the nuclear bomb before anyone else (they were very close at the end of the war, there was even some evidence that they did have an early working prototype).

I've already posited the argument for US non-involvement in WW1, which would have precluded WW2, but let's take this as a seperate argument.
The first assumption I would like to challenge is that Germany would have won the war against the Soviet Union had it not been for US involvement. This is a false assumption.
Hitler doomed Germany to defeat the very instant that he diverted army groups north and south towards Leningrad and Stalingrad, respectively.
His fallacy violated the extremely successful concept of Schwerpunkt (Literally "Spearpoint",the application of superior force upon a concentrated area) , and he undid the success of German tactics in a matter of months.
For clarification, please note that the capture of Moscow would have been decisive. Moscow was the center of Russian logistics because it was the major rail hub in all of Russia. If railroad logistics had been cut, it would have spelled the end for the Soviet Union. There was simply no other way to transport the tremendous amounts of supplies and manpower needed by the Red Army, or any other modern-ish army for that matter.

Hitler sought to prevent the mistakes of Napoleon by destroying the Russian Army in the field, rather than by taking Moscow. Ironically, his strategy backfired because like Napoleon he did not understand his enemy. Germany literally came within sight of winning WW2, but Hitler botched the attack on Moscow by diverting Army Groups North and South. He also delayed Operation Barbarossa by several months by supporting Mussolini's attack on the Balakans and enforcing the "Pact of Steel" by invading the politically unstable state of Yugoslavia. The result was that the Germans were unable to capture Moscow before a brutal winter set in. The Soviets used the time afforded them to move their industry east and muster something around 40 Siberian divisions to the German front, sealing Germany's fate.

From that point onwards, there was no way that Germany's superior tactics and soldiers could have won out against Soviet numbers. For every tank that Germany produced, the Soviet Union produced five. For every soldier that Germany produced, the Soviet Union produced ten. I'm generalizing, but the point is quite valid. One of the drawbacks of using a comparitively small and elite force of soldiers to win a war is that mistakes are very costly. Hitler made too many mistakes. He didn't properly utilize the Wehrmacht's strengths and it cost him the war.

There was no way that Germany could have won the war against the Soviet Union, whether or not the US was involved. At the time of the Normandy invasion, 98% of the Wehrmacht proper (which had been dilluted by an influx of Luftwaffe troops and new recruits) was on the Eastern Front. Most of the troops in France were conscripts drawn from France, Romania, Bulgaria, and even Russia. These troops were substandard, lacking even basic Wehrmacht training, but they held the greatest amphibious invasion force ever assembled for quite some time - several months, in fact. Even then, the Western Allied forces took months to achieve the territorial gains that the Soviets had achieved in weeks.
The sheer numbers of Soviet forces guaranteed victory, and the pitiful contributions of substandard US equipment like the P39 AeroCobra or the obsolescent Stuart tank made little difference.

Finally, I'd like to address the argument that US strategic bombing somehow impeded German production enough to allow the Soviets to win. That argument is based on the false assumption that strategic bombing was effective at its' intended task: destroying German war industry.
German industrial planners utilized a system of de-centralized production to counter inevitable bombings. This was a tremendous leap in military-industrial reasoning. At the outset of WW2 there was still enormous regard for the theory that bombers could win a war, and the Germans had the foresight to counter that theory.

The idea was that sufficient numbers of bombers with high-power engines could outrun and out....altitude...(I'll make up words when I see fit, thank you) interceptors. This logic was based upon combat performance of "interceptors" in WW1, which were not particularly successful in destroying bombers, all things considered.

Notwithstanding the fact that there were precisely zero purpose-built interception aircraft produced or designed in WW1, the theory is ridiculous. The number of bombers and aerial ordnance it would take to literally bomb a strong-willed nation into military submission is virtually incalculable, especially when the target nation, if devoid of capacity to counter bombing raids, takes the logical course of action and starts hiding things underground or building very thick concrete superstructures over otherwise vulnerable assets. We know this now, but at the time the theory was considered valid.

German wartime production, which was never large to begin with, actually continued to climb after strategic bombings were begun en masse by the US 8th Air Force in in 42'. It only declined when production facilities were overrun or cut off by troops on the ground - very late in the war.
Strategic bombers made a very impressive-looking mess of German towns and cities, and the media reported as much, but the truth is that they did very little to impede German war production when compared to ground forces that physically occupied positions.
-------------------
As for imagining the consequences of US non-intervention, I'll admit that some of Europe was spared Communist rule due to the presence of US forces. Given Stalin's blatant disregard for the terms agreed upon at the Yalta conference, I have little doubt that he would have just rolled on through Europe, but that is only part of the argument.

What fate did those under Stalin's rule suffer? How did it differ from the fate of those under Hilter's rule? Wartime casualties aside, Stalin- to say nothing of the Soviet regime- murdered far more people than Hitler ever did. At least Hitler had the decency to limit his mad "cleansing" to a few particular sectors of the popualace (not just Jews, although many people tend to forget the other millons of victims), and the residents of the concentration camps had relatively brief and merciful lives compared to those left to rot, starve, or die of exposure and overwork over a period of many years like those sentenced to the Gulags and the Lubyanka. It's a morbid truth, but truth nonetheless.

My thoughts are that the systematic elmination of people is not much different than the systematic elimination of a people. I suppose the argument could be made that the latter is more evil than the former, but in my mind there is no difference. People are people, and murdering them is wrong. In cases like the Hitler vs Stalin debate, I find Stalin more evil.
The horrors of the holocaust are nothing to be taken lightly or set aside, but ask the families of the more numerous victims of Soviet pogroms or NKVD or KGB purges if the fate of their loved ones was any less horrible.
Is it worse to be branded with a star and led to your inevitable death in a gas chamber or to be snatched from your home in the middle of the night for no apparent reason and led to your inevitable death? I see little difference between the two, other than that the latter breeds more fear and misery because it is so indiscriminate.
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are also other harms you have not taken into account in your assessment.

Communism is, by virtue of its' very nature, International socialism. It requires worldwide conflict, or at best confrontation, to be realized.
You would think that alone would have been enough to deter allied leaders from seeking alliance with the Soviet Union -and it was, for quite a while-
but the desperate desire to preserve their interventionist policies led them to deal with the secular devil. They thought they could handle the beast, and they were quite wrong.

Soviet victory in WW2 heralded the onset of nearly half a century of misery and conflict for most of the world. To this day, some nations and their peoples struggle on and punish themselves (except for their leadership) in the pursuit of Communist ideals, mostly because the Western world allowed a Communist victory against its better judgement.

National socialism is, of course, National socialism, and in the form of the Nazi party it sought no further aim than to re-establish ancestral German lands and destroy/exploit the threat of Bolshevism. Hitler said as much in Mein Kampf. He had no intent to invade France or the Balkans, but was forced into doing so by the interventionist approaches of other nations.

I consider the Polish war guarantee to be one of history's greatest jokes, and one of its greatest evils. Two nations with no ability to defend a third- which was itself much like the nation attacking it- pledged to defend it though they had no means to do so. The whole thing was nothing more than an excuse to get into a war with Germany for no reason other than that Britain and France wanted to beat Germany down, mostly becuase they feared Germany's potential economic power.

Germany had a legitimate claim to Danzig, and the citizens of Danzig agitated for reuinification. Germany even made concessions by demanding only a small corridor of largely unused Polish territory to link it with Danzig,
but the British and French pledged to defend Poland against German military pressure, nonetheless. This would somewhat akin to Britain and France offering a war guarantee to the Soviets if the Berlin Wall was destroyed for the purposes of preventing German aggression. Not quite identical, but madness all the same.

Had Germany been allowed to lay claim to Danzig against the military dictatorship to its East, the Second World War would never have happened. The worst possible result I can conceive is that Germany, and possibly France, Britain, and Poland, not to mention a host of Eastern European nations, would have gone to war agains the Bolsheviks and crushed them. That outcome was, in fact, what Hitler detailed in Mein Kampf. As a veteran of the Great War, he stated that had no desire to see Western Europe plunged into chaos again.

I'm hesitant to base much of my belief upon sheer speculation, but I think that German rule would have been preferable to Soviet rule or the Islamic extremism resulting from the breakup of European power structure. We cannot ever know what really went on in Hitler's mind, but we can know his military means, and those means did not include a capacity for conquering the world, despite what decades of propaganda have led us to believe. In the words of Otto Krestchmer himselfas best I can recall) "I laughed when I saw US newspapers claiming that Germany would take over the world. I thought to myself; "With what? We have nothing. Everyone knows this."

Second the US got involved in the middle east after the war primarily for its own selfish interests (principally oil). Furthermore the jihadists still would have had plenty of reason to target the US for it's, in their view, corrupt and immoral ways, not to mention being infidels etc. I can cite many examples of attacks by Islamic people, on countries and peoples which have had nothing to do with the middle east or Islam other then to refuse to convert. I could expand further on this but I'll leave it for now

Well, I certainly agree with the first point. That's what you can expect from a powerful central government, all of which are vulnerable to being co-opted by other interests.

As for Islam targetting nations that have done no harm to it, I cede that point as well. My solution is not to fight Islam but to redirect its wrath upon someone else for the time being, preferably itself, but more likely, Europe.

I don't have a long-term solution for Islamic extremism. The Muslim desire for eradicating or converting others has been around for a long time, and I haven't seen any diplomatic initiatives that would be more successful than a modern-day Reconquista or Crusade, which themselves bred lasting conflicts. My only solution is to buy time to either come up with an alternative, induce Islam to evolve somehow(greater jihad), or, failing all else, allow them to dig their own grave.

Ok... what 2,500 year old Muslim nation exactly? Islam hasn't been around that long (Islam is about 1600 years old). Second the Jewish people have a much older claim to the land (going back at least 4000 years from archeological evidence), and were there well before the desert tribes (which became Muslim) came to the area. They also never left; there has always been a strong Jewish presence in the region of Israel/Judea, in spite of all the massacres and invasions, and repeated enslavement.

I actually meant 2,500 yr old region that was predominantly Islamic, but I still dispute the Jewish claim to the land. Though Jews may have been around for most of what is now Israel's history, they were not the sovereign people. The region was home to others before they invaded and briefly occupied it for the first time, much as it was the second time.

I admit that I don't know a great deal about Israel's history. Most of my views come from Asimov's Guide to the Bible, and his history is based entirely upon evaluation of biblical texts.

Third the US and Britain governments did nothing to create the state of Israel, in fact they did their best to prevent it happening, and tried to stop it when it did. The Jewish people created Israel themselves, which was not very surprising after what was done to them during world war 2 (aside from the rest of history). The US and Britain only very grudgingly recognized Israel as a state after many years of war between the Jewish people and surrounding Muslim countries (which by the way happily increased their own borders from the aftermath).

This, however, I do know a great deal about. Israel was created in 1948 as the result of a prolonged period of conflict between Jews, Arabs, and British authorities. It was recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN less than a year later.

Though sectarian violence in the region had been present for some time, it had been kept under control by the French, and later; the British.
After WW2, the British were faced with bankruptcy, and the collapse of their Empire. It was no longer to possible to control far-flung territories like Palestine. Thus, they simply ceded control of the region to the Zionists in an attempt to gain an ally.

I can't say that I really blame them for their decision, but I can certainly blame them for their attempts (along with those of the French) to use Israel to their advantage in the Suez incident more than a decade later.

I have no doubt that British foreign policy in 1949 was much different from British foreign policy in 1919.

Palestine was never a country, or an identifiable people, Its borders, name, and existence were created by the British when they partitioned off the middle east I believe after WW1.

You are correct in the belief that Britain was responsible for the partioning of what had been the Ottoman Empire. It was also, in my view, responsible for the resultant conflicts. Just as in the Balkans, Britain redistributed peoples and borders without a thought to the consequences.

This is partially why I think it possible to redirect the wrath of Islam upon Europe.

Finally it's the Christians who are the ancestral and principle enemies of the Muslims. The crusades, the inquisition, etc, along with the colonization of the middle east by France and Britain, makes it so. It was the crusades that spawned the Muslim concept of Jihad.

No, my friend, it is the Catholics who are the ancestral and principle enemies of the Muslims, and a wise US foreign policy would make mention of this. This is another part of why I believe we can redirect Islam's wrath.

Btw, the crusades did not spawn Jihad. That word is mentioned several times in the Koran, which predates the Crusades.

I seem to recall a school of thought that equates the Crusades with modern Jihad, but I can't remember the damn word. I have a hard time remembering Arabic words because the language and script are so different from what I am used to. If you know of the term and could remind me, I'd be most grateful.

I don't ever see this changing unless the US loses its dependence on oil. Oil is the key reason the US involves itself with the middle east. It is also a key reason why the US supports Israel (aside from the Christian and Jewish lobby groups), as they want a solid base from which they can operate from if needed.

That is a very valid perspective, and I must admit that I cannot offer definitive proof to the contrary, though I support it. Part of the reason I wish for the US to avoid foreign entanglements is that there is no thin red line between state or private interests and those of the people. At what point does a war become just? I do not think that the furthering of state or corporate interests is a valid casus belli, but there is certainly an argument to be made for the welfare of the Iraqi people, especially the murdered Kurds and Shiites. I suppose it all depends upon what the value of an innocent's life is worth compared to that of a soldier.
-----------------------------------
I agree with your original premise, but I find fault in your reasoning. Israel is quite possibly the worst place that US forces could find as a base for expanding oil interests. It doesn't really offer a direct or easy route to oil-rich nations, other than by air, and it is surounded by hostile and comparitively oil-poor nations. Better and more diplomatic/economical choices lie to the east and southeast

I can cetainly attest to the presence of Christian and Jewish lobby groups in determining US support for Israel. They are amongst the most vocal and well-funded groups.

No real comment here, other then the US stuck its nose into things (like the first gulf war) mainly for its own interests. The United States rarely gets involved in things unless it (or the power people behind it) has a stake in things, can gain financially from it, or it is forced to.
I don't see why Europe should bear the brunt of it frankly. The US is plenty responsible for its own situation and have done plenty on its own to tick off the Muslim population aside from supporting Israel. 'Radical' Islam would still hate the US even if it did nothing, just as it hates Canada which has done far less then the US.

I almost completely agree, and I agree that the US is screwed. We would have been far better off by not sticking our nose into things, but we did.

I've already explained my reasons for trying to shift the brunt of the conflict on to Europe, but I'll add one additional reason: Europe is a more viable target.

There. I said it. Call it Realpolitik or whatever you want, but the point is sound. There is already a lot of resentment for Islam in Europe and the US stands only to gain from the inevitable conflict. We can't be morally justified in eradicating Islam, and we can't be morally justified in supporting it, so what else is there to do? It's like WW1 and WW2 all over again, except we've had the chance to learn twice. They have issues to resolve, so let's let them fight. Why not benefit from their ancestral conflict when we can do nothing to stop it? Sooner or later they are going to learn their lesson. Europe has already learned its' lesson, and Islam as a whole is in the process of learning the lesson.

The US can only harm things with interventionist policy. We've only just begun and look at what has happened. We've only polarized Islamic sects by providing an external threat.

Peace and free trade with all nations, I say. We invite less harm that way, and we can destroy nations that harm their people through economic viability.

I really only skimmed the surface with this, as the whole thing is rather large and complicated.
I was going to write something rather long here about Jewish people and Israel: why it should exist, it's right to exist, about Jewish history, the holocaust and other similar events which have happened to them through out time, and anti-semitism. Also about why certain large primarily fundamentalist christian groups particularly in the US support Israel. But I don't have the energy to launch into it right now.

I'd be most interested in your views, should you desire to present them. You can use PM if you wish. I won't promise to agree, but I will promise to keep an open mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though we often desire the same outcome, as you mentioned before, we may not agree upon the methodology, and therein lies the function of argument. We must butt heads until we arrive at a mutual conclusion, even if that conclusion is that there can be no agreement.

On a more personal note, I appreciate your respect, NS, but I must point this out:

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Even if we do not always see eye to eye, you do present your arguments very well and I respect that.

Lawyers and politicians present their arguments very well, but we all hate them.

Rhetoric can be very persuasive, powerful, and harmful. Most of my arguments are presented in rhetorical form. I usually have the knowledge to back them up, but not always. Like anyone else, I draw conclusions from what I have learned or been taught.

One of my few talents is rhetoric, especially verbal rhetoric. But that is no reason to respect my arguments.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Pretty wild!

Isn't this treason? Why don't the British just kill these guys?
Where are all the rednecks when you need them?

I hate stuff like this.
These guys are just a bunch of idiots,
But we dont kill them for the same reason we dont kill Christian/Jewish/White supremecy extreamists (all have backward veiws and retarded Ideas such as this.)

We have freedom of speech..... remember?

The fact is there are no more islamic extremists in the uk than there are
of other types of extremist. Unless they are making bombs or buying guns. we ignore them like we ignore all stupid people.

I have met many Muslims, a couple are best friends of mine, they are just ordinarny folks trying get by in life, without hurting themselves or anyone else.
Stuff like this makes them even more furious than us - because

1) It give their relegion a bad name.
2) it makes the more ignorant Non Muslims judge all Muslims as evil conspritors
3) They also see it as scare mongering by the media - why give these morons any air time on the news? when it achives nothing other than to incite racial hatred.

a Quoted response from one of my Muslim friends when he watched the above link.

"UH If they dont like here they should piss off back home and stop whining"

I agree with him...

Here is a question that anyone with a racial or relegiouse predjudice should ask them selves:
"How many of these people do i actually know?"
Answer is most likley to be: none.
people are scared of what they dont understand.

[Skybird]

Or people are scared because they understand it all too well. You seem toi imply that critical attitude towards islam must be equated with prejudice, that'S how I got oyur last paragraph. Actually, that statement is a prejudice of yours in itself - against people criticising islam.

and to answer your question, yes, I knew and knwo Muslim people. And some where like you described. Others were of the like I - and others - attack them for. Most living in the West, however, form a silent, never caring majority that is sticking to itself and isolates itself as best as it can, and that is not just my subjective imoression and personal experience, but that is data from various sociological reasearches on these matters, the latest in Germany has been published just ten days ago. All this is not a very constructive way to try integrating oneself into a new living place one has moved to.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You seem toi imply that critical attitude towards islam must be equated with prejudice.

Duh. Read what you just wrote. Then look up "prejudice" in the dictionary! I know English isn't your first language but still...

Most living in the West, however, form a silent, never caring majority that is sticking to itself and isolates itself as best as it can, and that is not just my subjective imoression and personal experience, but that is data from various sociological reasearches on these matters, the latest in Germany has been published just ten days ago. All this is not a very constructive way to try integrating oneself into a new living place one has moved to.

I'm sick of hearing this BS from you. I dated a Muslim girl for a year, used to 'hang out' at her mothers house and sometimes at the houses of various aunts she had. They all lived in frickin Muslimville where the generation above us all wore Saris and spoke Urdu or some sh!t... and our generation all wore jeans and t-shirts and spoke English. You should spend less time reading reports and more time in the real world with your eyes open.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Skybird

and to answer your question, yes, I knew and knwo Muslim people. And some where like you described. Others were of the like I - and others - attack them for. Most living in the West, however, form a silent, never caring majority that is sticking to itself and isolates itself as best as it can, and that is not just my subjective imoression and personal experience, but that is data from various sociological reasearches on these matters, the latest in Germany has been published just ten days ago. All this is not a very constructive way to try integrating oneself into a new living place one has moved to.

Sure, but the same can be said for half the imigrants in western countries.
they like to keep them selves to them selves. Why? because they want to accociate with people who have the same things in common, same veiws and beliefs etc. isnt that human nature?
Hell here we like drinking in the Pub, muslim friends will come, but they cannot drink alchahol - so its not the same for them. Granted its there choice, but they always feel more comfortable meeing in coffee shops and cafes etc.

So What do you do as a nation? In the Britain we have become a bit hypocrital in our attitudes.
On the one hand we have always said to them, "you can come here an be free to practice you beliefs & culture.
Then post 9/11 - that turns into: actually, you have to intergrate in to our society and adopt british values....

Come on... You can have it one way or the other not both.

Way too much public and media hysteria over terrorism. then we start waving out flags, like bunch of brainlwashed patriotic zombies... (little different from the terrorists themselves in my eyes)

then we start giving up civil liberties to our govenments in exchange for more security,
We Lose many poor young souls from our armed services and spend billions of $$ / £ on two wars, that have done little other increased hatred toward the West... hence increasing the chances of terrorism.

Have the terrorist won? Not exactly no...., but they sure have done a pretty damn good job in screwing us over, we are not as 'free' as we were in 2000 thats for sure...
I blame the terrorists 60% for carrying out the evil deed, but then I blame our selves 40% for our foolish reactions, we should know better, all of us.

I f**king give up on mankind sometimes I tell you.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Sure, but the same can be said for half the imigrants in western countries.

No, it cannot. We have very very less problems with immigrants from non-Muslim countries. I often said that. Even those groups that have somewhat a history to form some kind on insider-only societies (Chinatowns ) nevertheless usually try to establish good relations and open contact to their hosting nation. eurppean immigrants are not our problem. Nothamericans are not the porblem. not Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans. Not Southamericans. In the sopecial case of Jews, they have totally sunk into our societies and molten with them again, and before the war even were the motor of blossoming in European matropoles, like Berlin.

whenever I see reports on troubles, read sociometric data about crisis in ethnic subcommunities, chances are EXTREMELY high that it involves Turks, Albanians, Pakistani, Algerians, Moroccans, Saudis.

No other immigration groups demand so noisily so wide reaching special rights and special recogntiion and claim the role of being victims of racism so readily, like muslim immigration groups. No other immigration groupos for siloated sub-cultures and parallel societies so systemtically, like uslim immigrants. no other immigration group actively and willingly refuses to integrate itself, like muslim groups often do. we have seen that even porven in reaserach statistics by university seeveral times in theb past 3-4 years. I linked I think 2 British studies showing that in the past 4 years, and just days ago the third or 4th of such a study in the past 3-4 years has been released in Germany. that is basing not on single individuals only, but on groups. the group forms the rule. The individual may present the exception from the rule - or not.

and another insight that gets statistically boosted since some time: that assuming we would fund our shaking social system in europe by importing immigrants, can already be shown by numbers black on white to be a self-deception. Becasue most immigrants fromMuslim countries are not well-trained members of specialised labour branches, with educated social backgrounds in their families. Instead, most are poor, uneducated members of social low class, while Muslim managers and entrpreneurs are the total exception from the rule. Statistics show that from the social low class we allow in en masse, only very very few manage to raise in social status and education. Mayn even actively resist that. The conclusion is that all in all we do not gain wins but that it puts additional stress on our social systems that we do not select more carefully whom we let in and whom we sent back, and that the assumption the presence of unselected imigration would secure our social safety fopr our aging socieites - is an urban myth. again: most immigration from Muslim coutnries is not the social middle class or upper class, but most is lower class, poor, unedcuated, ressisting to integration, and with very very bad chnaces to ever make a social raise.

I knew some Asiens in earlier years, at university, and afterwards. Most were students, but some were immigrants from Japan and china. The contrast to Muslim immigration in general - could not be any clearer.

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

You should spend less time reading reports and more time in the real world with your eyes open.

You believe you know me and my information background quite well, eh? I have had my share of experiences with staying in Muslim countries, and for not just summertime holidays you know. Some of my former colleagues are social workers in Frankfurt and Berlin, I still get insider feedback from them. I have read a whole lot of literature on the issues with Islami immigrant groups, and I have had my share of private experience with Islam and Muslims in Germany as well. Some experiences were pleasant if I met the right indioviudual. Most were not. The death threats I received in written mail two years ago probbaly were the most unpleasant of them all.

You you dated a girl and met her family for one year. I don't know how often somebody todl me ont his board that he knows that guy living in the room at the end of the floor and that is usually os very kind. Sorry dude, I think my persective exceeds yours by far.

I think you people always thinking and assuming just the best about Islamic ideology withouit ever having studied it in detail, and assuming any motives of immigrants to be only the most noble, really have tunnel-eyed views in order to exclude any perspective AND FACT that does not match your desired peace-no-matter-the-cost attitude. and when this leads as far that even the findings of sociological research gets refused for illustrating not the truth that you want to see proven, then it really becomes absurd.

In the end, you will get the messy outcome that you wanted, and deserve.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You believe you know me and my information background quite well, eh?

That's a pretty ironic statement, given what you went on to post later. But first...

Originally Posted by Skybird

I have had my share of experiences with staying in Muslim countries, and for not just summertime holidays you know. Some of my former colleagues are social workers in Frankfurt and Berlin, I still get insider feedback from them. I have read a whole lot of literature on the issues with Islami immigrant groups, and I have had my share of private experience with Islam and Muslims in Germany as well. Some experiences were pleasant if I met the right indioviudual. Most were not. The death threats I received in written mail two years ago probbaly were the most unpleasant of them all.

My words clearly fell on deaf ears. What do the Muslims in Muslim countries have to do with the secularisation of Muslims in western countries?

"Inside information" from your friends in Frankfurt and Berlin? Books on ideology? You just don't get it do you?

I am at least glad to hear you can look past your own BS long enough to form friendships with some Muslim people. As for the death threats... wow. Out of all the Muslims I know and have known in my life, I've never once received a death threat, nor has anyone I know for that matter. Interesting that you have.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You you dated a girl and met her family for one year. I don't know how often somebody todl me ont his board that he knows that guy living in the room at the end of the floor and that is usually os very kind. Sorry dude, I think my persective exceeds yours by far.

Yer... nice try, but I'm not biting that one.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think you people...

Classic!

Originally Posted by Skybird

...always thinking and assuming just the best about Islamic ideology withouit ever having studied it in detail, and assuming any motives of immigrants to be only the most noble, really have tunnel-eyed views in order to exclude any perspective AND FACT that does not match your desired peace-no-matter-the-cost attitude. and when this leads as far that even the findings of sociological research gets refused for illustrating not the truth that you want to see proven, then it really becomes absurd.

You pulled that whole paragraph right out of your arse. It demonstrates only one thing: that you have pigeonholed my comments based on your perception of me as a person, probably without so much as a second thought. Presumably you will now go back to preaching your anti-Islam BS, as unaware as ever of your striking resemblance to the extremists you find so concerning?

I wonder, if I found enough reports and case studies saying that reports and case studies and heresay and books on ideology are no substitute for actual experiences... would it make any difference?

[JU_88]

@ Skybird Ill stick to what and who I know, I do not have the energy to dicuss it any further tbh.
It just pisses me off when people feel the need to stick labels and hold groups responsible for the actions of a few ******* inderviduals, to me that is a retarded and ignorant way of thinking.
That is all.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

My words clearly fell on deaf ears. What do the Muslims in Muslim countries have to do with the secularisation of Muslims in western countries?

Another urban myth: that Wetsern culture has the opower and infoluence to make musloims becoming althogether as secular as you claim.But that is a claim that statistics already have proven wrong. In Germany for example we find the third generation immigrants to be much more orthodox in there religious views than there parents and grandparents ever have been, further boosted by massive Turkish nationaoism and a majority of the young peoplpe not older than 25 saying they do not want to be German. nationaolism and relgious orthodoxy - good mixture. Go on dreaming abiout secularisation of islam. That only shows you have no feeling and understanding of the power inherent to the Quran's ideology. It is also just a eurocratic dream.

Europe is old, overaged, has grown weak, it's times of ruling are over, it's economy gets czhallenged, it's values get pushed back in the world and replaced by restrengthening feelings of local clture's identity and customs. How could anyone assume that this sick old man the West has become has the power and cinvincing argument to tame a vital, drastcially boosting ideology of conquest that is brimming with life and is carried by the currently very young populations in the muslim countries? and are you maybe, by chnace , familiar with the model of Gunnar Heihnsohn, being called "Youth Bulge" , saying there is a link between the average age of the male population in a society, and the expansive drive of that culture? The according book would be "Söhne und Weltmacht. Terror im Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen."

Secular islam is a contradiction in itself. To assume the West is still as convincing and shiny to make islamic ideology change itself, is absurd. statistics show that the young turn orhtodox instead of secular, and that they strongly reject integration and becoming part of their hosting nation's idedntity. that'S why they want to turn the hosting nation islamic.

and I have often had it that right this was told me right into my face, both in Germany, and other countries.

"Inside information" from your friends in Frankfurt and Berlin? Books on ideology? You just don't get it do you?

Feedback from professional social workers about their experience with having to deal with immigrants and the young fsamioy members is worth much more than a book or an official statistics. I know these guys from university times, since I studied psychology back then and had some courses in sociology as well. they stayed in that propfession, I left. If that is a problem for you, I'm sorry.

I am at least glad to hear you can look past your own BS long enough to form friendships with some Muslim people.

Lacking mouth size does not seem to be your problem. Let me give you some details on myself. I am 42, and was becoming interested in Islam short after school. Two of my four best friends from schooldays were a Christian Armenian and a Muslim Turk, both families very well integrated, and educated. My first real friendship with a comrade I experienced at the age of 5, and he was a Turkish boy and Islam yes or no did not concern our minds back then. After school I started to massively read and educate myself on islam, and inhaled a whole lot of literature about, around 30-35 books, some of which academic standard works, and this reading included the Quran and parts of the currently existing Hadith texts and secondary literature on Sharia as well as books on sociology, politology, history. Do I have all that details always avaialable on my mind? No. what I have available is the general picture from that input. Back then I had not started travelling, and when starting to read all that stuff I was a young man very similiar in opinion to you now and to many other wishful thinkers that sometimes defend Islam and talk of how misunderstood it just is. That led to conflict: I was influenced by the leftist pro-Islamic propaganda and was thinking friendly of Islam, and saw that in contradiction to most of what I read about Islam in the academic books. Even greater my confusion became when I started to visit and stay in several Islamic countries: Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Iran both having been major stations, and a short stay in Pakistani-Afghan border region. That all in all were around 15 months, and some travels were private with an Algerian buddy and another friend ( the young fools travel in disreghard of risks and fight it easy...), but I also was there for having been engaged by a Belgian-British correspondent team, for security. that was in the mid-90s, roughly. when I was back, europe felt alien, and my confusion was complete. I could not bring together my former image of Islam with what I had seen in Islamic countries, and what I had seen in ideology supremacism especially in Turkey. Iran was a bag of mixed experiences, but all in all this was the best station in my programs, I met both very orthodox, radical people, and very educated, tolerant, burgeois-like people. As an atheist I soon learned to hide that in Islamic countries, but in iran it was the smallest problem for people. This all is the reason why I am very split on Iran over the nuclear issues. I am determined not to allow them nuclear wepaons even at the cost of destroying the whole country, but I also feel that would be very tragic, becasue I hold not only bad but also good memories of that place. Somehow I like Iran. well, parts of it.

You see, my confusion resulted from my wishful thinking colliding with reality, and academic information. It took me two or three years to get that sorted out, and it cintunued with debates on this board some years ago. when I let go my wishful thiniiung, the contradictions solved themslves and all the previously "contradictive" informations fell into place. so you see, i know the thing from sides, I now how it feels to be in defense of Islam, but I also know how misled that thinking is and I know why I have come to that uncompromised confronting attitude of mine today.

All this, i admit althiugh it may sound arrogant, gives me the feeling my attitude today is a bit better reasoned than just referring to one or two close friends of mine.

As for the death threats... wow. Out of all the Muslims I know and have known in my life, I've never once received a death threat, nor has anyone I know for that matter. Interesting that you have.

Hard to say whether it was for somebody having found a way to learn my identity from internet, or because it was due to my role in a local civil movement that prevented a mosque building by betrayal at court. That I also have engaged and finally scared away Muslim infomation stands in the pedestrian zone by raising public attention with counter arguments to their candy-sweet propaganda, may have contributed to some Muslims learning to hate me. revealing is th erole of the german police. they looked at the letters and told me that I better shut up about the issue if I do not want to be interrogated by the BKA on my assumed Nazi background. Which is my fourth of five totally disappointing experiences with the German justice system. That'S why I do not put trust into it anymore.

I hate Nazis and confront them as uncompromised as I do with Islam.

You pulled that whole paragraph right out of your arse. It demonstrates only one thing: that you have pigeonholed my comments based on your perception of me as a person, probably without so much as a second thought. Presumably you will now go back to preaching your anti-Islam BS, as unaware as ever of your striking resemblance to the extremists you find so concerning?

You are such a nice cutie, have you ever been told?

Unfortunately I started to reply without having read all your reply in full first, else I would have kicked you where you belong when choosing a rude tone like this: the waste bin.

My concern is not some extremists. My concern is the islamic ideology by content, which is extreme in itself, and people like you trying to minimise that and try to rewrite it's very basics although they are existing reality throughout the Muslim world.

[CaptainHaplo]

OLC - You talk about dating a muslim girl, and how "your generation" was secularized by wearing jeans, etc, while the parents in the home are conforming to the islamic strictures of dress - and this somehow shows that muslims are not "extremists".

First of all, what you just did was exhibit the EXTREME differences in people of one religion. I don't think anyone has said that every muslim is an extremist, and I know in the past Skybird has acknowledged that fact. However, look at the sheer number of "honor killings" that have occured not only in Europe, but also in the US. These are acts of that same "older generation" upon the younger. Yet you claim that because the kids wear jeans, no one can be an extremist. I wonder if the girls whose familes have killed them for being to secular, or dating non-islamic guys thought the same way? We will never know, but if they did, we are assured they were wrong.

There are extremists in every religion. However, what you are refusing to address is that those who follow Islam are following a religion based upon the use of violence to control a society and people. A religion who clearly states its goal is world domination under its strictures, and advocates violence against those who refuse to follow its tenents.

Not every muslim is a nut job. However, when muslim societies do all they can to isolate themselves, when their is such a large theological divide between the older and younger generation - which leads to internal strife, you are going to see the older generation further insulate itself, and take refuge even further into its "fundamentalist" beliefs, creating additional problems.

The problem that you struggle with is not recognizing the danger of a muslim person because of their belief, what your failing to deal with is the danger of the belief system itself. You can not ever tell how deeply a person's faith is. Because that is the case, you must look at what they claim as their belief, and judge IT by its own statements. Only by understanding what they believe can you then begin to understand them on a personal level.

This is why there is so much political correctness - too many people don't want to know about Islam, and only want to say its "nut jobs" that do violence in the name of the religion. However, a closer study shows that Islam not only condones, but blesses such acts, so those that follow the religion must be looked at in that light, regardless of if they are "nut jobs" or not.

The more they insulate themselves, the more they do "speak out" only when a act of violence has occured, and most importantly, the more they REFUSE to weed out and eject the "extremists" in their own theology, the more they all become suspect.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

@ Skybird Ill stick to what and who I know, I do not have the energy to dicuss it any further tbh.
It just pisses me off when people feel the need to stick labels and hold groups responsible for the actions of a few ******* inderviduals, to me that is a retarded and ignorant way of thinking.
That is all.

Again, I am not about terroism and extremists. This we could cope with, easily. the obvious violence is not what makes us shaking. The Islamic ideology as it is praticed reality in much of the Muslim world on the basis of the Quran is radical, fundamentalist, intoerant and deeply hostile towards anything that is not itself - it is a conqueror'S ideology, using religious claims to justify it'S driven expansion. It is not the peaceful tolerant humanistic manifest that you want it to be.

THIS is the problem, and it manifestates it's consequences on all levels and in all aspects of Muslim immigration to western societies, immigration gets used as a weapon agaunst us, and you take it as a gift. My, repeatedly Muslim spokesmen, even governmental officials and leaders at the UN have said it loud and clearly that they intent to take over the West by sending immigrants and more immigrants to the West to make it structure collpasing and then being replaced with the ruling of Islam. They even tell it right to your face and smile while doing it - and you still think you know better what it is about then they do?

It's not about just some terrorists. It's about an aggressively expanding culture claiming the right to dominate in it's very basic and essential theology which it does not keep separate from politics. It's supremacism by ideology and religious content. And you mistake it with a willingness to coexistence and tolerance so that you can live on with illusions of how well you and it can communicate and that it will sooner or later gets westernised due to your "superior" and "convincing" western culture corrupting it? the Western culture is old, and weak - and that'S what makes it an inviting, ripe prey, after several attempts of military conquest in the past have failed.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Skybird

THIS is the problem, and it manifestates it's consequences on all levels and in all aspects of Muslim immigration to western societies, immigration gets used as a weapon agaunst us,.

You are an intelligent guy - but a deluded one if you really think some immagrants can enforce there belives on the nationals of the nation they reside in, and then what....topple the govenment?

I laugh at people who think the Islamists have the power or even the DESIRE to take over western countries.
That kind of paranoid BS only demonstrates how little someone knows about the culture.

In this world there are good people and there are @ss holes, and they can come from any creed, nation or relegion.
Simple as that.