Let’s replace “muslims” by the name of another minority :
There’s no prospect for peace with the natives.
No Jew would turn in a fellow jewish murderer.
For our survival, we need to isolate ourselves from the blacks.
Rings some bells?
** Sam Stone ** , see what I mean about rampant racism? Or is this what you’d call " people being very careful in their statements"? You should recognize the beast when it looks upon you.
Not at all. but it is clear what you are attempting. I prefer to anologize my call for isolation from foreign Islam to way the Amish in America have successfully and peacefully preserved their way of life and values. As a Frenchman, you probably don’t know what I’m talking about. You might want to read up on them.
Beast? So whose the Anti-Christ ? I’m getting very uncomfortable with the fanaticism you just displayed. There is nothing racist about my comments. Opposition to a religion is not any more racist than opposition to fascism or communism or Christian fundamentalism. But, I know it plays well when you’re having difficulty in responding to an argument . I would very much appreciate if you would drop the spin and respond honestly.
A related piece of news. I catched moments ago part of a report about the local elections in Brussels. The Vlaams Belang party got a large number of votes, and it was apparently considered a success that it didn’t won the election against the current socialist mayor of Brussels.
The Vlaams Belang, a party supporting Flemish independance is precisely running on the platform advocated in this thread : “let’s kick the immigrant out lest they’ll destroy our civilization”. Apart from its anti-islamism and support for a white Europe, it also federates the homophobes, the crypto (or not so crypto) antisemites, the neo-nazis and all others similarily nice people. Of course, I’m not saying that every person voting for the Vlaams Belang is a racist homophobe antisemite, but for whom the racist homophobe antisemites vote is quite clear. And the appeal their racist stance has for a significant part of the electorate is quite obvious. The Vlaams Belang doesn’t exactly hide its agenda.
On related news, the german neo-nazi NPD got seats during the election in one of the eastern german landers some weeks ago. Neo-nazis. In Germany of all places.
Don’t be mistaken. It’s the arguments and talking points of those extremist european parties that are relayed here. It’s their perception of the current situation in Europe re muslims (islam is antithetic with western values, muslims are unable to behave themselves, our civilization is about to crumble in face of the muslim invasion, they reproduce like rabbits, are going to overrun us and your daughters will have to wear a veil, etc…Basically : the barbarians are at the gates) that is discussed. It’s their statements that are apparently accepted at face value in north America. Be warry.
Who are these millions ? Is this a rhetorical flourish, or are you suggesting that there are millions of Muslim extremists who commit acts of terrorism in an attempt to achieve world domination ? Are you suggesting that these terrorists share a common goal, a common leadership, that they are working together ?
A lot of the rhetoric coming out of the US these days (and also the European extreme-right, as noted by Clairobscur) is disturbingly reminiscent of the anti-semitism of the first half of the XX century. Demonization of a large group of outsiders in our midst, diversely described as ethnic or religious. The attibution of a collective nefarious motive based solely on their religion or ethnicity etc. Hey, and a lot of them are semitic too !
Antimuslimism is the antisemitism of our century, and makes about as much sense.
“They” all hate “us” and would kill “us” all if only “they” could.
Like last time, no proof of this statement is necessary, and indeed questioning it only shows that you are on their side.
There are 2 large holes in the earth that say your argument is also fulla holes.
No. The references of the last few posts referred to “millions” and to “they all.” The WTC/Pentagon attacks required the efforts of just 19 persons with (perhaps) another hundred support personnel. That does not translate to “millions” or “all” so your rebuttal is the argument that is full of holes.
There are millions of Muslims who support the actions of the extremists. From the Pew Global Attitudes Project:
I was being conservative when I said ‘millions’. It’s more like tens of millions.
Here’s a later Pew Project that specifically asks about support of ‘terrorism in defense of Islam’. The numbers:
Terrorist violence against civilians is often or sometimes justified to defend Islam:
Lebanon: 39%
Morocco: 13%
Pakistan: 25%
Indonesia: 15%
Turkey: 14%
Jordan: 57%
Millions.
You are still being conservative. Extending those percentages on the population of the countries you cited, I get 98 million. Of course that doesn’t include muslims in other countries who support the actions of the extremists.
I’d rather die.
Regards,
Shodan
And according to a recent poll highlighted in this Forum, 21% of people in the U.S. (roughly 62 millions), thought it would be fine to launch a military strike on Iran just for attempting to gain nuclear power. That’s millions.
The number of people who respond to various polls (especially where the questions may have widely different meanings to those questioned and still different meanings to utside observers) do not necessarily indicate the number of people who are actively supporting violent actions.
God, that brings me back to the days of the warcry, " I’d Rather Be Dead Than Red"
And that is despicable. Fortunately for Iran and the rest of the world Americans won’t retaliate unless a majority of Americans support a government that will do that. Oh wait ! Given the current situation in Iraq that’s not exactly true. If we can’t trust the Americans with their renegade government, why should we trust the Muslims and with their renegade militants.
“Every time”? Uh, Sam, did you read the title or OP of the very thread you’re currently posting in? Where the OP says “I’m really beginning to think that Islam and Civilization cannot peacefully co-exist”? Not “radical Islam”, not “Islamism”, but “Islam” per se?
Maybe you just meant “in every discussion of this issue there are some people who are careful to single out ‘radical Islam’ as opposed to mainstream Islam”. Plenty of others, however, don’t bother to make the distinction, and don’t hesitate to condemn Islam itself as a fundamentally evil or malignant religion (including the French schoolteacher who inspired this whole thread, btw).
You’re trying to have it both ways here. Your “millions” figure comes from surveys of Muslim opinion concerning the legitimacy of terrorist violence. There is no evidence that most of those millions are part of any “organized” setup for committing or supporting violent acts.
The Islamist extremists who actually are “organized” and “violent” are far fewer in number than your “millions” figure attempts to suggest.
Given the horrors attendant with every full-blown communist regime the world has ever known, that seems a not-unreasonable position.
“Give me liberty or give me death?” “Live free or die?”
Believe it or not, some folks actually do feel that way.
Of course, and with reason. But I think Dutch’s point was that most of the folks proclaiming that heroic sentiment back in the Red-Scare days were not really in any danger of actually having to make such a choice.
And the same probably holds true for most of the Westerners today who feel, however sincerely, that they’d rather die than live under Islamic theocratic rule. Violent Islamic extremism poses a number of genuine dangers, but it is not a serious competitor for the role of dominant social/political influence in most contemporary Western societies.
True. Vietnam was such a waste of life for everyone involved.
You don’t even have to go that far. America has come along way to address the concerns of black Americans to restore a significant racial peace(without war). But that was accomplished by legislation and education that primarily reflected inherent values by both people. It was doable. In the case of Islam, there are many values that conflict. Primarily
Perhaps. But I’m reminded of the few boatloads of "nice " white European settlers accepting the hospitality of native Americans. Nice people can get mean real quick.
At the moment, violent Islamist extremism is no danger to me at all. I live way out in the boonies of Canada and while we have a great deal of ethnic diversity on northern Vancouver Island there are no mosques around here and we live a relatively peaceful life.
And that is the crux of my point. There are two major incompatible forces in the world. Western democracy and Islam. Both movements are much larger than the individual and seek to influence and spread their values globally. Each is a threat to the other. It may be time for Western civilization to stop exploiting Muslim countries and Muslim workers and put an end to commerce and immigration.
I’m not advocating deportation. Just a wall. If America can put up a wall against Canadians, why not against Islam. Canadians aren’t any threat at all.
Once the Soviets got the Bomb, I think everyone had to make that choice on some level.
Depends on the number of appeasers in a given society, don’t you agree? Radical Islam is not exactly dominant in Spain, yet al-Queda got them to flee Iraq. If we do what several Dopers have recommended over the years - cut and run from Iraq, abandon Israel - that makes violent Islamic extremism influential enough to ruin a lot of lives.
I probably don’t need to speak for Sam, who can express himself well enough, but what he said was:
Regards,
Shodan
What he said in post #75—which I already quoted in post #94—was:
Which is what I was responding to.
I don’t think so. The Iraq invasion was never supported by more than a small minority of the Spanish people, and it’s not clear that Spain would have stayed in the coalition even if 3/11 had never happened. The Madrid bombing didn’t substantially change the minds of Spanish voters about Iraq; it just made them even more disgusted with the Aznar government’s opportunistic toadying of the Bush Administration while not even being able to protect its own citizens.
True, but that doesn’t contradict what I said, which was that “violent Islamic extremism is not a serious competitor for the role of dominant social/political influence in most contemporary Western societies”. Even if Iraq were completely isolated and left to self-destruct in civil war, and even if Israel were completely deprived of foreign support and left to sink or swim entirely on its own among its hostile neighbor states and quasi-colonial dependents—neither of which I think would be a good thing, btw—violent Islamic extremism would still not be a serious competitor for the role of dominant social/political influence in most contemporary Western societies.
We have to take the dangers of violent Islamic extremism seriously, but it’s counterproductive to make them out to be orders of magnitude more threatening or far-reaching than they actually are.
And speaking of unhelpful exaggerations, I’ve got to correct this one:
Dude, your “900” figure has to be a typo. Western nations have not shared a culture based on democracy or freedom of speech or gender equality or individual rights for nine hundred years, or anything like it. Two or three hundred years, tops.
Yes, it’s important to save modern post-Enlightenment civilization from the threats posed by radical extremism, even if they aren’t seriously endangering its very existence. However, you don’t strengthen your case by claiming that modern civilization has deeper roots than it actually does. Many Christian societies within the past 900 years would have made most of today’s Islamic theocracies look humane and enlightened by comparison, so tone down the “West-against-the-rest” rhetoric to a more realistic level, 'kay?
He corrected it in the post I quoted. Feel free to respond to the earlier statement, since you have no chance to refute the corrected statement.
I assume you can prove that the bombings had no effect on the elections.
And what I said was that VIE doesn’t have to be the dominant social/political influence in order to ruin lives. That is, more or less, the fallacy of the excluded midlle. They just have to scare enough people into appeasement.
:shrugs:
Shodan’s rule of thumb - if they didn’t read it the first time, they won’t read it the second either.
Regards,
Shodan