[Bobboau]

And that's before we get to the point that Sandwich was talking about people who escaped the civil war in Syria! Is escaping Hicksville, Utah supposed to be more difficult to get out of?

They left Syria with their mother, father, sisters, brothers, imams, teachers. That was a force strong enough to pull them out of a war zone and when they start questioning the ideological underpinnings of that community, yes, that is harder to leave, because you are alone against everyone you have ever known and loved AND you fled a war zone together.

[NGTM-1R]

They left Syria with their mother, father, sisters, brothers, imams, teachers.

Facts not in evidence are being asserted, your Honor. Move to strike.

Once again, this entire line of argument that immigration somehow harms ISIS is utterly absurd.

This is a picture of an actual ISIS publication.

Their argument appears to be that we are discriminating against them as part of a grand anti-Muslim strategy. So you want to discriminate against them more, thereby validating their propaganda that the West is fundamentally inimical to Islam. When accused of systemic antipathy, respond with systemic antipathy.

This is dumb. There is no other way to put it, no polite, no comforting way to describe it. Your argument is that we should play into the hands of our enemies.

[Aesaar]

666maslo666's whole argument is predicated upon the notion that Islam causes terrorism, so adding more Muslims to your population means you'll be more at risk of terrorism.  It's utter nonsense.

[Bobboau]

not following that, wtf is "the greyzone"

so a few assertions I see
1) ISIS thinks that a clash of civilizations is afoot (NGTM-1R)
2) ISIS wants more Muslims in Europe (666maslo666)

1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive or contradictory. ISIS's ambitions are not limited to the region, they actually think they are going to take over the world and they can't do that without colonizing Europe, irrespective of the viability of such a proposal.

[666maslo666]

666maslo666's whole argument is predicated upon the notion that Islam causes terrorism, so adding more Muslims to your population means you'll be more at risk of terrorism.  It's utter nonsense.

If a group x has higher incidence of y than domestic population, then adding more of group x to your population means rate of y would increase compared to the alternative of not adding them. This is not nonsense, this is an undeniable mathematical fact. Analogy from chemistry -  adding a solution with concentration of 5% to a solution with concentration of 1% will cause the concentration in the latter solution to increase.

[Aesaar]

Perhaps you should ask yourself why terrorism is so prevalent in the Middle-East.

[666maslo666]

And as I said earlier, if strict immigration control is all it takes for muslims to get radicalized and the greyzone to go extinct, then there will never be any peace. We may as well embrace the ISIS notion of a big clash of civilizations because then it is unavoidable. You cannot appease people who radicalize at the drop of a hat. It is cowardly and will never work long term.

But I do not think strict immigration control is all it takes for muslims to get radicalized, I dont think European muslims are as unhinged yet. It can only help the situation.

[Bobboau]

Perhaps you should ask yourself why terrorism is so prevalent in the Middle-East.

you clearly have an answer to that question, and I somehow have a feeling capitalism, colonialism, or the military industrial complex is involved so rather than ask leading questions why not just tell what you believe.

[Goober5000]

What's the opinion around here about the Sharia law enclaves that Muslim European citizens have set up over the past 10 years or so?

I've never seen evidence they exist outside the ranting fever dreams of right-wing lunatics running for President.

Getting your news from Presidential campaign speeches isn't a very good way to stay informed about the world.  Try reading European news sources, or talking to people -- like Sandwich -- who are actually from Europe.

They exist in France, the UK, Germany, and other countries as well.

[Aesaar]

Fine.  People who have comfortable lives and future prospects don't usually go and blow themselves up.  Terrorism isn't caused by religion, it's caused by poverty and desperation.  ISIS didn't come about because 'lol Muslims', it came about because there's been a near nonstop war in the region since 2003 (and since 1979 in Afghanistan, and then the whole Israel thing).

I've said this in other threads before, but the whole ISIS things has a lot of parallels with the Russian Revolution.  ISIS and the Bolsheviks operate in very similar ways.  They show up, make an example of some scapegoats (usually representatives of the ineffective government), take over government services, run them relatively competently, and violently dispose of any dissenters.  Both used an ideology to gain traction with a thoroughly disenfranchised population with little hope for the future and blamed the problems on some Other.  The biggest differences are the ideologies used (for Russia, it was Communism, and for the ME, it's Islam), and the fact that Lenin was a lot more competent a general than al-Baghdadi is.

Now, here's the thing: if you can offer all the refugees fleeing the war the chance to make themselves safe and comfortable lives in the West, then you're not likely to see many of them turn to terrorism.  They'll have no cause to.  What do you think will happen if you make them turn around and go back to the war-torn ****hole they came from, where they have no future?  Why, they might become quite receptive to the notion that their problems are caused by the West.  Maybe they'll want to do something about it.

Why do you think countries like Saudia Arabia, Iran, the UAE, and Jordan don't have huge problems with domestic terrorism?  I mean, if Muslims are a security issue in Western countries even in their small numbers, shouldn't these countries, which are almost entirely Muslim, be crawling with terrorists?

Terrorism represents a failure of government, not religion.

Phantom_Hoover also made a similar case once or twice using The Troubles as an example.

Getting your news from Presidential campaign speeches isn't a very good way to stay informed about the world.  Try reading European news sources, or talking to people -- like Sandwich -- who are actually from Europe.

I thought Sandwich was from Israel?

[The E]

What's the opinion around here about the Sharia law enclaves that Muslim European citizens have set up over the past 10 years or so?

I've never seen evidence they exist outside the ranting fever dreams of right-wing lunatics running for President.

Getting your news from Presidential campaign speeches isn't a very good way to stay informed about the world.  Try reading European news sources, or talking to people -- like Sandwich -- who are actually from Europe.

They exist in France, the UK, Germany, and other countries as well.

Just gonna comment on the Germany example you linked there: All that interview states is that there are zones where the Police does not feel safe going alone. There's nothing there about Sharia zones. They do not exist, not in the sense Maslo was referring to them.

[666maslo666]

Why do you think countries like Saudia Arabia, Iran, the UAE, and Jordan don't have huge problems with domestic terrorism?  I mean, if Muslims are a security issue in Western countries even in their small numbers, shouldn't these countries, which are almost entirely Muslim, be crawling with terrorists?

Because they are homogenous muslim countries. That is one of the surest ways to ensure peace. It is hard to blame (or attack) non-muslims when there is no significant amount of non-muslims around. It takes two sides to have a war. Those countries are still crawling with muslim extremists, tough. Give them a suitable target, and they will wake up and strike.

[Hades]

Deporting immigrants should not drive a wedge between Muslim and Western world at all. It is a normal activity of every sovereign nation. If that alone is enough to drive a wedge between our worlds, then living in peace will be impossible.

Mass deportation based simply on their ethnicity or religion will not only drive a wedge so deep between Europe and said group that it'll do incredible damage, tarnishing the view of Europe in their eyes for likely decades, it's also an action that is inherently very, very fascist. It's nothing but persecution and the  sole benefit of possibly cutting down on terrorists in Europe cannot ever hope to outweigh the negatives.

[666maslo666]

Now, here's the thing: if you can offer all the refugees fleeing the war the chance to make themselves safe and comfortable lives in the West, then you're not likely to see many of them turn to terrorism.  They'll have no cause to. 

I do not believe giving them comfortable lives is enough, there is also an ideological cause for terrorism, one that no amount of material wealth is going to erase.

But either way, you will not be able to give all of them comfortable lives, not even in the West and certainly not in poorer European countries. Your solution is basically "lol, lets solve poverty and live all happily ever after". Good in theory, but not very practical.

What do you think will happen if you make them turn around and go back to the war-torn ****hole they came from, where they have no future?  Why, they might become quite receptive to the notion that their problems are caused by the West.  Maybe they'll want to do something about it.

But then it will not be our problem anymore. If they want to blow themselves up out of spite, they can do it, but in middle east, not in Europe.

[666maslo666]

What's the opinion around here about the Sharia law enclaves that Muslim European citizens have set up over the past 10 years or so?

I've never seen evidence they exist outside the ranting fever dreams of right-wing lunatics running for President.

Getting your news from Presidential campaign speeches isn't a very good way to stay informed about the world.  Try reading European news sources, or talking to people -- like Sandwich -- who are actually from Europe.

They exist in France, the UK, Germany, and other countries as well.

Just gonna comment on the Germany example you linked there: All that interview states is that there are zones where the Police does not feel safe going alone. There's nothing there about Sharia zones. They do not exist, not in the sense Maslo was referring to them.

I never talked about Sharia zones ITT. Didnt you mean Sandwich?

[Hades]

But then it will not be our problem anymore. If they want to blow themselves up out of spite, they can do it, but in middle east, not in Europe.

Yeah, suicide bombers have never used planes or anything to get to their target

[666maslo666]

Mass deportation based simply on their ethnicity or religion will not only drive a wedge so deep between Europe and said group that it'll do incredible damage, tarnishing the view of Europe in their eyes for likely decades, it's also an action that is inherently very, very fascist. It's nothing but persecution and the  sole benefit of possibly cutting down on terrorists in Europe cannot ever hope to outweigh the negatives.

We can have mass deportations based on citizenship status, criminal history, education and so on. It doesnt have to be based on ethnicity or religion to deport most of recent muslim arrivals into Europe. Western European immigration policies are so soft and unenforced that even a common sense tightening of the policy based on entirely legitimate attributes would allow us to deport millions. This would not drive any wedges anywhere.

[z64555]

nuh uh. no baiting please.

Mass deportation may sound like a good thing to you when your family isn't one of them that just barely made the criteria.

[666maslo666]

But then it will not be our problem anymore. If they want to blow themselves up out of spite, they can do it, but in middle east, not in Europe.

Yeah, suicide bombers have never used planes or anything to get to their target

Random freak attacks can always happen as long as extremist islam exists. But, what we need to achieve is to eliminate the regularity with which they are occurring (like they do in France), and also eliminate low level ethnic violence connected with islam in Europe, which is less deadly, but much more widespread. This is the real threat, and one which can be solved if the amount of muslims in Europe is decreased.

Look at eastern Europe, there are no islamist attacks there, despite us being deeply involved in middle east. That is because there is almost no muslim minority, and so islamism cannot take root in society. You cannot have persistent islamist attacks without muslims, lol.

[666maslo666]

nuh uh. no baiting please.

Mass deportation may sound like a good thing to you when your family isn't one of them that just barely made the criteria.

You have a point, as I said earlier I am not very comfortable with mass deportations (and especially not of those already granted legal citizenship status, thats not an option). It is a pretty radical solution and problem is not so bad (yet?). But restricting further immigration is necessary, stopping the problem from getting worse is the first priority. And if such a simple and logical step as immigration restriction causes too much muslim radicalization, then it actually proves the point and need.