[Aesaar]

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.

You realize ISIS is operating in an area which is almost entirely Muslim, yes?

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.

The entire reason radical Islam gets traction is because of poverty and desperation.  Sure, if you didn't have that, you'd still have people calling for jihad, but they'd get far, far fewer supporters.  This is why the Middle-Eastern countries I named don't have significant problems with terrorism.  It's the entire reason.  And if you think poverty in Western countries is comparable to living in a warzone, you really need to get some perspective.

And it's profoundly stupid to believe that this **** will stay in the Middle-East.  9/11 happened because people believed that.  It could absolutely happen again.

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.

Not nowadays, but 100-150 years ago Eastern Europe had plenty of terrorist attacks motivated by Communism (among a lot of other ideologies).  ****, Alexander II was killed by one.  The reason for that is the Russian Empire's inability to fulfill the duties a contemporary government should have been able to fulfill.  Thirty years ago the UK had a terrorism problem in Ireland, because of disenfranchised people who got desperate enough that violence became an attractive way to force change (and it worked).

Again, terrorism represents a failure in government.  Blaming Islam for terrorism is short-sighted and shows a lot of ignorance about both history and the nature of terrorism.

[666maslo666]

You realize ISIS is operating in an area which is almost entirely Muslim, yes?

But there are shias, christians, kurds and moderate muslims around the area. If there werent, there would be peace under ISIS over there. Local ethnic diversity is one of the main reasons behind the ISIS war. Especially sunni-shia conflict. If all of these ethnicities lived in their own little homogenous areas with good borders between them, there would be peace.

The entire reason radical Islam gets traction is because of poverty and desperation.  Sure, if you didn't have that, you'd still have people calling for jihad, but they'd get far, far fewer supporters.  This is why the Middle-Eastern countries I named don't have significant problems with terrorism.  It's the entire reason.  And if you think poverty in Western countries is comparable to living in a warzone, you really need to get some perspective.

And it's profoundly stupid to believe that this **** will stay in the Middle-East.  9/11 happened because people believed that.  It could absolutely happen again.

Terrorism already gets traction in the West, so your reasoning is obviously false. Western Europe experiences regular attacks and persistent ethnic violence commited by muslims. Despite being probably the wealthiest region in the world. Obviously, it takes more to ensure peace than material wealth. Fighting poverty is important but it will not be enough to secularize muslims. Because there is also an ideological war behind this violence, one that goes beyond simple materialism.

Not nowadays, but 100-150 years ago you had plenty of terrorist attacks motivated by Communism (among a lot of other ideologies) in Eastern Europe.  The reason for that is the Russian Empire's inability to fulfill the duties a contemporary government should have been able to fulfill.  Thirty years ago the UK had a terrorism problem in Ireland, because of disenfranchised people who got desperate enough that violence became an attractive way to force change (and it worked).

Again, terrorism represents a failure in government.  Blaming Islam for terrorism is short-sighted and shows a lot of ignorance about both history and the nature of terrorism.

You are looking for a simple explanation behind what is a complex issue. But there is no one cause of terrorism. Poverty is a factor, but so is Islam and how people interpret it. Many muslims see the decadent west as the enemy and will not integrate even if you shower them with (undeserved) wealth, IMHO.

[NGTM-1R]

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

I don't get my news from that source. It is, however, the only source I've ever seen make the comment seriously.

I know the Daily Mail story you're linking has been repeatedly debunked and denied, as it was the source for the aforementioned fever dream ranting. (And the current PM demanded and got an apology for the story being repeated in the 2012 elections, which says all that need be said about its validity. "Never apologize unless you have to" is a credo of running for office. ) The E has contradicted another.

The one about France isn't even from a French source, and admits it's saying something the French government both national and local will deny. That's...not too believable, to put it mildly.

not following that, wtf is "the greyzone"

Their method of refering to people not on any side. The whole argument you're not following is "get off the fence, the west wants to destroy you for being Muslim".

The fact people are on the fence in the first place is because they don't believe that.

Putting more restrictions on them because of their religion makes that belief harder to sustain.

This is simple stuff.

[666maslo666]

Someone who radicalizes because of lets say, strict immigration restrictions, is not a greyzone or a fence sitter. He is already an extremist and a ticking time bomb.

Some of you are acting as if the only options is either to shower the muslims with love or to gas them in concentration camps. But thats not true at all. Europe should severely tighten immigration rules and increase deportations of those who dont belong here, and at the same time Europe should treat muslims who are legitimately legally here in a respectful manner, just like other peaceful citizens. This common sense approach is severely lacking if we are just going to bicker about who loves or hates them muslims more.

[Aesaar]

But there are shias, christians, kurds and moderate muslims around the area. If there werent, there would be peace under ISIS over there. Local ethnic diversity is one of the main reasons behind the ISIS war. Especially sunni-shia conflict. If all of these ethnicities lived in their own little homogenous areas with good borders between them, there would be peace.

Right, because inter-state wars never happen, no sir.

There was (relative) peace over there 15 years ago.  There was peace because there were strong governments.  Oppressive?  Certainly.  Effective?  Definitely.  That's what kept radical Islam down.  Not putting everyone in their own little nation-state.  Governments capable of keeping order and actually providing their citizens with a modicum of security.  Near-constant chaos is what allowed radical Islam to take root, not some cultural predisposition to blowing themselves up.

Terrorism already gets traction in the West, so your reasoning is obviously false. Western Europe experiences regular attacks and persistent ethnic violence commited by muslims. Despite being probably the wealthiest region in the world. Obviously, it takes more to ensure peace than material wealth. Fighting poverty is important but it will not be enough to secularize muslims. Because there is also an ideological war behind this violence, one that goes beyond simple materialism.

  Where do you think those radical Muslims are coming from?  The leaders of terrorist organizations may be wealthy and well-educated (bin Laden certainly was), but they're not the ones who go shoot up a club or blow themselves up.  The people actually carrying out these acts are the ones who got into that because they had no other prospects.  They're the people to whom radical Islam appeals.  Yeah, you'll get a few of those in Western countries too, but an army like IS?  Not a ****ing chance.

You are looking for a simple explanation behind what is a complex issue. But there is no one cause of terrorism. Poverty is a factor, but so is Islam and how people interpret it. Many muslims see the decadent west as the enemy and will not integrate even if you shower them with (undeserved) wealth, IMHO.

It's not about Islam at all.  Radical Islam is a means by which charismatic people amass more power.  It's used here because it's what'll best appeal to Arab Muslims.  If this was happening somewhere else, say, Russia in the late 1910s, another ideology would be used to inspire desperate people to take up arms.  Like, say, Communism.

You're focusing on radical Islam as though it's the cause of all this.  It is not.  If everyone in the Middle-East became an atheist tomorrow, the peace would last just long enough for someone else to find another ideology that'll appeal to all these desperate people with nothing to lose.  I know this because it happened to nearly every single failed state in history, Muslim or not.  In Russia, in East Asia, in Africa, in South America.  Are you going to start telling me the Russian Civil War and the Troubles were caused by radical Islam?

Your entire argument is disproven by history.

[666maslo666]

Russian civil war was caused by Communist ideals, the situation would be very different if it wasnt for Communist ideology. The Troubles were also exacerbated by religious differences, they would never have grown to such a large degree if it wasnt two different religious groups at play.

Strong ideological differences are the cause of most modern conflicts. Not poverty or desperation. Wars of conquest and pillaging are mostly a thing of the past. Wars of ideas are the future. And you will not win these wars if you ignore the main motivation of your enemy. That is, their religion.

The people actually carrying out these acts are the ones who got into that because they had no other prospects.  They're the people to whom radical Islam appeals.  Yeah, you'll get a few of those in Western countries too, but an army like IS?  Not a ****ing chance.

While poorer people are often more likely to take up arms, when it comes religious extremism itself, it can easily appear in any social class. And wealth will not solve it. Saudi Arabia is very wealthy and yet it is still a theocracy full of extremists. If you expect that muslims will integrate well as long as they are not poor, you will be disappointed, IMHO.

If everyone in the Middle-East became an atheist tomorrow, the peace would last just long enough for someone else to find another ideology that'll appeal to all these desperate people with nothing to lose.

I dont agree, if everyone in middle east became an atheist, conflicts would not disappear completely but they would decrease by 90%. Because almost all the conflicts in the region are ultimately due to religious differences. Erase those differences, and you will be left with no enemy to fight.

[Aesaar]

Russian civil war was caused by Communist ideals, the situation would be very different if it wasnt for Communist ideology.

Evidently not, because the IS situation is incredibly similar when you don't let yourself get carried away by 'lol muslims'.  I've been over this.

The Troubles were also exacerbated by religious differences, they would never have grown to such a large degree if it wasnt two different religious groups at play.

Those religious differences still exist.  And yet the Troubles are over and done with.  Wow, it's almost as though people can coexist despite religious differences if neither of them is oppressing the other!

Nah, that can't be it.  Clearly what the UK should have done is deport all the North Irish Catholics to the Republic of Ireland.  That would definitely have led to a better, more permanent peace.

Strong ideological differences are the cause of most modern conflicts. Not poverty or desperation. Wars of conquest and pillaging are mostly a thing of the past. Wars of ideas are the future. And you will not win these wars if you ignore the main motivation of your enemy. That is, their religion.

You're really not hearing me.  People won't fight in the name of poverty and desperation, but that's what will make people receptive to the idea that the West or the bourgeoisie or whatever is the cause of all their problems and inspire them to fight it.  There's a reason IS popped up in Iraq and Syria now and not in 2002.  In 2002, Iraq and Syria were stable countries with effective governments.  Now they aren't.  The demographics have not changed.

While poorer people are often more likely to take up arms, when it comes religious extremism itself, it can easily appear in any social class. And wealth will not solve it. Saudi Arabia is very wealthy and yet it is still a theocracy full of extremists. If you expect that muslims will integrate well as long as they are not poor, you will be disappointed, IMHO.

Saudi Arabia isn't a theocracy full of extremists.  It's not even a theocracy.  It's an absolute monarchy.  What the hell are you on about?

It's also really not full of extremists.  It's got no significant issues with domestic terrorism, isn't a known sponsor of terrorism, and is one of the USA's main allies in the Middle-East.

[karajorma]

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

Oh for ****'s sake! You're quoting The Daily Mail AGAIN?! And then you're following it up with the 750 no-go zones nonsense even though a quick look on Snopes would have shown what bollocks it is? Even Fox News apologised for that bull****.

[666maslo666]

Those religious differences still exist.  And yet the Troubles are over and done with.  Wow, it's almost as though people can coexist despite religious differences if neither of them is oppressing the other!

Nah, that can't be it.  Clearly what the UK should have done is deport all the North Irish Catholics to the Republic of Ireland.  That would definitely have led to a better, more permanent peace.

Maybe it would. But in the end, you cannot compare different situations in history as if they are the same thing, it is not that simple. ISIS is a lot more extreme in their religious interpretations than people during the troubles were, and muslims are a lot more hardcore believers than christians are, not being through any reformations. Therefore religious ideas play much larger role in this conflict. It is why muslim attacks spill all over the globe, instead of being contained in a little local area.

You're really not hearing me.  People won't fight in the name of poverty and desperation, but that's what will make people receptive to the idea that the West or the bourgeoisie or whatever are the cause of all their problems and inspire them to fight it.  There's a reason IS popped up in Iraq and Syria now and not in 2002.

What was sooner, the chicken or the egg? I acknowledged that poverty is a factor, but I will not go as far as to say it is the only one. That is simplistic thinking.

Saudi Arabia isn't a theocracy full of extremists.  It's not even a theocracy.  It's an absolute monarchy.  What the hell are you on about?

It's also really not full of extremists.  It's got no significant issues with domestic terrorism, isn't a known sponsor of terrorism, and is one of the USA's main allies in the Middle-East.

Saudi Arabia indeed is a theocracy full of extremists. Their laws are to a large part based on extremist islam, so they are theocracy, no matter that they also have a king. It has no issues with domestic terrorism only because it is so culturally homogenous, but it is still full of religious extremists, especially the average population is very conservative, almost like ISIS members. Estremist is not the same as terrorist. It doesnt matter that it is USA ally, USA would ally with the devil if it was strategically advantageous.

[NGTM-1R]

Someone who radicalizes because of lets say, strict immigration restrictions, is not a greyzone or a fence sitter. He is already an extremist and a ticking time bomb.

These sentences do not follow from each other. One admits something the other denies.

You're arguing two contradictory ideas; that this person is, and is not, already a radical.

ISIS/ISIL/Daesh are the people the Syrian refugees are fleeing for the most part. That goats exist among the sheep is probably inevitable; that they might get through is the price we pay for showing that we're better people than the ones they were running away from. (Indeed, this entire attack could be a direct response to the awful optics from the ISIS point of view of both losing ground in Iraq and Syria, and the fact that Europe is taking in the refugees, thus undermining the anti-Muslim narrative.)

You're trying to apply a solution that decreases the effective use of soft power to solve the underlying problems of the Middle East, and offering no alternative besides "grin and bear it, this won't prolong our danger at all".

(Also Jesus Christ you know nothing about internal tensions in Saudi Arabia at all. There is, for starters, a huge underclass of non-Saudis, mostly of Pakistani origin, brought in to be laborers.)

[666maslo666]

Someone who radicalizes because of lets say, strict immigration restrictions, is not a greyzone or a fence sitter. He is already an extremist and a ticking time bomb.

These sentences do not follow from each other. One admits something the other denies.

You're arguing two contradictory ideas; that this person is, and is not, already a radical.

ISIS/ISIL/Daesh are the people the Syrian refugees are fleeing for the most part. That goats exist among the sheep is probably inevitable; that they might get through is the price we pay for showing that we're better people than the ones they were running away from. (Indeed, this entire attack could be a direct response to the awful optics from the ISIS point of view of both losing ground in Iraq and Syria, and the fact that Europe is taking in the refugees, thus undermining the anti-Muslim narrative.)

Muslims do not really care about the fact that we are letting in migrants. No European muslim is going to think "omg, Europe increased their border controls and does not let migrants inside anymore, I better become an extremist". That is not how human mind works at all. Either they were going to become an extremist, or they were not. Migration policy has nothing to do with it.

So your unconditional acceptable of every muslim who happens to wander into Europe is doing absolutely nothing to appease muslims. But it is creating big muslim populations inside Europe from which the radicals will recruit members later. You may as well get used to several terrorist attacks every year, because thats what this policy of open borders leads to. Exporting religious extremism from middle east into Europe.

[Aesaar]

muslims are a lot more hardcore believers than christians are

citation ****ing needed.

'Muslim attacks' are all over the globe because muslims aren't a homogeneous group and different groups have different enemies.  Chechen rebels are not Taliban are not IS are not Hamas are not Hezbollah.  And also because Christians aren't oppressed and therefore have no reason to turn to terrorism in large numbers.  They just get to wage war lawfully instead.

You're making it increasingly obvious that you don't actually know anything about either muslims or terrorists except that they say 'allahu akbar'.

Saudi Arabia indeed is a theocracy full of extremists. Their laws are to a large part based on extremist islam, so they are theocracy, no matter that they also have a king. It has no issues with domestic terrorism only because it is so culturally homogenous, but it is still full of religious extremists, especially the average population is very conservative, almost like ISIS members. Estremist is not the same as terrorist. It doesnt matter that it is USA ally, USA would ally with the devil if it was strategically advantageous.

Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy.  This isn't opinion, it's objective fact.  Arguing against this is arguing against reality.

Seriously, are you trying to demonstrate how long a person can argue about **** he obviously knows nothing about?

Muslims do not really care about the fact that we are letting in migrants. No European muslim is going to think "omg, Europe increased their border controls and does not let migrants inside anymore, I better become an extremist".

Maybe not if he's already in (though some would), but a refugee forced to return to his war-torn homeland could definitely do this.  And I'm pretty confident in saying this'll result in more extremists than would have entered had you just let people in.

[headdie]

Saudi Arabia indeed is a theocracy full of extremists. Their laws are to a large part based on extremist islam, so they are theocracy, no matter that they also have a king. It has no issues with domestic terrorism only because it is so culturally homogenous, but it is still full of religious extremists, especially the average population is very conservative, almost like ISIS members. Estremist is not the same as terrorist. It doesnt matter that it is USA ally, USA would ally with the devil if it was strategically advantageous.

Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy.  This isn't opinion, it's objective fact.  Arguing against this is arguing against reality.

Seriously, are you trying to demonstrate how long a person can argue about **** he obviously knows nothing about?

maslo, Saudi Arabia is as much a Theocracy as the european monarchies were in the middle ages and renaissance periods, that is to say the leaders live by religious standards and that viewpoint informs them of how law should be worded and the standards that law should adhere to but the act of government is is conducted independently of direct control of national religious leaders

[666maslo666]

Of course muslims are much more religious than christians. They did not go through hundreds of years of secularization and reformation. You are telling me that I dont know anything about muslims yet you think they are just christians with turbans. Oh, the irony!

And as I said, muslims who are kicked out of Europe are not our problem anymore. It could only affect middle east and north africa, not Europe. So if some muslim gets mad that he wasnt allowed to settle in Europe and then blows himself up somewhere in Iraq or Syria, good riddance I say. With such mentality, he would sooner or later cause conflicts in Europe anyway.

There is just no possible reason strict immigration policy could ever help ISIS. It is a truly absurd line of reasoning, the opposite of what common sense says. Obviously ISIS wants muslim population in Europe to grow. Or they will never be able to extend their caliphate to European soil.

[Aesaar]

If Saudi Arabia is a theocracy because Islam is the state religion, that means the UK is a theocracy because guess what.

Of course muslims are much more religious than christians. They did not go through hundreds of years of secularization and reformation. You are telling me that I dont know anything about muslims yet you think they are just christians with turbans. Oh, the irony!

Again, citation ****ing needed.  Despite what you may believe, this is not self evident for anyone who's actually met a muslim before (which I'm very, very sure you have not).

Also it's very funny that you think the reformation has anything to do with making Christians less extreme.  You know all those ll those Christian fundamentalists in the US?  Yeah, most of them are Protestant.  You know, the denomination that originated with the Reformation?  I guess we can add 'Christianity' to the list of things you obviously know very little about.

And as I said, muslims who are kicked out of Europe are not our problem anymore. It could only affect middle east and north africa, not Europe. So if some muslim gets mad that he wasnt allowed to settle in Europe and then blows himself up somewhere in Iraq or Syria, good riddance I say. With such mentality, he would sooner or later cause conflicts in Europe anyway.

Unless your plan is to put every passport from a Middle-Eastern country on a no-fly list (impossible), I guarantee terrorism in the Middle-East could become the West's problem extremely quickly.  Or do you not remember 9/11?

[666maslo666]

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy.[81] However, according to the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia adopted by royal decree in 1992, the king must comply with Sharia (Islamic law) and the Quran, while the Quran and the Sunnah (the traditions of Muhammad) are declared to be the country's constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Politics

If this is not a theocracy, then I dont know what is, lol

[Grizzly]

And as I said, muslims who are kicked out of Europe are not our problem anymore.

New York called, they are wondering where their landmarks have gone.

[Grizzly]

If this is not a theocracy, then I dont know what is, lol

Holy **** dude, you quote an article claiming that Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy to state that Saudi Arabia is a theocracy?

What the actual **** is wrong with you?

[666maslo666]

And as I said, muslims who are kicked out of Europe are not our problem anymore.

New York called, they are wondering where their landmarks have gone.

I dont give a damn about one-in-a-decade freak attacks. I do give a damn about attacks occurring every year, and also increase in ethnic violence. And that would not be happening in Europe if not for western European open borders policies over last 2 decades..

[666maslo666]

If this is not a theocracy, then I dont know what is, lol

Holy **** dude, you quote an article claiming that Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy to state that Saudi Arabia is a theocracy?

What the actual **** is wrong with you?

It is almost as if it can be both things at once! A truly radical concept, I know! Imagine that.. World is not black and white! It doesnt fit neatly into your little neat categories. LOL