[666maslo666]

This is not remotely a 'mathematical fact', much like your misread polls from a few months ago. Did you mean that the average will increase in the combined population?

What misread polls?

And yes, I mean in the combined population (after immigration).

The last twenty years have made it very clear that first-order responses don't prevent violence, whether that violence is religious, political, or even civil (like school shootings). Structural changes do. No amount of deportation, targeted killing, and military action will solve Daesh in the long run. What will stop Daesh is the collapse of support for their movement caused by their own brutality towards Muslims, their genocidal and apocalyptic philosophy, their wingnut theology, and the West's more enticing economic and ideological options.

Exclusionary acts built Daesh: they came out of the Iraqi civil war, which came out of the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi army. In each case the correct solution would've been to bring them closer and give them a stake in civil process. This isn't easy, and it's not going to stop every attack or get them to set down arms. But it will destroy the power base which they depend on.

I dont aim to "solve Daesh" by restricting immigration, just keeping my country safe (from islamic extremism in general, not just Daesh - they are just a latest incarnation of the threat, and probably not the last).

Solving Daesh would most likely be accomplished by Russia bombing them into oblivion and reinstating Assad, who will keep islamists at bay through his brutal rule - not the best solution, but the only one feasible now (there is no saint in that whole area, just bad vs. worse). I dont think Daesh has a lot of time left.

Sending people away spatially will not stop them from launching terrorist attacks on your homeland.

Funny how exactly that has worked for us very well so far. Multiple islamist attacks in western Europe with significant muslim minority, not a single one in central/eastern Europe. Perhaps you are right and our time will come, but I bet the frequency will be many many times lower than it already is in western Europe. Spatial separation is actually a very effective defense.

[The E]

You know Germany is in central Europe too, has taken in a significant number of refugees, has a significant muslim minority, and has had no major terrorist actions by muslims in the past decade?

[Col.Hornet]

Where most of German Muslim minority have Turkish origins from what I know. And I've never heard about Turks planting bombs. Each one I've met and talked to are decent hard-working people.

[karajorma]

Funny how exactly that has worked for us very well so far. Multiple islamist attacks in western Europe with significant muslim minority, not a single one in central/eastern Europe. Perhaps you are right and our time will come, but I bet the frequency will be many many times lower than it already is in western Europe. Spatial separation is actually a very effective defense.

And we're right back to my point about injustice which you completely ignored before. Exactly what has Eastern Europe been doing that would make them a bigger target than Western Europe or America?

[666maslo666]

Yeah, Germany has mostly Turks, and Turks are the most secular and westernized muslim nation in the world, so they are less problematic. That is until this year, when Germany foolishly admitted million random non-Turk muslims and counting. I sadly dont expect peace in Germany to last long after this mistake..

[666maslo666]

Funny how exactly that has worked for us very well so far. Multiple islamist attacks in western Europe with significant muslim minority, not a single one in central/eastern Europe. Perhaps you are right and our time will come, but I bet the frequency will be many many times lower than it already is in western Europe. Spatial separation is actually a very effective defense.

And we're right back to my point about injustice which you completely ignored before. Exactly what has Eastern Europe been doing that would make them a bigger target than Western Europe or America?

We have been active in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of NATO. We are certainly a target. But because we have no muslims, it is much harder for islamism to take root in our nations. Spatial separation defense is the best defense. So there will be no attacks in eastern Europe, or only very little, no matter how hard we bomb them muslims..

[Col.Hornet]

How so? How do we harm them? Are we dropping bombs on their heads right now? Do we want to destroy their culture? The only reason they would want to attack us would be our involvement in invasion of Iraq in 2003. But for example involvement of Polish troops was marginal compared to destruction caused by the US, UK and other West Europe's military. We did not enough harm to make us a primary target. The threat of course exists. It always does. but IT IS significantly lower. As well, we don't have large Muslim minorities "to be oppressed" so their argument about corrupting the Muslims and destroying their faith does not exist in my country.

The only terrorist threat that was contained in Poland was a secret held by the authorities for years. A couple months ago our intelligence reviled that terrorists were planning the attack in 2003 or 2004 (can't remember which year exactly). They planned to attack 3 big churches in different cities during the Christmas Eve masses. Since then no threat has been diagnosed.

[The E]

Where most of German Muslim minority have Turkish origins from what I know. And I've never heard about Turks planting bombs. Each one I've met and talked to are decent hard-working people.

That was not a factor maslo mentioned in his theories. According to his statements, Germany should see more religiously motivated violence from the muslim community than most other EU countries, and yet all we've had over the past decade were 2 incidents with 5 total wounded or dead (including the perpetrators).

Yeah, Germany has mostly Turks, and Turks are the most secular and westernized muslim nation in the world, so they are less problematic. That is until this year, when Germany foolishly admitted million random non-Turk muslims and counting. I sadly dont expect peace in Germany to last long after this mistake..

Yeah, but the violence will likely NOT come from the muslims. It'll be right-wing idiots scared of immigrants that'll make problems.

[Col.Hornet]

Where most of German Muslim minority have Turkish origins from what I know. And I've never heard about Turks planting bombs. Each one I've met and talked to are decent hard-working people.

That was not a factor maslo mentioned in his theories. According to his statements, Germany should see more religiously motivated violence from the muslim community than most other EU countries, and yet all we've had over the past decade were 2 incidents with 5 total wounded or dead (including the perpetrators).

Yeah, Germany has mostly Turks, and Turks are the most secular and westernized muslim nation in the world, so they are less problematic. That is until this year, when Germany foolishly admitted million random non-Turk muslims and counting. I sadly dont expect peace in Germany to last long after this mistake..

Yeah, but the violence will likely NOT come from the muslims. It'll be right-wing idiots scared of immigrants that'll make problems.

Time will tell. So far yes, violent acts were coming mostly from arsonists who were attacking camps where refugees/immigrants are living. But right now you can't be sure that there are no moles among newly arrived people. And if the attack too place in France, same thing can happen in Germany. Because the whole process of immigration is chaotic.

BTW. look how easy it is to get a fake Syrian passport which will allow you to travel easily.

https://www.facebook.com/syrianmilitary/photos/a.349106328504089.83004.349059891842066/918490288232354/?type=3&theater

[General Battuta]

This is not remotely a 'mathematical fact', much like your misread polls from a few months ago. Did you mean that the average will increase in the combined population?

What misread polls?

And yes, I mean in the combined population (after immigration).

The last twenty years have made it very clear that first-order responses don't prevent violence, whether that violence is religious, political, or even civil (like school shootings). Structural changes do. No amount of deportation, targeted killing, and military action will solve Daesh in the long run. What will stop Daesh is the collapse of support for their movement caused by their own brutality towards Muslims, their genocidal and apocalyptic philosophy, their wingnut theology, and the West's more enticing economic and ideological options.

Exclusionary acts built Daesh: they came out of the Iraqi civil war, which came out of the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi army. In each case the correct solution would've been to bring them closer and give them a stake in civil process. This isn't easy, and it's not going to stop every attack or get them to set down arms. But it will destroy the power base which they depend on.

I dont aim to "solve Daesh" by restricting immigration, just keeping my country safe (from islamic extremism in general, not just Daesh - they are just a latest incarnation of the threat, and probably not the last).

Solving Daesh would most likely be accomplished by Russia bombing them into oblivion and reinstating Assad, who will keep islamists at bay through his brutal rule - not the best solution, but the only one feasible now (there is no saint in that whole area, just bad vs. worse). I dont think Daesh has a lot of time left.

Sending people away spatially will not stop them from launching terrorist attacks on your homeland.

Funny how exactly that has worked for us very well so far. Multiple islamist attacks in western Europe with significant muslim minority, not a single one in central/eastern Europe. Perhaps you are right and our time will come, but I bet the frequency will be many many times lower than it already is in western Europe. Spatial separation is actually a very effective defense.

Your tactics here are a beautiful recipe for the creation of Daesh - a gorgeous recapitulation of every twentieth century misstep.

[Col.Hornet]

This is not remotely a 'mathematical fact', much like your misread polls from a few months ago. Did you mean that the average will increase in the combined population?

What misread polls?

And yes, I mean in the combined population (after immigration).

The last twenty years have made it very clear that first-order responses don't prevent violence, whether that violence is religious, political, or even civil (like school shootings). Structural changes do. No amount of deportation, targeted killing, and military action will solve Daesh in the long run. What will stop Daesh is the collapse of support for their movement caused by their own brutality towards Muslims, their genocidal and apocalyptic philosophy, their wingnut theology, and the West's more enticing economic and ideological options.

Exclusionary acts built Daesh: they came out of the Iraqi civil war, which came out of the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi army. In each case the correct solution would've been to bring them closer and give them a stake in civil process. This isn't easy, and it's not going to stop every attack or get them to set down arms. But it will destroy the power base which they depend on.

I dont aim to "solve Daesh" by restricting immigration, just keeping my country safe (from islamic extremism in general, not just Daesh - they are just a latest incarnation of the threat, and probably not the last).

Solving Daesh would most likely be accomplished by Russia bombing them into oblivion and reinstating Assad, who will keep islamists at bay through his brutal rule - not the best solution, but the only one feasible now (there is no saint in that whole area, just bad vs. worse). I dont think Daesh has a lot of time left.

Sending people away spatially will not stop them from launching terrorist attacks on your homeland.

Funny how exactly that has worked for us very well so far. Multiple islamist attacks in western Europe with significant muslim minority, not a single one in central/eastern Europe. Perhaps you are right and our time will come, but I bet the frequency will be many many times lower than it already is in western Europe. Spatial separation is actually a very effective defense.

Your tactics here are a beautiful recipe for the creation of Daesh - a gorgeous recapitulation of every twentieth century misstep.

Simple question. Did the Eastern Europe countries have colonies in Africa/middle East? Did we exploit their people and resources for our own gain? Are we responsible for that mess? NO. What reasons they can have to hate us for? To turn against us? And finally. Even if we take these people. How can we guarantee them a decent conditions of living while we have tones of our internal problems? When a lot of young people can't find a job? Who will pay for these people when we can't afford a proper conditions of living for our own people? If they come here and see that we don't give them wealth and benefits or it will be much lower then in Western EU they will either leave or if they can't they will be frustrated. As many of you pointed before, frustration and poverty will lead to aggression. it is not that we don't want to help. We can not afford that help on terms that the Western countries can.

[Aesaar]

According to Incrastic doctrines, people from the Middle-East are naturally more prone to extremism.  It's the result of unhygienic cultural practices and breeding.

[Dragon]

Your tactics here are a beautiful recipe for the creation of Daesh - a gorgeous recapitulation of every twentieth century misstep.

Note, he did not say that Russians bombing ISIS into oblivion and reinstating Assad is the best solution. He said that it's how it'll be done and he is right, because Putin wants "his" dictator out there and doesn't care much for France being bombed. Assad would likely put an end to Daesh, this is not a solution to the underlying problem, but nobody cares. Putin doesn't have any interest in taking terrorist pressure off Europe, Assad just wants power (like dictators usually do) and there is nobody else who has a perspective to improve things. They'll sweep the problem under the rug, like you predict, which will be an improvement from what is going on right now, but there will be resurgence after some time unless more permanent solution is effected.

I'd start by establishing a government in Syria that actually cares about Syrians. A secular regime that would respond strongly and decisively to extremism, but keep the population genuinely happy (as much as it's possible in the current situation). But that's a pipe dream, good look getting someone smart enough to clean this mess up to actually do it (and then those people to accept their new ruler, especially a secular one).

According to Incrastic doctrines, people from the Middle-East are naturally more prone to extremism.  It's the result of unhygienic cultural practices and breeding.

Your point? Neither actual racism nor accusations of racism are needed here. Other people have pointed out why extremism is prevalent (it's a common reaction to things going very bad), why those particular Muslim groups are prone to it (they're very religious, it's been even pointed out other very religious groups can be just as extremist if pressed) and why we don't want them in Europe. It's easy to slip into bigotry when there are genuine reasons not to like a large group of particular ethnic/religious group, but let's not do that.

[666maslo666]

Your tactics here are a beautiful recipe for the creation of Daesh - a gorgeous recapitulation of every twentieth century misstep.

Ultimately, Daesh was created because of naive multiculturalism - this toxic idea that you can cram several different ethnicities into this artificial entity called "Iraq" and they will magically live together in peace (even without a strong dictator enforcing order by the necessary means). What a mess we got instead. This same scenario repeated itself countless times in history and will probably again repeat in the future in some other unfortunate place..

[Bobboau]

You know Germany is in central Europe too, has taken in a significant number of refugees, has a significant muslim minority, and has had no major terrorist actions by muslims in the past decade?

yeah, they just like using it as a place to organize attacks on other places, and I see what you did there with your timeframe.

[General Battuta]

Your tactics here are a beautiful recipe for the creation of Daesh - a gorgeous recapitulation of every twentieth century misstep.

Ultimately, Daesh was created because of naive multiculturalism - this toxic idea that you can cram several different ethnicities into this artificial entity called "Iraq" and they will magically live together in peace (even without a strong dictator enforcing order by the necessary means). What a mess we got instead. This same scenario repeated itself countless times in history and will probably again repeat in the future in some other unfortunate place..

Hahaha, this is pure fantasy. Daesh was created by a collision of economic, theological, and security factors. To call Iraq a product of 'naive multiculturalism' is the real naivete — postcolonial Iraq was an instrument of realpolitik, built on and sustained by the security needs of larger actors.

It was the product of exactly the strategy you espouse: put security now over long-term solutions.

You need to bone up on your history if you're going to engage in this subject. Ditch 'ethnicities' and learn about the actual factions within Iraq, which are a complicated mix of theological and ethnic divides — the Sunni and Shia both being Arab. Read up on the founding of Daesh in American detention camps, the split from al-Qaeda, and their genocidal agenda against members of their own Arab majority.

You want to flinch. To justify that flinch, you want everything to be explained by your fears: immigrants and multiculturalism. But the world doesn't care. It won't obey your story.

[666maslo666]

In fact, Iraq is not an exception at all, plenty of destructive civil wars in post-colonial countries were caused by drawing lines on a map while ignoring real lines on the ground. It is a common theme. Inevitably, some group will hold more power than in should in the newly created artificial entity, some groups will percieve this as being oppressed (and often rightly so), and the whole thing deteriorated from there in a cycle of violence. With Daesh merely being the "freedom fighters" of a particularly violent faction.

History may not exactly repeat itself, but it rhymes indeed..

[Aesaar]

I really don't understand why 666maslo666 insists on talking about history when he's made it abundantly clear that he has little to no education on the subject.

Your point? Neither actual racism nor accusations of racism are needed here. Other people have pointed out why extremism is prevalent (it's a common reaction to things going very bad), why those particular Muslim groups are prone to it (they're very religious, it's been even pointed out other very religious groups can be just as extremist if pressed) and why we don't want them in Europe. It's easy to slip into bigotry when there are genuine reasons not to like a large group of particular ethnic/religious group, but let's not do that.

One would think my previous posts in this thread and use of terminology from a fantasy novel would clue you in to the fact that my post was a joke.

[The E]

You know Germany is in central Europe too, has taken in a significant number of refugees, has a significant muslim minority, and has had no major terrorist actions by muslims in the past decade?

yeah, they just like using it as a place to organize attacks on other places, and I see what you did there with your timeframe.

Expand the timeframe then. 20 years. 30 years. 50 years. It doesn't matter. Germany has never had muslim terrorism above the "petty nuisance" level, all the really dangerous terrorists we had were entirely homegrown.

[Goober5000]

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.

Read between the lines.  They are communities with a majority migrant population.  Women are not taken seriously.  Criminal justice is handled within the enclave without involving the police.

This is not full-blown explicit Sharia, but it certainly has all the marks of Sharia "in the closet".

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.

As the American Thinker article stated, "What government on planet Earth would willingly admit that it doesn't control its own territory?"  Certainly, the enclaves may still be nominally subject to the French, British, and German governments, and it would be politically offensive to suggest otherwise.  And true, there is technically no prohibition on police or non-Muslims entering the territory.

But these are societies who have no loyalty to their host governments and want to live according to their own culture and customs.  And that's fine, but if they do that in Europe it will no longer be Europe.

There may not be Sharia cities in the UK yet, but there are groups which are actively trying to make that happen.

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****.

If you're going to lose your **** whenever someone cites a source, this thread isn't going to remain civil for very long.