Attack on London Bridge!

[Gryzemuis]

I don't know how to improve integration, but I sure as hell know what makes it worse, and that's singling out groups of people and portraying them as the enemy.

I am not suggesting to take actions against muslims, or install an immigration-ban purely based on religion. I don't see muslim individuals in my country as the enemy. But I do think that there are forces (the basic principles of Islam, or Wahabism, or Saudi-Arabia, or Erdogan, or whatever) that actively work against what I believe in. And that actively work to make the world a worse place for many people. Work against humanitarianism, against science, against enlightenment.

A century ago, people fought against those old, conservative, religious forces. They recognized it as the enemy. That didn't mean every Christian was the enemy. But they were aware. Nowadays, it feels the left is not aware of its own history. And I consider myself extremely left.

There is a trend worldwide where stricter forms of Islam are growing, and that's happening at least to some extent in every country. However, I think we tend to encourage this by treating them like second class citizens.

Agreed. And it started with GW Bush going "on a crusade". He did use those words in the first days after 911. However, he stopped using the word crusade very quickly. And the media have never repeated it. The story still being told is that Bin Laden attacked the US because "he hated our freedom". That is a bunch of balony. He attacked the US because he wanted to start a jihad against the west. And he succeeded. Bush made a huge blunder by attacking Iraq. For many reasons. But the main reason is that it was such a blunder is that the attack on Iraq did mobilize muslims to unite and fight back.
I would vote for Obama 100x over any Republican. But I was disappointed in how Obama handled the middle-east. He started good, by trying to withdraw from Iraq. But in the end, handling the "Arab spring", etc, I don't think he did much good. When Trump won, I thought that at least he'd withdrawn from all warzones. But alas, the Republicans want to have war somewhere, because that is good for business. So I am sure we will see more war during the next 3 years. And if it is war in the Middle East, it's gonna make everything yet even more worse.

I want Muslim parents to teach their children well

That is not gonna happen by itself. It is not what we are seeing here (western Europe). Mosques have more and more influence on the common muslim. Backed by Turkey, Saudi-Arabia, etc. We've had Turkish and Eritrean politicians come have political meetings in our country. It seems people like Erdogan are now trying to use a strategy to influence the west by utilizing the immigrants of their countries here. How's that for foreign interference ? Young Turkish and Marrocan kids in NL identify with Turkey and Marroco first. Some even see NL as the enemy. Weird, but it is happening. (And again, not all, not even a majority I hope. But enough to make it noticable).

We (the west) have to start advocating for our beliefs. Because if we don't do it, nobody does. You don't want to shake hands with a woman, because she is a woman ? Fuck you. You mutilate your daughter ? Fuck you. Teenage kids beat up homosexuals ? Fuck you. Get a fine, go to jail, lose your resident permit, get kicked out of the country. You want to bring in foreign preachers who don't speak our language, but come preach stone-age ideas in your mosque ? Nope, we won't give them a working permit. Wanna kill animals in your own ritual way ? Nope, there are laws for animals too. Etc. There is stuff we can do.

However, there should be no religion test in considering who we accept.

Agreed. We must stay true to our own principles. Every human is a human, and we can not discriminate between two humans. However, that doesn't mean we should just accept everything that happens. I would like to see some more actions by our leaders. Not pogroms, not immigration bans. A good start would be if policitians would stop tiptoeing around the issues. Because if sensible politicians ignore the issues, then another type of politicians will step in that void.

[Krush]

Because if sensible politicians ignore the issues, then another type of politicians will step in that void.

What issues? Most of the people on this board have assured me that the migrants are just poor pitiful victims running from ISIS and need our help. Oh and that they are assimilating into our cultures just fine.

You don't want to shake hands with a woman, because she is a woman ? Fuck you. You mutilate your daughter ? Fuck you. Teenage kids beat up homosexuals ? Fuck you. Get a fine, go to jail, lose your resident permit, get kicked out of the country. You want to bring in foreign preachers who don't speak our language, but come preach stone-age ideas in your mosque ? Nope, we won't give them a working permit. Wanna kill animals in your own ritual way ? Nope, there are laws for animals too.

If I reported this hate speech to your Dutch authorities would they arrest you?

[Starker]

I am not suggesting to take actions against muslims, or install an immigration-ban purely based on religion. I don't see muslim individuals in my country as the enemy. But I do think that there are forces (the basic principles of Islam, or Wahabism, or Saudi-Arabia, or Erdogan, or whatever) that actively work against what I believe in. And that actively work to make the world a worse place for many people. Work against humanitarianism, against science, against enlightenment.

[...]

Agreed. We must stay true to our own principles. Every human is a human, and we can not discriminate between two humans. However, that doesn't mean we should just accept everything that happens. I would like to see some more actions by our leaders. Not pogroms, not immigration bans. A good start would be if policitians would stop tiptoeing around the issues. Because if sensible politicians ignore the issues, then another type of politicians will step in that void.

Now this I can agree with.

[Tony_Tarantula]

Fairly hostile interview with Piers Morgan on the topic.

I'd echo the question on the first part: why is that your average soccer hooligan gets his travel rights lifted, but people can go fight with ISIS and be allowed to return to the UK no questions asked?

https://www.facebook.com/mediaresear...?hc_ref=SEARCH

I would vote for Obama 100x over any Republican. But I was disappointed in how Obama handled the middle-east. He started good, by trying to withdraw from Iraq. But in the end, handling the "Arab spring", etc, I don't think he did much good. When Trump won, I thought that at least he'd withdrawn from all warzones. But alas, the Republicans want to have war somewhere, because that is good for business. So I am sure we will see more war during the next 3 years. And if it is war in the Middle East, it's gonna make everything yet even more worse.

You're badly misinformed. Obama actually tried to keep the United States in Iraq, but the Iraqi government was unwilling to grant a status of forces agreement.

Weapons were being moved from Benghazi to Syria with US knowledge: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-cont...l-version1.pdf

He had the US involved in more conflict zones that Bush did (this picture isn't even close to complete)



That drone policy normalized what the Guardian described by saying that "Executive privilege has seduced the president into a reckless 'kill first, ask questions later' policy that explodes the US constitution"

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...dicial-killing

[Gryzemuis]

Don't try to bullshit me, Tony. Yes, I am not happy with that Obama did. But please do not try to twist the obvious truth: it was Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the NeoCons who set the Middle-east on fire. By invading Iraq because of bullshit reasons. He did it for the Saudis, he did it for the oil-industry, he did it for his daddy, he did it for the military-industrial complex. What the Bush-clan did was a 1000x worse than what Obama did.

[Tony_Tarantula]

What makes you think they're all that different? Both had largely the same campaign contributers, the same cozy relationship with Saudia Arabia and Israel, the same "we have the right to do everything" war on terror policies, and...hell it's a huge list.

Obama was to the point that Dick Cheney had glowing praise for his foreign policy: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...one-use-087511


Even if you do accept that they're the same parties, continuing the previous course of action doesn't make it OK.

Nevermind that the Obama administration seemed hellbent on starting another major war in Syria to remove Assad and even gave off the appearance of being willing to risk World War 3 in order to make that happen. Around 2011-2012 we even had fictional literature surrounding our training that involved my unit being involved in an invasion of a country that just so happened to have the same ethnic composition, be about the same sized population, have about the same geography, with the same languages as Syria. That they instead had to settle for covert action doesn't make it better.

Hell it's Obama more than anybody else (except, arguably, the Saudi royal family or Israel) who is responsible for the entire refugee crisis to begin with.

[SD]

I'd echo the question on the first part: why is that your average soccer hooligan gets his travel rights lifted, but people can go fight with ISIS and be allowed to return to the UK no questions asked?

Oh, that's easy. It's because the Tory government refuse to utilise the Temporary Exclusion Orders that were brought in by the coalition government in 2014. TEOs prevent British citizens suspected of involvement in terror activities abroad from returning to the UK unless they give themselves up to authorities at the border.

In the last two years, against 350 suspected jihadis returning from Syria, they've imposed a grand total of one TEO. You'd have to ask them why.

[heywood]

You guys keep saying there is no uncontrolled migration, that all these folks are carefully vetted. I have seen no evidence of this. Plus some of their countries don't have paper trials to "vet" or they will have fake papers (especially if they are part of ISIS).

Let me know when an individual that we've vetted goes on to commit an act of terrorism or gets caught trying to.

[Daxim]

whether we should we start banning all nationalists because of violent extremist nationalists like Breivik.

No, because there are both absolutely and comparatively very few extremist nationalists. The current means of dealing with them are fine and do not need to be expanded or made severe, IMO.

I do think that a third of the Muslims having highly fundamental attitudes is reason for concern.

[Starker]

Since 9/11, more incidents and more deaths in the US are caused by far right extremists than islamist extremists.

Also, do you think that a lot of christians holding fundamental attitudes, such as believing the Bible is literally true, is likewise a reason for concern?

[Kolya]

So how is the bridge holding up?

[Starker]

With some counseling I believe it will be fine.

[Gryzemuis]

Also, do you think that a lot of christians holding fundamental attitudes, such as believing the Bible is literally true, is likewise a reason for concern?

Hell yeah.

[hooded_paladin]

Since 9/11, more incidents and more deaths in the US are caused by far right extremists than islamist extremists.

https://apholt.com/2016/01/11/right-...t-the-numbers/
That statistic has changed since the Pulse nightclub shooting, and there are a lot of cases which are clearly islamic extremism which are not considered "Jihadist" for that statistic.

[Starker]

Well, according to the University of Maryland's START consortium, far right extremism has led to more deaths than islamic extremism in that period -- 119 deaths versus 158 deaths, based on their database.

But the larger point is that far right extremism is clearly a significant threat that, at least in the US, rivals that of islamic terrorism. So, the question remains, if muslims should be banned based on acts perpetrated by the radical muslims, should nationalists also be banned based on the acts of far right extremists? And I don't mean just people who read the Daily Stormer and have a copy of The Turner Diaries.

[hooded_paladin]

They extend the range back to 1990, even though Al-Qaeda and Hamas were barely getting started? Kay.

[Starker]

In the period of 2001--2016 they still counted more far right extremist attacks and deaths caused by far right extremists.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/06/07/thr...tremists-more/

According to the University of Maryland’s START consortium, between 12 September 2001 and 2016 there were 31 fatal "Islamist extremist" attacks, leading to 119 deaths. In the same time period, there were 89 "far-right extremist" attacks, resulting in a total of 158 deaths.

The overall pattern is that islamist extremists conduct fewer attacks with higher death counts per incident, but that doesn't mean that far right extremism is not a significant threat.

[hooded_paladin]

In the period of 2001--2016 they still counted more far right extremist attacks and deaths caused by far right extremists.



The overall pattern is that islamist extremists conduct fewer attacks with higher death counts per incident, but that doesn't mean that far right extremism is not a significant threat.

The Snopes article quotes SMART data which puts far right extremists in the lead, and also a Government Accountability Office data for the same period which puts islamist attacks slightly in the lead. And the apholt.com blog lists several Islam-inspired attacks which have been excluded because they don't fit the definitions for Jihadist.

[Starker]

But the larger point remains -- far right extremism is not an insignificant threat and far right extremists are not few and far between.

So I ask once again, if muslims should be banned, should nationalists also be banned?

[Goldmoon Dawn]

Gif only posts aren't good posts.

[Tony_Tarantula]

So just to smash Starker's ridiculous accusation that America is a festering Nazi scab just waiting to erupt, let's translate those numbers on Wahabbist terrorism sympathisers to white Americans on a per capita basis.

Let's imagine an America where:

-19% (42,475,108) of white Americans support the objective of creating an islamic caliphate White supremacist state.

-3% (6,706,590) of white Americans support the way the Islamic State is going Hitler went about establishing a caliphate white supremacist state.

-18% (40,239,576) of white Americans sympathise with those who engage in violence against those who mock the prophet Hitler.

-21% (46,946,172) of white Americans do not condemn execution for adultery interracial sex.

-15% (33,532,980) of white Americans do not condemn suicide bombing church shootings ala Dylan Roof.

-17% (38,004,044) of white Americans do not condemn terrorism racial massacres as a form of political protest.

If these numbers were remotely correct and whites were every bit as hostile as militant muslims then lets play with numbers some more.

5 dead 280 wounded in the Boston marathon bombing (2013)
4 dead 0 wounded in the Ali Muhammad Brown killings
1 dead 0 wounded in The Vaughn Foods beheading
5 dead 0 wounded during The Chatanooga Shootings
0 dead 2 wounded during the The university of California stabbing
14 dead 24 wounded in The San Bernadino Attack
0 dead 1 wounded from The Philly cop shooting
49 dead 53 wounded during The Orlando Nightclub Shooting
0 dead 10 wounded during The Minnesota Mall stabbings
0 dead 34 wounded during the New York and New Jersey bombings
0 dead 13 wounded during the Ohio State University car attack

total from 2013 to now:

78 dead 417 wounded.

Let's adjust per capita for your imaginary whites supremacists vs statistically confirmed islamic supremacists. 223,553,265 Whites. 3,087,455 Muslims. That's roughly 72 times as many whites as muslims.

So if your ridiculous notions were correct then during the scant 3.5 years since Jan 2013 we'd have seen 5616 non-whites killed and 30024 non-whites wounded in attacks directly attributable to white supremacist political movements.

[Starker]

Stop arguing with strawmen, Tony. I never said that America as a whole was a Nazi stronghold. I said that far right extremism is a problem in USA that leads to people getting killed. And if islamist extremism justifies banning muslims, then why doesn't far-right extremism justify banning nationalists?

The point is of this exercise not to accuse Americans of being Nazis, Tony. The point is to make people think about banning large groups of people based on the actions of a few.

[SubJeff]

I'll let someone else tear down that bs Tony.

I just want to say, as a Brit and a Londoner, I recognise that the terrorists make up a tiny, tiny minority of Muslims.

See, we're tolerant, we're nice, we're reasonable.

You and your type are hate filled and ignorant. I honestly don't know how you live with yourselves. The only conclusion is that you're just unaware of how unreasonable you are being. Do you think other people can't do stats? Do think we don't realise that without ANY Muslims there would be no Islamic terrorism? Of course we do. But labelling massive sections of the population because of the actions of a few is the very definition of prejudice. If everyone were to do that can you imagine how many people would hate white people based on yours, Krush, GMDs and Vae's opinions. You're all verging on Neo-Nazism, honestly. In fact I think Krush has already lost it.

Grow up. You're acting like a dumb teenager.

[SubJeff]

The point is to make people think about banning large groups of people based on the actions of a few.

Yeah good luck with that.

[Krush]

You're all verging on Neo-Nazism, honestly. In fact I think Krush has already lost it.

Nazism means National Socialism. I am against socialism, therefore not a Nazi.