Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

Food for thought.................................http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261...orists-werent-radicals-they-daniel-greenfield

This is Zionisms (not Jewish) answer to Das Reich. I would suspect how these figures are compiled.

I take it you have more accurate figures?

 

[angelo]

But the vast majority of moslems follow their so called holy quran which teaches them hate of the infidels, and to go forth and conquer, to make the whole planet Islam.

You keep saying this; But it isn't true.

Most Muslims no more hate the infidels, go forth and conquer, or attempt to make the whole planet Islam than most Christians refuse to wear mixed fibres, sell all their goods and give the proceeds to the poor, or pray only in private.

The way religious people ACTUALLY BEHAVE is, in the VAST MAJORITY of cases, only very loosely based on the instructions in the scripture they claim to respect.

A TINY MINORITY of Muslims behave in the way you say; the VAST MAJORITY observably do NOT.

Given how easy this is to see, with even a cursory examination of the behaviour of actual Muslims, it beggars belief that you persist in trying to persuade us that it is untrue. Reality ALWAYS trumps theory; Observation ALWAYS trumps hypothesis.

Have you seen the Pew research figures?

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is Zionisms (not Jewish) answer to Das Reich. I would suspect how these figures are compiled.

I take it you have more accurate figures?

How were the questions put together? This is an extreme source and such tends to be less detailed.
Pakistan may well have a high level of extremism and several backward fiefdoms, but I doubt it would be such a high level without resulting in a complete overthrow of the government.

There is however a urgent need to be watchful over security and restrict immigration. Mass immigration is out of control in Europe. The US and Europe should simply restrict immigration and see what additional security measures can be put in place.

 

[Warpoet]

Wrong in practically everything? For example!

The fact that you're unaware of it is really the saddest part.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The ones leaving Syria are the ones who don't like ISIS. I welcome anybody who hates ISIS and Assad. The most militant atheist I know is Iranian.

Too bad US and its allies supported a rebellion in Syria that let ISIS fill the void.

The nature of revolutions is a bit like trying to get a coin out of a piggybank. You shake once. It doesn'the come out. You shake again. Still nothing. Each time the stability of normal life is interrupted with a violent upheaval.You shake and shake and shake until the coin drops out.

Most revolutions fail. But revolution is still necessary for progress. It's almost impossible to know in advance if all the factors are present for success.

It's also worth pointing out how extremely unlikely it was for the American revolution. It's success is just down to a string of absurdly unlikely events. The same could have been true of Syria. It just didn't pan out. Well... not yet anyway. My prediction is that ISIS is on the way out. Just too many enemies. My eye is entirely on what happens next. And that is completely up in the air. Could be anything really. Maybe even a liberal democracy

 

[whichphilosophy]

Too bad US and its allies supported a rebellion in Syria that let ISIS fill the void.

The nature of revolutions is a bit like trying to get a coin out of a piggybank. You shake once. It doesn'the come out. You shake again. Still nothing. Each time the stability of normal life is interrupted with a violent upheaval.You shake and shake and shake until the coin drops out.

Most revolutions fail. But revolution is still necessary for progress. It's almost impossible to know in advance if all the factors are present for success.

It's also worth pointing out how extremely unlikely it was for the American revolution. It's success is just down to a string of absurdly unlikely events. The same could have been true of Syria. It just didn't pan out. Well... not yet anyway. My prediction is that ISIS is on the way out. Just too many enemies. My eye is entirely on what happens next. And that is completely up in the air. Could be anything really. Maybe even a liberal democracy

A proper democracy will take years to achieve. The way things are going, ISIS will infiltrate Europe in small numbers as its forces are being driven out of Syria. We still have virtually no security for the illegals that come in so this loop hole is ideal. Perhaps a few dozen or few hundred will come in.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The nature of revolutions is a bit like trying to get a coin out of a piggybank. You shake once. It doesn'the come out. You shake again. Still nothing. Each time the stability of normal life is interrupted with a violent upheaval.You shake and shake and shake until the coin drops out.

Most revolutions fail. But revolution is still necessary for progress. It's almost impossible to know in advance if all the factors are present for success.

It's also worth pointing out how extremely unlikely it was for the American revolution. It's success is just down to a string of absurdly unlikely events. The same could have been true of Syria. It just didn't pan out. Well... not yet anyway. My prediction is that ISIS is on the way out. Just too many enemies. My eye is entirely on what happens next. And that is completely up in the air. Could be anything really. Maybe even a liberal democracy

A proper democracy will take years to achieve.

Yes. But it needs an environment in which to develop. If such an environment doesn't exist = shake the piggybank until it does. Syria under Assad wasn't going anywhere. That's the nature of fascism. It's about inventing make-believe enemies. To constantly keep people fearful and on the edge to make them unable to develop rituals around free thought and institutions to promote it. Removing Assad wouldn't guarantee any of that. But keeping Assad guarantees that it won't happen. So we're still better off kicking him out.

The way things are going, ISIS will infiltrate Europe in small numbers as its forces are being driven out of Syria. We still have virtually no security for the illegals that come in so this loop hole is ideal. Perhaps a few dozen or few hundred will come in.

I'm sorry, but this is a paranoid delusion. ISIS isn't infiltrating Europe, hasn't been infiltrating Europe and they never will. ISIS isn't the same thing as Islam. And some bored kids with Middle-Eastern heritage watching ISIS promotional Youtube videos to relieve their boredom isn't the same thing as "ISIS infiltrating Europe". We're doing the same thing now. Coming to this forum talking about how awesome secularism is. Can't you feel it... how atheism is corrupting your soul? How you are being radicalised against religion?

 

[Jokodo]

I said "please." But regardless, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with angelo. It's the fact that he's proven completely and utterly wrong on just about every single assertion he makes, but he keeps repeating the same fucking bullshit over and over and over anyway. He's clearly incapable of contributing anything of value.

Wrong in practically everything? For example!

Can you quote any assertion of yours that stood up to scrutiny? Because I can't think of any.

Examples of where you've been wrong include, but are not limited to:

"70% of Muslims are illiterate" - Absolutely no.

"European migration to the new world brought with them the means of building nations. They worked their butts off taming and building on the land. They didn't claim any benefits from the indigenous people" - unless you count grabbing their land and resources by force, of course.

In contrary, I can't find a single factual claim of yours that is specific enough to be verifiable and that would stand up to scrutiny. Can you?

Although, to be fair, most of your posts are neither wrong nor right - they're just content free appeals to emotion with not enough substance to verify or falsify anything.
In other words, not even wrong.

 

[whichphilosophy]

A proper democracy will take years to achieve.

Yes. But it needs an environment in which to develop. If such an environment doesn't exist = shake the piggybank until it does. Syria under Assad wasn't going anywhere. That's the nature of fascism. It's about inventing make-believe enemies. To constantly keep people fearful and on the edge to make them unable to develop rituals around free thought and institutions to promote it. Removing Assad wouldn't guarantee any of that. But keeping Assad guarantees that it won't happen. So we're still better off kicking him out.

The way things are going, ISIS will infiltrate Europe in small numbers as its forces are being driven out of Syria. We still have virtually no security for the illegals that come in so this loop hole is ideal. Perhaps a few dozen or few hundred will come in.

I'm sorry, but this is a paranoid delusion. ISIS isn't infiltrating Europe, hasn't been infiltrating Europe and they never will. ISIS isn't the same thing as Islam. And some bored kids with Middle-Eastern heritage watching ISIS promotional Youtube videos to relieve their boredom isn't the same thing as "ISIS infiltrating Europe". We're doing the same thing now. Coming to this forum talking about how awesome secularism is. Can't you feel it... how atheism is corrupting your soul? How you are being radicalised against religion?

ISIS is already here though in small amounts, and not the half a million or so it is claiming which is impossible. If we don't check all IDs (which is the case) the chances of slipping in are great. There is also traffic leaving Europe and returning with ISIS trained people. Only a handful are necessary to plant explosives and shoot people. Better security will reduce this.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes. But it needs an environment in which to develop. If such an environment doesn't exist = shake the piggybank until it does. Syria under Assad wasn't going anywhere. That's the nature of fascism. It's about inventing make-believe enemies. To constantly keep people fearful and on the edge to make them unable to develop rituals around free thought and institutions to promote it. Removing Assad wouldn't guarantee any of that. But keeping Assad guarantees that it won't happen. So we're still better off kicking him out.

The way things are going, ISIS will infiltrate Europe in small numbers as its forces are being driven out of Syria. We still have virtually no security for the illegals that come in so this loop hole is ideal. Perhaps a few dozen or few hundred will come in.

I'm sorry, but this is a paranoid delusion. ISIS isn't infiltrating Europe, hasn't been infiltrating Europe and they never will. ISIS isn't the same thing as Islam. And some bored kids with Middle-Eastern heritage watching ISIS promotional Youtube videos to relieve their boredom isn't the same thing as "ISIS infiltrating Europe". We're doing the same thing now. Coming to this forum talking about how awesome secularism is. Can't you feel it... how atheism is corrupting your soul? How you are being radicalised against religion?

ISIS is already here though in small amounts, and not the half a million or so it is claiming which is impossible. If we don't check all IDs (which is the case) the chances of slipping in are great. There is also traffic leaving Europe and returning with ISIS trained people. Only a handful are necessary to plant explosives and shoot people. Better security will reduce this.

What... the actual fuck... are you talking about? This just sounds insane.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Wrong in practically everything? For example!

Can you quote any assertion of yours that stood up to scrutiny? Because I can't think of any.

Examples of where you've been wrong include, but are not limited to:

"70% of Muslims are illiterate" - Absolutely no.

"European migration to the new world brought with them the means of building nations. They worked their butts off taming and building on the land. They didn't claim any benefits from the indigenous people" - unless you count grabbing their land and resources by force, of course.

In contrary, I can't find a single factual claim of yours that is specific enough to be verifiable and that would stand up to scrutiny. Can you?

Although, to be fair, most of your posts are neither wrong nor right - they're just content free appeals to emotion with not enough substance to verify or falsify anything.
In other words, not even wrong.

The problem is that we have high volumes pouring into Europe when many of the member states can only barely look after their own disadvantaged people.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yes. But it needs an environment in which to develop. If such an environment doesn't exist = shake the piggybank until it does. Syria under Assad wasn't going anywhere. That's the nature of fascism. It's about inventing make-believe enemies. To constantly keep people fearful and on the edge to make them unable to develop rituals around free thought and institutions to promote it. Removing Assad wouldn't guarantee any of that. But keeping Assad guarantees that it won't happen. So we're still better off kicking him out.

The way things are going, ISIS will infiltrate Europe in small numbers as its forces are being driven out of Syria. We still have virtually no security for the illegals that come in so this loop hole is ideal. Perhaps a few dozen or few hundred will come in.

I'm sorry, but this is a paranoid delusion. ISIS isn't infiltrating Europe, hasn't been infiltrating Europe and they never will. ISIS isn't the same thing as Islam. And some bored kids with Middle-Eastern heritage watching ISIS promotional Youtube videos to relieve their boredom isn't the same thing as "ISIS infiltrating Europe". We're doing the same thing now. Coming to this forum talking about how awesome secularism is. Can't you feel it... how atheism is corrupting your soul? How you are being radicalised against religion?

ISIS is already here though in small amounts, and not the half a million or so it is claiming which is impossible. If we don't check all IDs (which is the case) the chances of slipping in are great. There is also traffic leaving Europe and returning with ISIS trained people. Only a handful are necessary to plant explosives and shoot people. Better security will reduce this.

What... the actual fuck... are you talking about? This just sounds insane.

This is warfare. ISIS have not banned its own members from visiting Europe. At the moment Europe is trying to close the door from Turkey to Syria where Brits and others go for training and then come back. This is the main route for home grown terrorists. The amount is very minor so this does not mean every Muslim whether from abroad or as a convert.

 

[Jokodo]

Can you quote any assertion of yours that stood up to scrutiny? Because I can't think of any.

Examples of where you've been wrong include, but are not limited to:

"70% of Muslims are illiterate" - Absolutely no.

"European migration to the new world brought with them the means of building nations. They worked their butts off taming and building on the land. They didn't claim any benefits from the indigenous people" - unless you count grabbing their land and resources by force, of course.

In contrary, I can't find a single factual claim of yours that is specific enough to be verifiable and that would stand up to scrutiny. Can you?

Although, to be fair, most of your posts are neither wrong nor right - they're just content free appeals to emotion with not enough substance to verify or falsify anything.
In other words, not even wrong.

The problem is that we have high volumes pouring into Europe when many of the member states can only barely look after their own disadvantaged people.

The problem with angelo's posts is that they're very thin on facts. Whatever other problems there may be do not affect that point.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes. But it needs an environment in which to develop. If such an environment doesn't exist = shake the piggybank until it does. Syria under Assad wasn't going anywhere. That's the nature of fascism. It's about inventing make-believe enemies. To constantly keep people fearful and on the edge to make them unable to develop rituals around free thought and institutions to promote it. Removing Assad wouldn't guarantee any of that. But keeping Assad guarantees that it won't happen. So we're still better off kicking him out.

The way things are going, ISIS will infiltrate Europe in small numbers as its forces are being driven out of Syria. We still have virtually no security for the illegals that come in so this loop hole is ideal. Perhaps a few dozen or few hundred will come in.

I'm sorry, but this is a paranoid delusion. ISIS isn't infiltrating Europe, hasn't been infiltrating Europe and they never will. ISIS isn't the same thing as Islam. And some bored kids with Middle-Eastern heritage watching ISIS promotional Youtube videos to relieve their boredom isn't the same thing as "ISIS infiltrating Europe". We're doing the same thing now. Coming to this forum talking about how awesome secularism is. Can't you feel it... how atheism is corrupting your soul? How you are being radicalised against religion?

ISIS is already here though in small amounts, and not the half a million or so it is claiming which is impossible. If we don't check all IDs (which is the case) the chances of slipping in are great. There is also traffic leaving Europe and returning with ISIS trained people. Only a handful are necessary to plant explosives and shoot people. Better security will reduce this.

What... the actual fuck... are you talking about? This just sounds insane.

This is warfare. ISIS have not banned its own members from visiting Europe. At the moment Europe is trying to close the door from Turkey to Syria where Brits and others go for training and then come back. This is the main route for home grown terrorists. The amount is very minor so this does not mean every Muslim whether from abroad or as a convert.

Are you talking about the Paris attacks? That was a one off thing. Also... terrorism is almost impossible to combat or defend against. European police agencies are 100% reactive. If we want a free democratic society we just can't increase security any more. The only times when terrorist attacks get foiled in advanced is because they receive a tip-off from one of their own. Ie, a fundie militant Muslim who thinks terrorism is bullshit and won't put up with it. We have no way of stopping a handful ISIS fighters getting in a truck and just driving to where ever in Europe and blow shit up. There's no point in even trying to.

It's also important to keep in mind what the goal of the attacks were. The goal was to get Europe involved, to create conflict. The Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were great from a recruiting point of view. Militant Islam, just like militant Christianity, is about martyrdom. They don't care if they die. They just want to go down in a bullet rain of glory. They are trying to create conflict, to create war. They want us to lash out in desperation so they get more converts to their side.

But we have no reason to get pulled in by it. The correct response to the Paris attacks is to ignore it and just get on with life. If we do that the terrorists lose. Even though the deaths of the Paris attacks was a tragedy. In the big picture terrorism as the cause of death in Europe is still 0% of total deaths. It's so low there's no reason to worry... even the slightest bit. I think that's where the mistake in your thinking is.

That said I'm all for a Western invasion of Syria, Iraq style. But that's not because of the Paris attacks or because of any anti-ISIS sentiment. It's because war is shit and no war is better than war.

 

[TSwizzle]

Are you talking about the Paris attacks? That was a one off thing.

allah's holy warriors are always busy, isis or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was doomed because Saddam wasn't interested in the welfare of his people, he was interested in getting weapons.

He had weapons, lots of them supplied by the West and Gas from Germany. This was not the problem. The allies claimed he had weapons of mass destruction and found none.

He wanted the sort of stuff we said he couldn't have.

 

[bilby]

Please stop posting here.

Free speech is where we have to read what we don't like or agree with.

No, it isn't; Free speech doesn't say anything about a guaranteed audience.

 

[bilby]

Are you talking about the Paris attacks? That was a one off thing.

allah's holy warriors are always busy, isis or not.

Yup. And no amount of security can stop them. Even the most totalitarian security state would not be able to completely eliminate the threat. There are ways to combat terrorism - but visible security measures at airports and border crossings are not one of those ways. Such security does nothing to prevent terrorism; at best it might move it to other targets - if bombing a plane is hard, then the terrorists will bomb trains; if bombing trains is too hard, they can bomb buses. Or stadia. Or concerts. Or shopping malls. Or restaurants. If you put enough security checkpoints in place to scan every person entering any popular public place, then the lines for scanning become viable targets. Security checkpoints are a strategy that cannot possibly succeed.

You can't stop small numbers of determined people from committing terrorist attacks by checking IDs, X-Raying or searching bags, making people walk through metal detectors, or forcing passengers to take off their shoes before boarding a plane. But you can give paranoid citizens a confidence boost with these measures, and you can be seen to be doing something (even though it is something utterly futile and pointless); and you can win votes by doing that. Ultimately, the only result of all this "security" is that blameless citizens are less free, and more inconvenienced. The money wasted on the TSA would be much better spent on the CIA, and FBI counter-terrorism departments; But such expenditure is invisible to the public, so it wins no votes.

 

[angelo]

Wrong in practically everything? For example!

Can you quote any assertion of yours that stood up to scrutiny? Because I can't think of any.

Examples of where you've been wrong include, but are not limited to:

"70% of Muslims are illiterate" - Absolutely no.

"European migration to the new world brought with them the means of building nations. They worked their butts off taming and building on the land. They didn't claim any benefits from the indigenous people" - unless you count grabbing their land and resources by force, of course.

In contrary, I can't find a single factual claim of yours that is specific enough to be verifiable and that would stand up to scrutiny. Can you?

Although, to be fair, most of your posts are neither wrong nor right - they're just content free appeals to emotion with not enough substance to verify or falsify anything.
In other words, not even wrong.

It's not a fact that the settlers to the new world built the nation to what it is today? [Scratches head]

 

[angelo]

allah's holy warriors are always busy, isis or not.

Yup. And no amount of security can stop them. Even the most totalitarian security state would not be able to completely eliminate the threat. There are ways to combat terrorism - but visible security measures at airports and border crossings are not one of those ways. Such security does nothing to prevent terrorism; at best it might move it to other targets - if bombing a plane is hard, then the terrorists will bomb trains; if bombing trains is too hard, they can bomb buses. Or stadia. Or concerts. Or shopping malls. Or restaurants. If you put enough security checkpoints in place to scan every person entering any popular public place, then the lines for scanning become viable targets. Security checkpoints are a strategy that cannot possibly succeed.

You can't stop small numbers of determined people from committing terrorist attacks by checking IDs, X-Raying or searching bags, making people walk through metal detectors, or forcing passengers to take off their shoes before boarding a plane. But you can give paranoid citizens a confidence boost with these measures, and you can be seen to be doing something (even though it is something utterly futile and pointless); and you can win votes by doing that. Ultimately, the only result of all this "security" is that blameless citizens are less free, and more inconvenienced. The money wasted on the TSA would be much better spent on the CIA, and FBI counter-terrorism departments; But such expenditure is invisible to the public, so it wins no votes.

Of course it's political. But it has to be done to keep the nut jobs from committing terrorist attacks. Can you imagine the havoc they would cause by removing these security measures.