Europe submits voluntarily

[Ford]

Well shit. That ruins my plans. I booked a trip to France to celebrate my 135th birthday with a tour of some vineyards, but since Sharia law will be in effect by then and alcohol will be banned, it will be a waste of time.

Maybe I can get my deposit back?

So as long as you're okay, fuck the future of western culture! The planet can blow up by then, stuff them!!!!

Well if it is a world where sarcasm doesn't exist, I don't want to live in it.

 

[skepticalbip]

I'm responding to a silly and juvenile argument, so I thought it was appropriate.

You obviously have no clue how democracy works. It does not matter the intent of those Muslims moving into Europe. When they, their children, and grandchildren reach voting age, they will be much more likely to vote for a Muslim running for office than the other candidates.

Ah. So democracy works because generations of people always vote the same way, and never change their vote based upon new information. Thanks for instructing me on the subtleties.

Your strawmen are tiresome. Read the fucking post you are responding to. It doesn't matter why they migrated. They and their children will become voters.

Terrifying thought...people growing up. Becoming voters. Democratically electing other people. Might as well just write off Europe now and build a wall around it, eh?

Of course it hasn't. But if you would care to check who is getting elected to public office you will see a lot more hispanics being elected. The good fact is that hispanics are melding into society and becoming "Americanized". European Muslims don't seem to be doing that.

Well maybe that's something that European nations can address instead of just promoting xenophobia.

Give some data on how well Muslims are assimulating into European culture and you may have a point. I don't see it. In fact I see sections of some cities being declared "Muslem areas" where the old natives are not welcome.

Again, a problem for European countries to solve.

An asinine strawman.

I'd say the more asinine idea is that by accepting some refugees and economic migrants, centuries old European cultures will be bowled over by a wave of Islamism.

Yeah, I guess it was easier to just clip the points from the post and make snide comments at what you left.

 

[Ford]

Yeah, I guess it was easier to just clip the points from the post and make snide comments at what you left.

Snide comments are more than some of the points deserve.

The whole premise of this thread is absurd..."Europe submits voluntarily." It deserves as much mockery as possible.

 

[Trausti]

Yeah, I guess it was easier to just clip the points from the post and make snide comments at what you left.

Snide comments are more than some of the points deserve.

The whole premise of this thread is absurd..."Europe submits voluntarily." It deserves as much mockery as possible.

Don't blame others because you're ignorant of history. What is happening now is just a continuation of a long process. It would have happened sooner if that clever Pole, Jan Sobieski, had not stopped Islamic aggression - or cultural vibrancy, as the SJW and Gutmenschen would call it - at Vienna in 1683.

Let's posit this. What values are important to you? And do you believe that the incoming non-European populations share those values and would uphold those values once they reach demographic majority?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sorry, but did you intend this video as a serious argument?

Presenting everytime a Muslim army (or even just a gang of privateers) attacked a Christian army or city as part of *the* Jihad, and trying to compare it to the "official" crusades only is just bad reasoning. If you want an apples to apples comparison, you'd have to include every attack by Christians on the other side. That'd include Russia's expansion into what's today Southern Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus region, Central Asia, the Reconquista, modern colonialism, but also in part the trans-Atlantic slave trade (Islam had spread far into West Africa by the late Middle Age and a significant minority of the slaves traded across the Atlantic were Muslims).

The West may view the past Islamic conquests as finished history. Are we sure that the Islamists think the same way?

I'm sure *the* Islamists don't think the same way. Islamism means a lot of different things to different people, and pretending, that *they* all want the same things is hilariously stupid.

If you want to show that Europe is currently under threat from Islamization, you need to do quite a bit more than insinuate (or even show) that *some* Islamists state that as one of their goals: You need to show that those Islamist theorists who consider that a top priority have a significant following and a workable strategy for achieving their goal.

M'kay.

https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

Whatever else that may show, you haven't, by a long shot, shown that Islamist theorists who consider islamizing Europe a top priority have a significant following and a workable strategy for achieving their goal.

Whether their plans are workable or not doesn't change the fact that a lot of people die while they try.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure where you get these ideas from, but they're ideologically based, not reality-based. Arab states and merchants in the middle ages used a variety of ship designs; including military galleys which most certainly had soldiers onboard. Beyond the galleys, arab states used a range of shipdesigns now known as Dhows, which really included everything from river-bound canoes to oceangoing ships. Again, many of these were most definitely armed. The idea that the Arabs didn't use ships like Europeans did because their waters were safe is ignorant, and utterly absurd. They didn't use floating fortress ships like we did because such ships were poorly suited for the shallow waters of the Red Sea and Persian gulf and because they used stitched ship-building techniques that were poorly suited for European style designs. Instead, their 'dhows' were light and maneuverable (part of why they were so succesful at piracy early on). Once the Portugese show up with cannons, you see the Arabs switching to bigger Dhow designs that were nailed together instead of stitched, and which were more heavily armed.

The idea that islamic pirates were less barbaric than European pirates on the basis that their slaves were instantly freed after converting to Islam is similarily silly. Mostly because it just isn't true. True, there were rules against enslaving muslims; but you'd think that if all it took to earn your freedom was converting, there wouldn't have been these massive slave populations. The rules against enslaving muslims specifically only applied to *pre-existing* muslims. It did *not* apply to a slave that converted after being taken; Islamic rules were quite clear on this: they had to buy their own freedom. Of course, this was only if the master and slave agreed to a contract (mukhārajah) in which the master pays the slave a small sum at the end of the month which can go to their emancipation. However, the master was not required to agree to this (it was considered praiseworthy, but non-compulsory), and in the absence of such a contract it was entirely up to the master to decide when (and if) the slave would be set free.

It's also kind of absurd to defend them as less barbaric when there's accounts of them circumcising and making their female slaves infertile to increase their value. One should also note that the female-to-male ratio among slaves was much higher in the muslim world... for obvious reasons.

None of this is racist propaganda; this comes straight from islamic sources, not European ones. European barbarism in no way mitigates Islamic barbarism.

If it is US/British barbarism directly aimed at Muslims, and decades of it, it certainly mitigates a lot.

Decades << Centuries.

 

[untermensche]

Decades << Centuries.

Yes, of course, the Barbary Pirates, I forgot.

How dare they interfere with US slave traders.

 

[Ford]

Don't blame others because you're ignorant of history. What is happening now is just a continuation of a long process. It would have happened sooner if that clever Pole, Jan Sobieski, had not stopped Islamic aggression - or cultural vibrancy, as the SJW and Gutmenschen would call it - at Vienna in 1683.

Speaking of ignorance...

What's happening now has more or less exactly nothing to do with the spread of Islam centuries ago. If you want to tie the two together, I suggest you start calling the migrants "Moors" or "Mohametans." Perhaps you could create a thread about the threats of Barbary pirates as well.

Let's posit this. What values are important to you? And do you believe that the incoming non-European populations share those values and would uphold those values once they reach demographic majority?

Well for starters I don't equate Europe with "Christendom," nor do I feel that the refugee crisis represents a continuation of the long-dead struggle between Christian Europe and the "infidels" camped out around Jerusalem. I thought we'd moved beyond all that, but apparently some folks are still interested in Crusades.


I'm frankly not all that worried about the threat of minarets being erected in Berlin or Vienna or Paris. This is all just fear mongering in the wake of a temporary refugee/migrant crisis.

 

[angelo]

Yeah, I guess it was easier to just clip the points from the post and make snide comments at what you left.

Snide comments are more than some of the points deserve.

The whole premise of this thread is absurd..."Europe submits voluntarily." It deserves as much mockery as possible.

They once mocked Nazism!

 

[angelo]

Speaking of ignorance...

What's happening now has more or less exactly nothing to do with the spread of Islam centuries ago. If you want to tie the two together, I suggest you start calling the migrants "Moors" or "Mohametans." Perhaps you could create a thread about the threats of Barbary pirates as well.

Let's posit this. What values are important to you? And do you believe that the incoming non-European populations share those values and would uphold those values once they reach demographic majority?

Well for starters I don't equate Europe with "Christendom," nor do I feel that the refugee crisis represents a continuation of the long-dead struggle between Christian Europe and the "infidels" camped out around Jerusalem. I thought we'd moved beyond all that, but apparently some folks are still interested in Crusades.


I'm frankly not all that worried about the threat of minarets being erected in Berlin or Vienna or Paris. This is all just fear mongering in the wake of a temporary refugee/migrant crisis.

Temporary? Can you come back here in a decade and make that same stupid statement?

 

[Jokodo]

Sorry, but did you intend this video as a serious argument?

Presenting everytime a Muslim army (or even just a gang of privateers) attacked a Christian army or city as part of *the* Jihad, and trying to compare it to the "official" crusades only is just bad reasoning. If you want an apples to apples comparison, you'd have to include every attack by Christians on the other side. That'd include Russia's expansion into what's today Southern Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus region, Central Asia, the Reconquista, modern colonialism, but also in part the trans-Atlantic slave trade (Islam had spread far into West Africa by the late Middle Age and a significant minority of the slaves traded across the Atlantic were Muslims).

The West may view the past Islamic conquests as finished history. Are we sure that the Islamists think the same way?

I'm sure *the* Islamists don't think the same way. Islamism means a lot of different things to different people, and pretending, that *they* all want the same things is hilariously stupid.

If you want to show that Europe is currently under threat from Islamization, you need to do quite a bit more than insinuate (or even show) that *some* Islamists state that as one of their goals: You need to show that those Islamist theorists who consider that a top priority have a significant following and a workable strategy for achieving their goal.

M'kay.

https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

Whatever else that may show, you haven't, by a long shot, shown that Islamist theorists who consider islamizing Europe a top priority have a significant following and a workable strategy for achieving their goal.

There are many Islamist leaders who have a goal of making Islam a world religion. Gaddafi, for one, talks about it in this speech:



Whether they have a "significant following" among Muslims is fairly irrelevant.

Whether Muslims migrating to Europe come in order to turn Europe into a Middle East 2.0, or because they *choose* to rather live in Europe is absolutely relevant to whether Europe is in danger of turning into a Middle East 2.0. There's hardly a more relevant question.

The Muslims who are moving into Europe and non-Muslim countries are changing the demographics of those countries whether that is their goal or not.

And Irish and Italian Catholics moving into New England were changing those states' demographics. Some states that were founded as Protestant colonies are now majority Catholic! But it didn't make them into conservative Catholic hotspots.

With the low birth rate of the natives and the high birth rate of the incoming Muslims, those demographics will continue to sway to a higher percentage of Muslims in the country. When or if it will eventually exceed fifty percent is the question in democratic countries.

No, that's not the question. It's not even *a* relevant question. The question is what kind of society their children and grandchildren will want and what parties they will vote. The question of "[w]hen or if [the Muslim population] will eventually exceed fifty percent" is only relevant if you assume that all Muslims or people of Muslim descent at all times want to achieve a caliphate and only wait till they reach 51%, and that's demonstrably false - just last year, Tunisians gave the moderate Islamist Ennahda party 10 point loss. It's now down at <28% and second place in this 99% Muslim country.

In fact, European Muslims tend to vote for more liberal parties than their non-Muslim counterparts, while voters of the parties that want to ban gay marriage, roll back female participation in the workforce or state-church separation are overrepresented among the "native" population.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well.. the number one difficulty in war is information. In a chaotic situation, (which any war is) it's hard to gather information. It's in every armies best interest to confuse its opponents by spreading disinformation. There's also the question of momentum. Everybody wants to be on the winning side. By exaggerating their progress an army can get spontaneous support. This is what FSA did.

The truth is that the FSA was complete bullshit right from the start. It was nothing but talk. At it's core was a group of rebels who had virtually nothing keeping them together other than not being Assad. Most of them were Assad deserters who would have joined any rebel group. The west wanted a moderate army in Syria that they could back. So they bought into the FSA lie, a circular self-perpetuating lie. Eventually, any propaganda devoid of content will collapse. Which is what happened. In hind-sight the FSA was never a viable option. Any money given to FSA was either wasted, embezzled or went to directly funding ISIS.

But backing FSA wasn't evil... or necessarily a waste of tax payer money nor stupid. It was a gamble that didn't pay off. But it could have. There was no way of knowing until afterwards. In hind-sight everybody is a genius. Wars are extremely messy. Slim and dodgy gambles are worth taking.

Syria has three viable teams. Assad, ISIS and the Kurds. The Kurds is in a precarious situatation in that they had Turkey against them, and are operating as only an Iraqi force, and shouldn't even be inside Syrias borders. In this situation it's not hard to understand why USA keeps pouring money into FSA. That is the only option right now.

I'm rooting for team Kurd though. They seem the best suited to take charge here. But I doubt it'll happen.

Backing the FSA was flawed and was a gamble that didn’t pay off it was definitely a waste of the tax payers’ money. It was a stupid gamble which some did predict would end like this. This was a gamble which had no chance of short term success. The two things Western politicians are capable of is, throwing tax payers money into lost causes and borrowing when that runs out.
The best option would be to try to broker a deal between the factions at least in the way of a ceasefire while they attack ISIS and other similar groups (if they are distinguishable from the allies.)
Now that France has recently made a statement that it will not include Assad in any negotiations. This asinine statement means that then peace talks can be forgotten as the Western generated genocide continues.

As you know the PKK is a terrorist organization within Turkey and a freedom fighters anywhere else. The US an allies will most likely forget the Kurds as soon as it is convenient to do so.

There's always somebody who said the right thing before everybody else. That doesn't mean they knew more than others. Nobody knew how the Syrian war would pan out. Nobody. We still don't know.

The Turks treat Kurds badly. Terrorist/freedom fighter. Potato potAHto. Also PKK =! Kurds. The Kurds are the Iraqi Kurds. PKK is just a tiny part of that. I'm convinced Iraq and Syria will fall apart and we'll get a Kurdistan. That doesn't fix it for the rest of them though.

Right now, I'm weary of criticising any suggestion. Even bad ones. I don't know how to fix Syria. It's a worse mess now than ever before. Total chaos.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Backing the FSA was flawed and was a gamble that didn’t pay off it was definitely a waste of the tax payers’ money. It was a stupid gamble which some did predict would end like this. This was a gamble which had no chance of short term success. The two things Western politicians are capable of is, throwing tax payers money into lost causes and borrowing when that runs out.
The best option would be to try to broker a deal between the factions at least in the way of a ceasefire while they attack ISIS and other similar groups (if they are distinguishable from the allies.)
Now that France has recently made a statement that it will not include Assad in any negotiations. This asinine statement means that then peace talks can be forgotten as the Western generated genocide continues.

As you know the PKK is a terrorist organization within Turkey and a freedom fighters anywhere else. The US an allies will most likely forget the Kurds as soon as it is convenient to do so.

There's always somebody who said the right thing before everybody else. That doesn't mean they knew more than others. Nobody knew how the Syrian war would pan out. Nobody. We still don't know.

The Turks treat Kurds badly. Terrorist/freedom fighter. Potato potAHto. Also PKK =! Kurds. The Kurds are the Iraqi Kurds. PKK is just a tiny part of that. I'm convinced Iraq and Syria will fall apart and we'll get a Kurdistan. That doesn't fix it for the rest of them though.

Right now, I'm weary of criticising any suggestion. Even bad ones. I don't know how to fix Syria. It's a worse mess now than ever before. Total chaos.

Perhaps Kurdistan may not be a bad idea. Iraq and Syria have already fallen apart. I believer there is still hope to salvage Syria but the allies insistence on Assad not being involved in any peace negotiations is absurd. We cant be picky at times who we negotiate with. Thus the war will continue.
I believe the best thing is to get Assad to agree to elections and the legalisation of other groups. A cease fire (difficult) between the factions except ISIS may work. Unfortunately the West intervened and now with the French leaders getting more involved, things could only get worse. Assad may have been a ruthless leader in many respects but he did keep the lid down on the hornets nest. Perhaps a page out of Sun Tzu would work.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sun-tzu/works/art-of-war/ch03.htm

(Generally in war, the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is inferior to this….For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”) Sun Tzu
1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

 

[angelo]

Every Arab nation created by the allies after the collapse of the Ottoman empire has, or is about to crumble because of tribelism which the allies paid little attention to. Sunni and Shia difference isn't like orthodox and protestant as they thought. Once the dictator placed to lead these countries is deposed as it has on Iraq, all hell breaks loose, as it has with the birth of Al Quada and ISSIS.

 

[dystopian]

If it is US/British barbarism directly aimed at Muslims, and decades of it, it certainly mitigates a lot.

No, it doesn't. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Before the end of the century, Muslims will outnumber the western population of most European nations where they are a minority now. Once that happens, and no doubt they'll outnumber them in government by then as well. No doubt they will pass legislation to install sharia law, as that is the law of Allah. Many of the western descendants may seek asylum to places where western culture is still a majority.

This ridiculous claim has been thoroughly refuted. It is mathematically *impossible* for muslims to outnumber the non-islamic populations of western European countries within the century. Please stop spreading this utter nonsense.

You obviously have no clue how democracy works. It does not matter the intent of those Muslims moving into Europe. When they, their children, and grandchildren reach voting age, they will be much more likely to vote for a Muslim running for office than the other candidates.

And you obviously have no clue how demographic shifts work; or how European democracy works. There is very little reason to think that their grandchildren are more likely to vote for a muslim than the other guy. Figures and studies for the Netherlands for example show that young muslims are consistently less religious in their behavior and views than their parents; and an increasing number of them simply don't believe in god at all. The number of Dutch muslims who go to mosque at least once a month has dropped by no less than 12% in the past decade. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Dutch muslims vote for people based on their religious affiliation. While they do tend to vote on people of the same ethnicity more so (but hardly exclusively), religion doesn't seem to play a big role in this.

Few Dutch Muslim voters; like few regular European voters; are going to vote for a person/party solely because it is in line with their religious identity. There is little value to be had in voting for a muslim party when that party could not possibly gain enough seats to be particularly relevant; something that most muslim voters are well aware of. Instead they'll keep on voting for PVDA (Labor) or SP (Socialist). There have been attempts to form muslim parties in the past, and they've always failed because muslim voters won't vote on them; at most, people will vote on them as a kind of 'protest' vote because they're disappointed with mainstream politics, but invariably they return to voting on the big parties again as a way of actually having political influence.

Give some data on how well Muslims are assimulating into European culture and you may have a point. I don't see it. In fact I see sections of some cities being declared "Muslem areas" where the old natives are not welcome.

Stop treating Fox News and their European equivalents as credible sources of news.

This type of claim pops up every now and then, about how a neighborhood of city x is muslim only with sharia patrols and the cops afraid to patrol and all sorts of other scary claims... and every godddamned time some basic independent journalism shows the claim to be utter bullshit. These kinds of areas simply do not exist.

The majority of muslims *are* integrating just find into European countries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...07/22/some-good-news-about-muslims-in-europe/

 

[dystopian]

This is all just fear mongering in the wake of a temporary refugee/migrant crisis.

Indeed. As evidenced by the fact that the number of refugees coming into certain European countries was much higher during the 90's than it is now. Yet back then nobody was screaming about it being an invasion, and nobody thinks of it that way in retrospect either. Could it be because we didn't have an insane media/political narrative back then? People really just need to get some perspective, instead of being duped by populist politicians and 'controversy-sells-papers!'-driven media narratives.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's always somebody who said the right thing before everybody else. That doesn't mean they knew more than others. Nobody knew how the Syrian war would pan out. Nobody. We still don't know.

The Turks treat Kurds badly. Terrorist/freedom fighter. Potato potAHto. Also PKK =! Kurds. The Kurds are the Iraqi Kurds. PKK is just a tiny part of that. I'm convinced Iraq and Syria will fall apart and we'll get a Kurdistan. That doesn't fix it for the rest of them though.

Right now, I'm weary of criticising any suggestion. Even bad ones. I don't know how to fix Syria. It's a worse mess now than ever before. Total chaos.

Perhaps Kurdistan may not be a bad idea. Iraq and Syria have already fallen apart. I believer there is still hope to salvage Syria but the allies insistence on Assad not being involved in any peace negotiations is absurd. We cant be picky at times who we negotiate with. Thus the war will continue.
I believe the best thing is to get Assad to agree to elections and the legalisation of other groups. A cease fire (difficult) between the factions except ISIS may work. Unfortunately the West intervened and now with the French leaders getting more involved, things could only get worse. Assad may have been a ruthless leader in many respects but he did keep the lid down on the hornets nest. Perhaps a page out of Sun Tzu would work.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sun-tzu/works/art-of-war/ch03.htm

(Generally in war, the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is inferior to this….For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”) Sun Tzu
1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

I think it's pretty clear by now that Syria is an amalgam of various groups that hate each other for various reasons. Democracy seems to be the unlikely next step. They're also impossibly geographically splintered. So the Iraqi style division is impractical. My money is on both Syria and Iraq falling apart to a bunch of smaller states. I think this is a positive development.. in the big picture. It'll get worse before it'll get better. Insta-peace is probably impossible. Iraq into three pieces seems like a no-brainer. Syria is a harder one. It could be divided into any of 30 different ways. But each of those smaller countries will just have the same pattern of insurgence and war before they calm down. It'll be another Africa after decolonisation. Worse before it gets better.

 

[untermensche]

If it is US/British barbarism directly aimed at Muslims, and decades of it, it certainly mitigates a lot.

No, it doesn't. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Ah, the second grader view of the world.

That will take us far.

 

[skepticalbip]

Give some data on how well Muslims are assimulating into European culture and you may have a point. I don't see it. In fact I see sections of some cities being declared "Muslem areas" where the old natives are not welcome.

Stop treating Fox News and their European equivalents as credible sources of news.

Where the hell did I say that this came from Fox News? I can't remember the last I watched Fox. I watch the BBC to learn what is happening in the Europe.

 

[barbos]

You obviously have no clue how democracy works. It does not matter the intent of those Muslims moving into Europe. When they, their children, and grandchildren reach voting age, they will be much more likely to vote for a Muslim running for office than the other candidates.

Yeah, it certainly seems that way:
http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unr...s-they-demand-special-privileges-2468818.html

 

[TSwizzle]

Stop treating Fox News and their European equivalents as credible sources of news.

Where the hell did I say that this came from Fox News? I can't remember the last I watched Fox. I watch the BBC to learn what is happening in the Europe.

The BBC are worse than Fox.