Europe submits voluntarily

[untermensche]

I don't consider self defence as a terrorist attack.

Great, nobody does.

But the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people had absolutely nothing to do with self-defense.

 

[TSwizzle]

Oh crap. My boss is on vacation in Europe right now. Should I try to warn him about the impending apocalypse? Or is it already too late?

Hopefully he wasn't vacationing in Paris.

I'm wondering now if the U2 concert will go ahead.

Merde, U2 concert cancelled.

 

[angelo]

I've acknowledged that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a criminal act. And that he and his partners in crime should have had criminal charges brought against them. At least false pretenses charges. BT that has nothing to do with the problems in the rest of the many unstable Middle East Islamic nations.
Blaming everything on that only one of America's biggest blunder is wrong. It has nothing to do with radical Islam atrocity throuout the world.

 

[untermensche]

I've acknowledged that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a criminal act. And that he and his partners in crime should have had criminal charges brought against them. At least false pretenses charges. BT that has nothing to do with the problems in the rest of the many unstable Middle East Islamic nations.
Blaming everything on that only one of America's biggest blunder is wrong. It has nothing to do with radical Islam atrocity throuout the world.

You can't possibly be this blind.

The US replaced Hussein with ISIS.

The US created terrorists.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't consider self defence as a terrorist attack.

What was the self defence? The allies attacked Iraq and found no WMDs. Then NATO and the US bravely attacked the small country of Libya and created a corridor for mass migration to Europe.

We should not have gotten rid of those tyrant dictators in the way in which it was done. This threw the countries into chaos. Saddam and Gadhafi were bad but what filled the void they left is even worse. In Europe we could at least close its borders but this still has not happened. Perhaps after another few rounds of dithering in Europe this may happen. w We We also have to check on our own radicalised citizens a bit more such as converts and some local Muslims.

 

[Trausti]

I've acknowledged that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a criminal act. And that he and his partners in crime should have had criminal charges brought against them. At least false pretenses charges. BT that has nothing to do with the problems in the rest of the many unstable Middle East Islamic nations.
Blaming everything on that only one of America's biggest blunder is wrong. It has nothing to do with radical Islam atrocity throuout the world.

You can't possibly be this blind.

The US replaced Hussein with ISIS.

The US created terrorists.

You're like a broken record. ISIS was founded in 1999. You keep forgetting that.

 

[Trausti]

I don't consider self defence as a terrorist attack.

What was the self defence? The allies attacked Iraq and found no WMDs. Then NATO and the US bravely attacked the small country of Libya and created a corridor for mass migration to Europe.

We should not have gotten rid of those tyrant dictators in the way in which it was done. This threw the countries into chaos. Saddam and Gadhafi were bad but what filled the void they left is even worse. In Europe we could at least close its borders but this still has not happened. Perhaps after another few rounds of dithering in Europe this may happen. w We We also have to check on our own radicalised citizens a bit more such as converts and some local Muslims.

On the whole I agree with this. I think one of the problems is that Westerners have come to a mistaken view that the people who live elsewhere are just like them, and that these people will take to democracy like a duck to water. But the people who inhabit the Middle East and North Africa are not Westerners: not in their politics, beliefs, or culture. In a sense, strong authoritarian government is required for them to have a stable state. Which makes the policy of importing them in mass to Europe such a dumb idea.

 

[untermensche]

You can't possibly be this blind.

The US replaced Hussein with ISIS.

The US created terrorists.

You're like a broken record. ISIS was founded in 1999. You keep forgetting that.

Without the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people ISIS never would have amounted to anything.

It's military leadership is ex-Iraqi military that lost their job when the terrorist Bush invaded.

Many of it's weapons are US weapons.

And it's ranks are filled with people with lives destroyed in some way by US terrorism.

I do say the same things over and over.

Because they are true.

 

[Jayjay]

You're like a broken record. ISIS was founded in 1999. You keep forgetting that.

Without the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people ISIS never would have amounted to anything.

It's military leadership is ex-Iraqi military that lost their job when the terrorist Bush invaded.

Many of it's weapons are US weapons.

And it's ranks are filled with people with lives destroyed in some way by US terrorism.

I do say the same things over and over.

Because they are true.

No, they are bullshit.

What percentage of ISIS weapons come from US? They have far more Kalashnikov's than M16s, and even the US weapons that they have come mostly from captured Iraqi bases. What weapons did they use to capture those? Pointy sticks? No, they had weapons and supplies from Syria.

As for ISIS ranks being filled by people whose lives were destroyed by US, that's also unsupported. Most likely they join because it's either that or a bullet in the head.

 

[untermensche]

Without the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people ISIS never would have amounted to anything.

It's military leadership is ex-Iraqi military that lost their job when the terrorist Bush invaded.

Many of it's weapons are US weapons.

And it's ranks are filled with people with lives destroyed in some way by US terrorism.

I do say the same things over and over.

Because they are true.

No, they are bullshit.

What percentage of ISIS weapons come from US? They have far more Kalashnikov's than M16s, and even the US weapons that they have come mostly from captured Iraqi bases. What weapons did they use to capture those? Pointy sticks? No, they had weapons and supplies from Syria.

As for ISIS ranks being filled by people whose lives were destroyed by US, that's also unsupported. Most likely they join because it's either that or a bullet in the head.

ISIS captured huge amounts of US weapons. How many is classified because it is embarrassing information to the US.

And ISIS would have no military leadership without the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

It wouldn't be a danger to any French or anybody else had the US not blown up Iraq with it's terrorism.

 

[angelo]

I don't consider self defence as a terrorist attack.

What was the self defence? The allies attacked Iraq and found no WMDs. Then NATO and the US bravely attacked the small country of Libya and created a corridor for mass migration to Europe.

We should not have gotten rid of those tyrant dictators in the way in which it was done. This threw the countries into chaos. Saddam and Gadhafi were bad but what filled the void they left is even worse. In Europe we could at least close its borders but this still has not happened. Perhaps after another few rounds of dithering in Europe this may happen. w We We also have to check on our own radicalised citizens a bit more such as converts and some local Muslims.

I completely agree in this instance. America thinks they can replace these tough dictators with democracy, hence "Arab Spring" without realising that Islam and democracy are not, nor will it ever be, compatible.

 

[angelo]

What was the self defence? The allies attacked Iraq and found no WMDs. Then NATO and the US bravely attacked the small country of Libya and created a corridor for mass migration to Europe.

We should not have gotten rid of those tyrant dictators in the way in which it was done. This threw the countries into chaos. Saddam and Gadhafi were bad but what filled the void they left is even worse. In Europe we could at least close its borders but this still has not happened. Perhaps after another few rounds of dithering in Europe this may happen. w We We also have to check on our own radicalised citizens a bit more such as converts and some local Muslims.

On the whole I agree with this. I think one of the problems is that Westerners have come to a mistaken view that the people who live elsewhere are just like them, and that these people will take to democracy like a duck to water. But the people who inhabit the Middle East and North Africa are not Westerners: not in their politics, beliefs, or culture. In a sense, strong authoritarian government is required for them to have a stable state. Which makes the policy of importing them in mass to Europe such a dumb idea.

Some people never learn until it's far too late.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't consider self defence as a terrorist attack.

What was the self defence? The allies attacked Iraq and found no WMDs. Then NATO and the US bravely attacked the small country of Libya and created a corridor for mass migration to Europe.

We should not have gotten rid of those tyrant dictators in the way in which it was done. This threw the countries into chaos. Saddam and Gadhafi were bad but what filled the void they left is even worse. In Europe we could at least close its borders but this still has not happened. Perhaps after another few rounds of dithering in Europe this may happen. w We We also have to check on our own radicalised citizens a bit more such as converts and some local Muslims.

Our attacks on Libya made things better for the people there--we started attacking when Gadhafi started mass killings of his own people.

It's the Islamists that have made the place worse.

I do agree that fundamentally this comes down to the Arab "Spring" being terrible for the people but we didn't cause that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What was the self defence? The allies attacked Iraq and found no WMDs. Then NATO and the US bravely attacked the small country of Libya and created a corridor for mass migration to Europe.

We should not have gotten rid of those tyrant dictators in the way in which it was done. This threw the countries into chaos. Saddam and Gadhafi were bad but what filled the void they left is even worse. In Europe we could at least close its borders but this still has not happened. Perhaps after another few rounds of dithering in Europe this may happen. w We We also have to check on our own radicalised citizens a bit more such as converts and some local Muslims.

Our attacks on Libya made things better for the people there--we started attacking when Gadhafi started mass killings of his own people.

It's the Islamists that have made the place worse.

I do agree that fundamentally this comes down to the Arab "Spring" being terrible for the people but we didn't cause that.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-...-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/5408740

This article was first published on October 19, 2014.

This week marks the three-year anniversary of the Western-backed assassination of Libya’s former president, Muammar Gaddafi, and the fall of one of Africa’s greatest nations.

In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

After NATO’s intervention in 2011, Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in shambles. As the government’s control slips through their fingers and into to the militia fighters’ hands, oil production has all but stopped.

The militias variously local, tribal, regional, Islamist or criminal, that have plagued Libya since NATO’s intervention, have recently lined up into two warring factions. Libya now has two governments, both with their own Prime Minister, parliament and army.

On one side, in the West of the country, Islamist-allied militias took over control of the capital Tripoli and other cities and set up their own government, chasing away a parliament that was elected over the summer. END OF QUOTE.


And

America is clearly fed up with the two inept governments in Libya and is now backing a third force: long-time CIA asset, General Khalifa Hifter, who aims to set himself up as Libya’s new dictator. Hifter, who broke with Gaddafi in the 1980s and lived for years in Langley, Virginia, close to the CIA’s headquarters, where he was trained by the CIA, has taken part in numerous American regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to overthrow Gaddafi in 1996.

On the other side, in the East of the Country, the “legitimate” government dominated by anti-Islamist politicians, exiled 1,200 kilometers away in Tobruk, no longer governs anything.

and
Following the recent bombing of Libya, the United States has built new military bases in the Seychelles, Kenya, South Sudan, Niger and Burkina Faso.

Given that Libya sits atop the strategic intersection of the African, Middle Eastern and European worlds, Western control of the nation, has always been a remarkably effective way to project power into these three regions and beyond.

NATO’s military intervention may have been a resounding success for America’s military elite and oil companies but for the ordinary Libyan, the military campaign may indeed go down in history as one of the greatest failures of the 21st century END OF QUOTE

 

[arkirk]

Religions don't commit crimes.

Moron.

Man. You'll apologize for anything.

These wars have as their genesis the seeking of fossil fuel resources in the Middle East. Parties seeking control of oil are not above resorting to religious appeals. Also, parties seeking political power are not above using religion as a basis for their actions. That is something atheists should always oppose but in countries where there is religious hysteria, they have to be VERY CAREFUL. You may feel your icon with the masked man cutting off the head of Mickey Mouse is funny. It appears to reflect your feelings toward anybody who disagrees with you. The question I have is which one of the characters in the icon is YOU...the man or the mouse?
YOU need to lighten up, dude!

 

[TSwizzle]

You keep regurgitating the same codswallop, it's a mantra for you, Tourette like.

 

[Trausti]

Man. You'll apologize for anything.

These wars have as their genesis the seeking of fossil fuel resources in the Middle East. Parties seeking control of oil are not above resorting to religious appeals. Also, parties seeking political power are not above using religion as a basis for their actions. That is something atheists should always oppose but in countries where there is religious hysteria, they have to be VERY CAREFUL. You may feel your icon with the masked man cutting off the head of Mickey Mouse is funny. It appears to reflect your feelings toward anybody who disagrees with you. The question I have is which one of the characters in the icon is YOU...the man or the mouse?
YOU need to lighten up, dude!

So you're saying the Islamic territorial conquests, subjugation of the Coptic Christians - and later video beheading of Coptic men, enslavement of Europeans and Africans, genocide of the Yazidis, and destruction of Palmyra was all due to "seeking of fossil fuel resources"? Dude, whatever you got from your dealer, you gotta share. That's some strong shit.

 

[arkirk]

These wars have as their genesis the seeking of fossil fuel resources in the Middle East. Parties seeking control of oil are not above resorting to religious appeals. Also, parties seeking political power are not above using religion as a basis for their actions. That is something atheists should always oppose but in countries where there is religious hysteria, they have to be VERY CAREFUL. You may feel your icon with the masked man cutting off the head of Mickey Mouse is funny. It appears to reflect your feelings toward anybody who disagrees with you. The question I have is which one of the characters in the icon is YOU...the man or the mouse?
YOU need to lighten up, dude!

So you're saying the Islamic territorial conquests, subjugation of the Coptic Christians - and later video beheading of Coptic men, enslavement of Europeans and Africans, genocide of the Yazidis, and destruction of Palmyra was all due to "seeking of fossil fuel resources"? Dude, whatever you got from your dealer, you gotta share. That's some strong shit.

It is the result of the system to get all that oil falling apart in the face of sometimes bizarre combinations of local hate groups, genuine enemies, and groups with what I would regard as coo coo aims and beliefs. Some of the coo coo stuff is the result of suppression of education in these countries in order to keep them under control of their appointed dictators and the oil companies. Nobody can deny the involvement of the CIA in assassination of leaders who would redistribute oil resources and oil profits in their own country. Countries where this has clearly been the case...Iran, Iraq, Libya. These countries all had U.S. aided dictators who ran afoul of their agreements and were brutally murdered. The actual outcomes of these actions did not result in more oil or safer access to oil or any such thing. They resulted in destabilization and power vacuums and there were local people ready to step into the dictators' shoes. All of this weakness is the legacy of colonization and it does hang around long after the colonizers are gone. Also, the colonizers, with their brutal methods have given those who would take over role models and so revolutions just lead to the installation of new dictators.

 

[angelo]

Doesn't that say that Islamic countries need to be ruled by brutal dictators or Islamic organised sharia form of government?

 

[Bomb#20]

We need a step 2 because the argument as you present it is a formal logical fallacy, called a "Non sequitur". If you don't need another step between your premise and your conclusion, that means you don't need logic and are able to believe things because you want to believe them.

If all immigration to a modern western economy from anywhere by any group is financially positive then it follows that the Cuban immigration to Florida as well as the Muslim immigration to the UK will be financially positive.

So you know how to construct a syllogism. Congratulations. But "all immigration to a modern western economy from anywhere by any group is financially positive" is the point in dispute. You don't get to take it as a premise. If your argument is now

Step 1. Cubans immigrating to America have been observed to financially benefit Americans.
Step 2. All immigration to a modern western economy from anywhere by any group is financially positive.​

then that's still a non-sequitur and you're going to need a Step 1.5.

The Cuban dissidents were, on average, not well educated. These two waves immigration are comparable demographic-wise. They are equivalent. The only difference is that one group is Christian, and the other Muslim.

Bull. That's the only difference you can think of; it's not a reason to think that's the only difference. There's the rather obvious difference that the Cuban immigrants were joining a prosperous established Cuban-American subculture while the Muslim immigrants will largely be joining an underclass. There's the fact that the U.S. is better at assimilating immigrants and gives them more incentive to learn the language and get jobs. There's the circumstance that, although the two groups both had faiths drummed into them from childhood telling them the host countries are evil and exploitative and degenerate and morally owe them reparations and ought to be remade in the image of their respective faiths' respective visions of utopia, most of the Cubans were totally disillusioned with that faith and had no inclination to turn America more communist; whereas Muslims rarely blame Islam for their home countries being pestholes. And there are undoubtedly a hundred more cultural differences you and I are unaware of that the Cubans and Muslims know about.

This is special pleading.

Huh? "Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption." What standards are you claiming I applied to some and exempted others from? Or did you mislabel whatever fallacy you meant to charge me with?

Yes, special pleading. What difference does it make if the impoverished refugees are Christian vs Muslim?

That does not tell us what standards you are claiming I applied to some and exempted others from. You charged me with special pleading; back it up. And you made a hasty generalization from Cubans to "any group"; you don't get to justify that by reversing burden of proof. Why should we believe immigration is always a financial positive?

For that matter, what does it even mean to say immigration is a financial positive? Positive for whom? If it enriches rich capitalists more than it impoverishes unemployed poor people, or if it grows the economy at the same time it increases crime and crime isn't taken into account in calculating financial benefit, then it will be called a financial positive; but that doesn't mean it's good policy.

Economy and technology comes first. Culture adapts around those two.

...if you give a Muslim the opportunity to learn math and science and metal shop it's not going to turn her into an aircraft mechanic if her brother beats her up for acting too Western whenever she shows any inclination to grow up to be something other than a baby factory.

Ehe.... I think you're not aware of what goes on in poor countries. This is not a Muslim thing. This is a poverty thing. Extreme social control of women is endemic in any impoverished society or community. If you take a family like that and place them in a western country, it takes a generation to die. The children raised in the western country will probably not share those values. It dies quickly. And it's got nothing to do with any superior "western values". It's just a poverty thing. When we in the west were poor, ie 100 - 150 years ago, we had the exact same situation regarding social control of our women. We didn't commit honour killings. But we would shun our women and cut them off from the family. Which is as good as killing them, considering how the society looked like then. This tradition vanished as people got wealthier. There is a ca 50 year gap between wealth and when this effect is reached.

Suppose you're right. Suppose all the behavioral problems Europeans are letting yourselves in for are because the migrants are poor rather than because they're Muslim. So what? You're still letting your society in for massive behavioral problems, for the next (however long it takes the Muslims to stop being an impoverished underclass) plus (ca fifty years). It's still not in the best interests of your proles to take in so many. Or of your gays. But taking them in might be in the best interests of the heterosexual portion of your ruling elite.

Here's the Wikipedia article on the Cuban flash immigration of 1980. The studies are linked from the article, if you're interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

What's Step 2?

I think you've failed in arguing why we need a step 2. The immigration waves are comparable in every way that matters. I think you've made some hand-waving regarding Muslim culture that I fail to see how it applies?

Oh for the love of god. Your argument and "1. Steal underpants. 2. ? 3. Profit." are comparable in every way. You don't need me to tell you why you need a step 2; you need to pick up a book on basic logic. If the immigration waves are comparable in every way that matters, where are the riots in Miami by angry Cuban-Americans?

Ok, fine. How do you justify a resistance to Muslim immigration to the west then? If there are no rational arguments against it, it only leaves the irrational. And that's phobia.

What rational arguments for it are there, Mr. "Why would you even need a step 2?"?

As for arguments against, you are surrounding your cities with ghettos packed with angry hopeless poor people who believe non-Muslims have a moral obligation to obey Muslim religious rules. Non-Muslims who live in these ghettos have a powerful and entirely rational incentive to move out if they can afford to. That leaves the poorest of the poor behind. Those people will not be numerous enough or influential enough to safely resist if their Muslim neighbors start treating them as dhimmis; and those ghettos usually contain preachers telling their flocks that Christians should be treated as dhimmis. More Muslim immigration will result in enlarging those ghettos and/or creating new ones. Enlarging those ghettos is not in the best interests of non-Muslims living on their peripheries and too poor to retreat when they enlarge.

I can't follow you. If somebody says they're against Muslim immigration because they're worried we'll get Sharia courts in Europe then it's an irrational fear.

Telling somebody he's irrational is not going to make him believe you when you tell him something highly counterintuitive to him, such as that importing more of a high-violence demographic into his community is in his best interests. When you decide that his failure to accept you as an authority on his interests means he's a racist, he's not the one being irrational.

In any event, you appear to be equivocating between "Sharia" and "Sharia courts". Once a neighborhood has gone 90% Muslim and non-criminals are more intimidated by the local street gang than criminals are by the threat of prosecution, when the local street gang starts imposing sharia-like rules in order to feel righteous about its power, and collecting jizya from non-Muslims, and beating up the non-compliant, the circumstance that there won't actually be any Sharia court holding judicial proceedings, just Islamist thugs dispensing justice on the spot as they see fit, will not retroactively make a local inhabitant's fear of sharia irrational. The court is an irrelevance; the enforcement is what matters.

We can analyse how likely that is to happen. Which is zero percent likelihood.

"How likely it is to happen"? You say that like this is a hypothetical about the future. People in European ghettos have already been forced to pay for being Christian.

At least without being invaded by Azerbaijan or Indonesia. Then we can put it in the box labelled "xenophobia". And go through all objections in that manner one by one. If all objections are in the xenophobia box then it can be dismissed as an irrational fear of the different, ie racism/Islamophobia.

No. That's just you being a Christian-like bigot again. You simply do not have any logical justification for using an inference rule of the form "I've convinced myself that your reasons don't make sense. Therefore they aren't your real reasons. Therefore your real reasons are whatever the hell I want to believe they are."

... You'll always call them racists, evidence or no, because you have a psychological need to believe that about them, won't you? Thomas Sowell had it exactly right: "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy".

So decide which R-word you want to use. If you call anyone a racist again without direct proof, that will constitute an admission that there's no point in anyone else treating you as a person who can be reasoned with. You want to be a religious fanatic, that's your option.

Are you trying to derail this discussion because you know you have no arguments? It's the impression I'm getting from this last bit.

Derail it? Where the hell are you getting that? I just made a frontal assault on your primary argument against the "Europe submits voluntarily" thesis: your insistence that anybody who doesn't take your word for it when you tell him there's no danger is a racist.

If you're inferring that I have no arguments because I'm not addressing some other argument of yours, why would I waste my time dealing with your secondary argument or your tertiary argument when you're going to go right on being convinced by your primary argument? First abandon your conviction that you can prove the superiority of your policy preferences by making ad hominem attacks on the motives of infidels; then we can move on to any better arguments you might have.