I completely disagree. Well, not on cultural decline but let's not make this discussion that wide, because that includes many other things, many of whom I am in agreement with with the general stance here on the forum.

But the polarization that is discussed here is not correct. We are not at war with Islam. I don't know where you are based, but I am sure you are not living in Western Europe in cities similar to Paris. I grew up there, in fact as one of the few white guys in a dominantly Islamic neighborhood, which you can compare to a light version of the french banlieus (ghettos sort of). The average guy in these areas is not radicalizing. In fact they are second or third generation immigrants, many of whom are in conflict with themselves with the balance between islam and western values and many of whom are choosing more for the western side. They have many problems, some of which I mentioned in the other thread on Paris, but if you think these guys are choosing the radical islamic side you are wrong, they are not. They are not as islamic as there parents were. And if you think you fight radicalism with another form of radicalism you are wrong again.

If you wish to set aside liberal values to win the war, for what society are you fighting the war then? If you do not represent this difference yourself, then why are you attacking the other party? You became them. It is also a very wrong simplification to see this as a war vs Islam. There are many factions. Iran is attacking IS, Turkey is, Lebanon is, they are all muslims which are fighting on our side. We are fighting a bunch of extremists, nothing more than that. Should we defeat them as soon as possible with a strong coordinated military effort? Sure we do. But should we start viewing every muslim as a problem, kill families of terrorists in villages, use filthy war techniques prohibited by international law, dehumanize every single refugee that comes to Europe, ... Off course not. And if the cost for that is a couple hundred deaths per year in our countries, so be it. We will have those in any case.

Get women out of the voting booth. The only way to resolve this issue is to stop liberalism. Maybe 30 to 40% of the lower level men are liberal because they can't make it on their own or are jealous of the men who do make it big. But when you allow women to vote, liberalism becomes the majority.

The cause of all this is liberal policies...

Feminism - taking women out of the home and putting them in the office, so they don't have kids and you are forced to immigrate just to pay for your failed liberal policies.

Social Safety Nets - can only be afforded with a growing population, which doesn't grow without immigrating and replacing your natural population over time.

Get women out of the voting booth, then liberalism disappears, and nature fixes itself.

Quote: (11-14-2015 05:10 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

Quote: (11-14-2015 05:04 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

Quote: (11-14-2015 04:55 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

This forum is great but treads like this are just filled with garbage to be honest. Ethnic cleansing, executing all refugees, using nuclear weapons on villages, deport all muslims (where would you deport them to, most are born in Europe, many have no other nationalities,...).

I can appreciate a harder stance on difficult subjects and respect varying opinions, but retarded stuff like this does not belong here in my opinion. This is what I expect to see on a neonazi forum, not on RooshV.

We can debate about closing borders, about the nature of islam, about anti terror measurements, but in a rational intelligent way preferably.

The Islamists love reasonable white Westerners. In fact, they depend on that in order to continue these atrocities.

While I don't disagree with you, I'll say this:

No one on their side right now is saying "Guys, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater, they're not all bad".

I don't care how savage and unreasonable they are. They are our enemy because the way they are different. Acting the same as them does not make any sense. The west is the civilized side in this and that is a good thing.

We're not acting the same, nor should we, for the reason you stated.

That does not mean that we should continue on this path of cultural suicide because we don't want to be seen as 'bad'. That does not mean we should sit and sing songs about tolerance and be 'civilized' while western blood stains the streets.

It is inherent in Islam that we non muslims are the mortal enemy- which is something that they have decided without our aggression. We can be civilized and make every effort not to be like them, and they will continue seeking to behead you.

We are tired of the yeah but's.

Moderate Muslims:
"Yes this was a tragedy but... "
"Yes there are some extremists but..."
"Yes the Wahabbists are extreme but..."

It is not enough for moderate Muslims to disagree with extremists. They must cast them out and lead the fight against them. Otherwise to the rest of us it will appear that they maybe even just a little bit they like the idea of having psychos that will act out in response to any minor offense. An implied threat. The crazy guy on their team you don't want to mess with.

Quote: (11-14-2015 07:35 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

If you wish to set aside liberal values to win the war, for what society are you fighting the war then?

Fighting for god damn basic survival as a people and society, thats what.

And it's liberal values that cause this war, setting them aside would help end the problems quicker.

Quote: (11-14-2015 07:35 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

And if the cost for that is a couple hundred deaths per year in our countries, so be it. We will have those in any case.

That part is just plain shameful, disgusting crap. I feel for your countrymen when people like you are in their midst

Quote: (11-14-2015 07:54 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

Quote: (11-14-2015 07:35 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

If you wish to set aside liberal values to win the war, for what society are you fighting the war then?

Fighting for god damn basic survival as a people and society, thats what.

And it's liberal values that cause this war, setting them aside would help end the problems quicker.

Quote: (11-14-2015 07:35 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

And if the cost for that is a couple hundred deaths per year in our countries, so be it. We will have those in any case.

That part is just plain shameful, disgusting crap. I feel for your countrymen when people like you are in their midst

This quote says it all.

Would you be a friend with someone who said so? Would you trust them with your life?

Quote:Quote:

If you wish to set aside liberal values to win the war, for what society are you fighting the war then?

It may surprise you but a significant minority of people on this board are not cosmopolitan liberals.
I personally am 'fighting' for the society that existed in (most of) Europe prior to WW1 - nationalistic, conservative, not particularly tolerant, devoid of feminized leftism.

Quote:Quote:

And if the cost for that is a couple hundred deaths per year in our countries, so be it.

So I am supposed to accept 'a couple of hunderd deaths' per year just because your ideology says so? No, thank you.

And if you honestly believe that this is the only downside from the invasion then you are clearly deluded.
Only in terms of pick-up, the presence of these people and the demographic changes they bring in the medium-to-long term are so severely bad that they are reason enough for using the measures you described as 'barbaric' to deal with them.

Quote: (11-14-2015 07:54 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

Quote: (11-14-2015 07:35 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

If you wish to set aside liberal values to win the war, for what society are you fighting the war then?

Fighting for god damn basic survival as a people and society, thats what.

And it's liberal values that cause this war, setting them aside would help end the problems quicker.

Quote: (11-14-2015 07:35 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

And if the cost for that is a couple hundred deaths per year in our countries, so be it. We will have those in any case.

That part is just plain shameful, disgusting crap. I feel for your countrymen when people like you are in their midst

I almost vomited at that statement. But it perfectly characterizes what I think will happen...France will do nothing and continue their decline. Accept the deaths to keep a semblance of peace.

Freedom of expression should ideally have no limit whatsoever. As much as people get butthurt about it, governments need radicals to constantly test and discover the limits of free speech. If a precedent is found otherwise, we do not have free speech. We owe Charlie Hebdo a huge gratitude.

What happened after the Charlie Hebdo shooting? What was the media response?

"Oh... well, it is technically freedom of expression to write cartoons of Muhammad, but you shouldn't have done that."

De jure (by the law) limitations on free speech are mostly reasonable. You should not shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

What we have today are de-facto blasphemy laws in favor of Islam. That's right kids, Islam has real and unspoken power in our society. Through accusations of intolerance and "islamophobia", they will own us. If you criticize, you are a thought criminal.

You might call it a slippery slope but that's the first step to Sharia law. Unconsciously accepting minor tenets of Islam.

It's clear that religious extremists are threatened by our core Western values. The values that we have founded nations on. If we censor ourselves (I'm looking at you, Facebook), they have won.

As for what we should do against extremists, we have to secure our homelands first.

We have to polarize the peaceful Muslims against them with mind games. Basically go door to door, get it in writing that these so-called "moderate" Muslims are opposed to every and all tenet of extremism and even some tenets of Islam at the threat of death, and then carpet-bomb the Middle East with Islamic proclamations anti-extremist progpaganda of allegiance with the West and how great we are. We can't win this war with bullets, we have to own their thoughts. That's how the Communists fucked with the POWs and that's how we should change the very ways that they view themselves. Moderate muslims owe us a huge debt for letting them in to our countries, it's time for them to ally with us and demonstrate that they want to be Westernized.

Quote: (11-14-2015 07:35 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

If you wish to set aside liberal values to win the war, for what society are you fighting the war then?

You believe that liberalism is what makes a society great. I think you're wrong, but we're entitled to our own beliefs.

Quote: (11-14-2015 07:35 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

And if the cost for that is a couple hundred deaths per year in our countries, so be it. We will have those in any case.

The difference here is the 200 people you are speaking of are innocent civilians being randomly slaughtered in public and in cold-blood.

And if something isn't done to stop it, it won't be just 200/year.

I'm not saying "kill all the muslims", but obviously something needs to be done about the fact there are likely hundreds of terrorists in these muslim communities, just waiting. And the one's who aren't will be once you take away their entitlements.

Quote: (11-14-2015 07:29 PM)uptownguy Wrote:  

1. No more immigration from Muslim countries

2. Deport everyone from Muslim countries who isn't a citizen

3. Regular home raids of anyone on your watch lists

I hear on TV that the French need 25 people per suspected terrorist to follow them 24/7. Rather than try to follow them around and record them everywhere which requires 25 people, just storm their fucking home on a regular basis.

There are Muslim enclaves in both Sweden and France, that the police are scared to enter, in these regions Sharia law rules, not the rule of the police. Time to change this IMHO, ...a tougher line needed, deport these people to Sudan , or like Australia does, deport them to a remote island that includes the refugees, and leave them there for three years before sending them back to the place they came from, ..they will think twice before seeking refugee status again. We are to soft in the west, and the battle is already won by Islam, un less tough drastic steps are taken.

Rotten apple...
Again I understand some of what you say - it is disappointing that we will have to abandon some of our freedoms and commit to,what most would think, are barbaric acts to preserve our way of life.
I'm from Australia, not Europe, we're probably 10 years or more from the point France is now.
I agree - not all Muslims are extremists,many do Westernize. Many do not.
The problem is the surveyed attitudes of the Muslims living in the West. Too many of them hold extreme views on the acceptability of things like suicide bombings/attacks, death for apostasy, acceptance of sharia laws over laws of the land,etc.
There truly are a lot of Muslims who hold barbaric&very backward ideas. These many hundreds of thousands are susceptible to extremist indoctrination - which they are getting plenty of in mosques in our cities&towns.
The extremists are also given cover within the Muslim community. There is suspicion of the security services amongst Muslims which makes the cells hard to penetrate with traditional policing.
The terrorists are not to be underestimated - they know what they're doing. Events like we have just seen feed into the cycle of mutual mistrust/separation between the general population and the Muslim minority.
The war began long ago - people like you just haven't realised it yet.
You are ok with a "couple of hundred deaths" by the actions of terror cells per year? How many would be too many in your estimation? When does the death toll per year get too high even for you?

What I meant with that statement is that we will have those deaths anyway. You think if you hit them hard and filthy there wont be others to rise up and attack you, the family of those you killed for instance. The whole shitstorm started pretty much with intervening where we should've stayed out. And yeah I don't think a couple of hundred deaths are justification enough to install anti privacy laws, start deporting all muslims and other extreme unhumane measures proposed here.

What I do agree on is that the moderate muslims must take a much stronger stance and also signal when extremist are within their midst. They as a group are failing in doing this at the moment. The exact reasons behind it are various.

'That does not mean that we should continue on this path of cultural suicide because we don't want to be seen as 'bad'. That does not mean we should sit and sing songs about tolerance and be 'civilized' while western blood stains the streets.'

I agree, that's why we should hit them hard, them being extremists within our countries and in Syria/Irak etc. As well as the funding from SA, Qatar, Pakistan and the ideology they have through the schools (madrassas) etc. But we should not target every muslim just because he is muslim or every refugee because he comes from those countries.

'It is inherent in Islam that we non muslims are the mortal enemy- which is something that they have decided without our aggression. We can be civilized and make every effort not to be like them, and they will continue seeking to behead you.'

I'm not sure if that's true, I'm no expert on the Koran, but I know off course that there are things in the Koran which do not stroke with western values. Therefore I am against religious funding etc. But not every muslim accepts everything in the koran. Again Soennis, sjiets, suffis, etc. moderates, ... they all have their interpretations and not all are problematic.

Once again, my problem is not with a hard approach against any form of extremism. I am in favor of that. My problem lies with the generalizations made here and thinking it is ok to do some of the actions proposed before hand (nuke them, deport all, ethnic cleansing, etc.).

Quote: (11-14-2015 01:26 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

What realistic steps could the EU take to protect itself from Islamic extremism?

The question is moot. The EU does not want to protect itself from Islamic extremism. Full stop. The EU is doing everything it can to import Islamic extremism directly into the heart of Europe. When that changes, then we can have this conversation.

Until then, I think the conversation should be focused on what Europeans can do to protect themselves and their families. Secondarily, effective measures of civil disobedience and what they can do to sway politics towards nationalism.

The EU leaders may not want to protect and buffer itself from Islamic extremism but I'd imagine the everyday EU plumber is beyond fed up. The EU is an idea just as Islam is. Islam has proven to be stronger than the EU. However, when the individual countries have to go back to the locker room at half time and take inventory, they will become stronger. They will look in the mirror and realize sacrificing for the "common good" by encouraging tolerance, openness, and goodwill while their family members get slaughtered by the very people they are upholding the prior ideals to include in their country. That inventory will be very painful.

Why do I believe this? EU women will now be scared shitless of the migrants. As we well know in this corner of the internet, as the women go, so go the men. Women value security over an idea hence why they will date drug dealers, bad boys, etc because they know these guys will protect them. The idea of the EU and liberalism was able to last as long as it did because you had some very fine people living up to high values and decorum. That idea was shattered yesterday and so was the EU's white women demographic idea of security. We all know its innate in women to seek security over everything else and additionally, the society will go to great lengths to shelter those women when they feel threatened. It may take a while and more attacks but the subconscious has changed and no amount of liberal idealism can reverse that anytime soon. The hounds will be unleashed.

Whether or not the male population of the EU is willing to provide that protection is up for debate. For what its worth, I believe they will.

Has anyone tried reaching out to Little Dark?

A bit more on topic, what realistic steps can be taken then:

-controlled (within the capacity of the countries culture to absorb outsiders) and spread out immigration, both between and within countries to prevent ghetto forming. This goes along with very strong outside EU borders.
-effective integration policies for those who are allowed in and anti seclusion measurements
-stop all religious funding
-go hard against the illegal weapon circuits
-fix the justice and prison system with something where the people coming out are not worse then when they got in
-stop intervention policy in places where you have nothing to gain or if you do get involved, do it through support of the moderate groups who are closer to us in ideology, fi in this case the kurds. This has to be well thought out off course.
-international action against extremist funding from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries. Go after the money.
-deradicalization programs and prevention measurements, street social workers, etc.
-strong monitoring of mosques and high risk places
-taking away all citizen rights of people who go to fight in the middle east

One of the best solutions I heard was rather than dropping bombs on the middle east, drop booze, drugs and porn and watch the place self combust.

rottenapple - these "solutions" you've listed are what Western governments have/are trying right now. They do not work.
The problem IS Islam.
The only solution is a Final Solution.
No one said the Red Pill tastes good did they? If so - you were misinformed.

Send all arabs, afghans and muslim africains etc back home.
Secure the border.

PETER HITCHENS: Really want to beat terror? Then calm down and THINK

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2...think.html

Quote:Quote:

"...Let us not forget that Islamist terror has grown in strength and reach, not diminished, since we embarked on our supposedly benevolent interventions in the Muslim world. The Iraq invasion, the Afghan intervention, the wild and brainless enthusiasm with which we greeted the disastrous ‘Arab Spring’, the supposedly humanitarian interference in Libya which turned it into a failed state, the aid and comfort we gave to the rebellion in Syria. Not only have these things failed to prevent terror. They have visited a violent chaos on the whole Muslim world, in which fanatical and grisly death cults thrive and prosper.

And alongside them, there is the enormous migration of desperate young men, from Africa, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, many of them Muslim, some of them no doubt easy recruits for the fanatics.

We pretend to understand these nebulous and varied terror groups, for years placing them under the all-embracing trademark of ‘Al Qaeda’, now insisting they are part of a new and greater menace called ‘ISIS’. The truth is there is no mastermind sitting in a cave issuing orders (though of course someone is always willing to claim responsibility for these outrages after they have happened – and who can be sure if such claims are true?).

That is a James Bond fantasy. And it is also why these things would still be hard to prevent if we turned ourselves into a totalitarian state of surveillance, identity cards, perpetual searches of the innocent – like going through an airport, only all the time.

They don’t work by our rules. They can stay off, or below, our grid. They don’t mind if they die. They will get through.

All we will achieve by adopting such methods is to make ourselves miserable without making ourselves safe.

Our task is now first to mourn with our French friends and allies. And after that, to think rather than to shout. Rhetoric and militancy have not done very much for us in the past. Why should it be different this time?"

Quote: (11-15-2015 12:45 AM)captndonk Wrote:  

Send all arabs, afghans and muslim africains etc back home.
Secure the border.

But what about the children?

I haven't met a single Muslim, and I have met many living in a city with over a 100,000 of them, that I do not believe has a stronger allegiance to Islam than the UK.

That there is the problem.

Their loyalty can and never will be to their countries as long as Islam exists. Whattaboutism reigns supreme.

I just cannot see any conclusion to this problem other than blood on the streets. It's a case of when, not if now, sadly.

Quote: (11-15-2015 04:41 AM)eradicator Wrote:  

Quote: (11-15-2015 12:45 AM)captndonk Wrote:  

Send all arabs, afghans and muslim africains etc back home.
Secure the border.

But what about the children?

Or rather, what about the women? French North African girls are among my favourite vices in life, I'd hate to lose them. If we're taking radical measures and sending immigrants away, let's at least keep the (attractive) women. They'll become war brides anyway.

If I were made leader of a European country tomorrow, this is what I'd do:

1) Have a referendum with an innocuous sounding title: "Should we discourage Islamic extremism?" "Should we protect the rights of women?"

2) Once it passes, I would close the borders and make asylum or citizenship, welfare and subsidized housing payments all conditional on taking a "survey". The survey would include questions like "Was ISIS justified in it's response to the western meddling in Syria?" "Do you think women who hold a man's hand in public should be stoned?" The kind of questions that only extremist Muslims would agree with. A signature would be required at the end under a line that said "Do you swear to Allah, or whoever your god is, that your answers are 100% honest, that you are not being deceptive under al-taqiyya?"

3) I would institute a new policy of media oversight and require media outlets to maintain a government provided license. This would be under the guise of encouraging journalistic integrity and preventing the encroachment of corporate interests. Anyone who encouraged Islamic extremism or discouraged the prevention of terrorism would have their licenses revoked. Operating as a media outlet (which would be broadly defined) without a license would be punishable with jail time. Foreign NGOs would be outlawed.

4) It would be announced that we can no longer tolerate terrorism/female enslavement. It would be stated that Islam extremism is not compatible with a democratic value system. Islam would be equated with fascism (Islamofascism), despotism and antisemitism, and that it must be stopped in order to prevent the next Hitler, remembering the lessons of WW2. This would pre-emptively cut off the arguments of "Oh this policy is too right wing! What about Hitler?"

5) People who scored high on the survey would be sent away to a "safe city" (really just an open air prison) to be "rehabilitated" in order to help "assimilate" them into European culture, and to prevent them from harming women and children. The food would be bland and the place would be generally boring. They would be free to leave to other countries, and a one way ticket outside of the country would be covered free of charge. Reentry would not be permitted. In order to help pay for the construction of these cities, the housing, food, and exit flights, I would consider seizure of assets for people determined to be "extremist" and call it a "housing fee" or something benign sounding like that.

6) When the Muslim enclaves start rioting over the lack of welfare and being sent away, a state of emergency would be called to protect women and children. The military would attempt to control the situation and arrest the agitators as much as possible. This would be used as proof that the people living there are violent and incompatible with the idea of a free and safe society. It would be determined that due to the damage to their area based on the fires and rioting, it would not be fit for human habitation and that they must be relocated to the safe city for health reasons.

7) When other countries start bleeting that "oh this isn't fair", we would state that these people are not prisoners and are free to leave whenever they want. We would encourage the countries that are bitching that "If you truly feel that way, you are welcome to take them in as guests in your country". If there was international pressure against the measures, I would hold up the results of the referendum and state "We are protecting our women and children with these policies. We live in a free and just society, and these measures are the result of a democratic mandate. Anyone who objects to our efforts to protect our people does not respect democracy and must be condemned as a tyrant."

8) Repeat steps 2-7 with increasingly restrictive surveys until all but the most assimilable Muslims have decided to leave for greener pastures.

thoughtgypsy President !