billy07 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:English Defence League: an Islamiphobic group? Not sure, but they're being investigated, and from their website, they seem pretty right-wing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8250017.stm"they breed hate and fear. enough is enough!!"
It certainly is enough, but what do you suggest is the best plan of action?
... I'd be wary of anybody who advocates fighting extremism with extremism.
i realise you have problems reading and sometimes see things that aren't written.
where did i advocate fighting extremism with extremism? maybe you thought me mentioning the EDL was me praising their formation? no, it's just an example of the effects of muslim extremism.
I haven't at all said that's what you're advocating. You mentioned a group that seems to be engaged in what I'm warning about, that's all.
billy07 wrote:i suggest we give al qaeda exactly what they want! all westerners get out of every islamic state. leave them to it. if any westerners want to stay they can convert to islam.
Well, what exactly do you mean by "Islamic states," sir? That term means something else other than what you seem to be suggesting, so I'm assuming you mean "every predominantly Muslim state."
Now let's assume somehow the West pulls out all the westerners from those countries. What would happen? No more intelligence personnel. No more political personnel. No more businesses there. Therefore, by doing what you suggest we'd gouge out our eyes, cut off our tongues, and blow out our brains via economic suicide. Wouldn't that be a bit detrimental to the West? And, it wouldn't accomplish much as far as terrorism is concerned. By eliminating investment in these foreign countries, they'd be hit by much instability, thus making easier for any extremist group to overthrow the government and take control. Sounds like blowback at the worst degree. Besides, what you suggest would be impossible to do given our current governments and their economic policies. We'd still have to buy oil, and we'd still want to export goods to them, and we'd still want to maintain dialogue with those countries' leaders while keeping a close eye on them. If you set up shop there, you're going to need westerners there anyway.
Pulling out the westerners from these countries would hurt us much more than it would hurt the terrorists we're dealing with. It would be almost as similar as China or the United States placing an embargo on each other--mutually assured economic destruction.
we urge islamic states to control their own citizens, if they can't and terroism continues we stop all travel in and out for islamic citizens....
It's physically impossible for any state to control all of their citizens--domestic and abroad.
Restricting immigration in such a manner wouldn't solve the problem of terrorism, but instead it would cause three problems.
1) It would cause an immense amount of distrust from Muslims towards their host countries which in turn would fuel discontent and hate. That would make the problem much worse. The Western world can't afford more anti-Western sentiment, especially from its own citizens and residents within its own borders. Besides, many Muslims have lived in these countries for a long time, and a good number are citizens as well, so to do something of this nature is discriminatory and not at all democratic; it's not at all in line with the principles and ideals . It sounds very similar to what the United States did to the Japanese in the 1940s. It didn't make much sense, and it was fueled mainly by suspicion brought on by a lack of understanding of one's real enemy. The main difference between this comparison is that US's plan had much less negative consequences than what the the Western world would face if it were to follow your plan.
2) To do such a thing would be economically troublesome since many Western countries' economies demand for labor is mainly met by the influx of foreign immigrants, many of whom are Muslim.
3) Immigration of foreign populations has an immense benefit since it gives the host country's population the opportunity to come to a more profound and educated understanding of other peoples. By working alongside and living alongside the foreigners, one sees the differences but later realizes the similarities between "us and them." This understanding is necessary in overcoming distrust and fear of the unknown. By severely restricting immigration, you deprive a country's people to better understand foreigners and the minorities that are already residing there.
Such an immigration policy that you suggest would be unnecessary punishment which wouldn't solve the problem of terrorism but only aid in its increase, cause economic problems, and deprive the local populations from the opportunity to better understand and accept the "foreigner."
any extremism (not terrorism) shown by muslims residing in western countries should be rewarded with immediate repatriation, with the loss of all assets.
Whoa, ho-ho, billy! Any extremism shown by muslims but not any other religious denomination, huh? Are you showing your true colors again?
The current laws are fine enough. There's no need to crack down on any extreme or fundamental religion as long as they aren't advocating or funding terrorism. Loss of religious freedom is a step backwards for any democratic country, and a step towards an authoritarian one. Proper investigation, enforcement, and punishment is fine how it is--perhaps a bit too extreme for my liking in the US regarding the US Patriot Act. In the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
i realise liberals would complain about the human rights of these people but it's a small price to pay to avoid the murder of innocent men, women and children.
Actually, liberals, conservatives, and moderates would not only complain but outright demand that your policies not take place. The only groups I imagine jumping on your bandwagon are the ideologically extreme ones (far-right, far-left, neo-conservative, and the just plain out there). What you're advocating is an extreme solution that would only inflame the situation and get more innocent men, women, and children killed. In order to put in place such extreme policies, it would require a very authoritarian government to coerce the majority into accepting its policies. How authoritarian of a government must it be? I'm going to leave that answer to the reader's imagination...
In a nutshell: The enemy is NOT the Muslims. It's the terrorist ideology, the terrorist mindset. Islam is something they exploit to meet their demands, not the other way around. What should be countered and stopped are the sources of money funding such extreme thought and the source that makes their ideals attractive.
The questions that should be asked and be considered reasonably and answered honestly are:
1) Why are these terrorists' ideals so attractive? How can they garner so much support?
2) To what degree are all involved countries (Western, Muslim, and other) responsible for this and what can they do to stop it?
There's many more, but I'm tired, and I'll try my best to answer PhatScotty's question later.
Come on you wanker grow some balls and say what you really feel, all ragheads are ignorant scum yes, we all know thats what you mean so have the guts to say so you racist lump of shit.
a country doesn't need to have citizens abroad in order to trade and shit.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
