• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

islam

You guys act like there is someone on the boards that reacts to Islam like Elkin reacts to gun violence, if this poster equivalent exists I'd like to know so they too can be equally mocked. Instead I think you are fighting against someone that is all in your head. Probably closes person is MDMH but he is just uber PC about everything but even he would admit radical Islamics are a problem.
 
Deacon923 said:
These murderous fanatics really suck. Prayers to France, I'm sure people there must be living with a lot of stress and fear right now.

Radical Islam is a real bitch. I don't think anybody has the answer on how to address this problem. It's really, really hard for political leaders to find the right line to walk between cracking down on and keeping out the bad guys, while simultaneously respecting Western democratic ideals and maintaining good relationships with the overwhelming majority of non-murderous-asshole Muslims. Muslims, not Christians and high-minded Western atheist humanists, are the key to eventually stopping this. There is no way for any unilateral Western action to stop these attacks without the cooperation of Muslim communities and majority-Muslim states. "Admitting there is a problem" is a good reliable free-throw point-scorer on the ol' message boards, but solving the problem is not nearly as easy.
Click to expand...

Admitting there is a problem involves admitting that admitting them is the problem. Loads and loads of unchecked immigration in Europe is the problem. Fortunately, our unchecked immigration involves mostly Mexicans and other hispanics, otherwise we'd be fucked by more attacks too. Now we could get into a discussion of how the west has by and large created the problem with wars, a history of colonialism (Europe), etc, but that's really just deflecting from the issue. The question is how do you address the element of jihadism that is supported by a scary high percentage of Muslims in the middle east? Apart from killing the fuck out of them or welcoming them with open arms from their war torn countries, it would seem that there are two options in the middle. One is Trump's proposal to suspend immigration and the other would be to vet them thoroughly and have them monitored by an undermanned FBI if we think they're bad. It is worth noting that one of the attackers today in Normandy apparently was out on bail for terrorism-related offenses. WTF!
 
I think the contrast comes not in the admitting there's a problem but how to deal with the problem. The real problem is there is no good way to deal with the problem so no sound policy can be made. Most options exacerbated an already sensitive situation. Islamic terrorists want nothing more than to goad people into a great holy war on Islam, so general statements about Islam do nothing but flame that fire, same with generalize bans. There needs to be a targeted approach but what that approach is escapes me an appears to escape those that are in charge of these decisions as well.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
Click to expand...

post-19715-Brent-Rambo-gif-thumbs-up-imgu-L3yP.gif
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Admitting there is a problem involves admitting that admitting them is the problem. Loads and loads of unchecked immigration in Europe is the problem. Fortunately, our unchecked immigration involves mostly Mexicans and other hispanics, otherwise we'd be fucked by more attacks too. Now we could get into a discussion of how the west has by and large created the problem with wars, a history of colonialism (Europe), etc, but that's really just deflecting from the issue. The question is how do you address the element of jihadism that is supported by a scary high percentage of Muslims in the middle east? Apart from killing the fuck out of them or welcoming them with open arms from their war torn countries, it would seem that there are two options in the middle. One is Trump's proposal to suspend immigration and the other would be to vet them thoroughly and have them monitored by an undermanned FBI if we think they're bad. It is worth noting that one of the attackers today in Normandy apparently was out on bail for terrorism-related offenses. WTF!
Click to expand...

ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
I think the contrast comes not in the admitting there's a problem but how to deal with the problem. The real problem is there is no good way to deal with the problem so no sound policy can be made. Most options exacerbated an already sensitive situation. Islamic terrorists want nothing more than to goad people into a great holy war on Islam, so general statements about Islam do nothing but flame that fire, same with generalize bans. There needs to be a targeted approach but what that approach is escapes me an appears to escape those that are in charge of these decisions as well.
Click to expand...

I think the only practical solution is beefing up the internal security apparatus, whether that's the FBI here or whatever their European equivalents are. ELC is right that the Euros are in a bad position because they have large immigrant Muslim populations who are citizens, and are easy targets for radicalization. Limiting admission to new travelers is, at best, a band-aid.

As the Cato article I posted yesterday pointed out, "immigration" is just the tip of the iceberg. If you are going to keep out all the bad people, you can't just limit "immigration" from the mideast which is already pretty small. You have to deal with millions of business travelers, tourists, and students. As we all know the 9/11 attackers were not "immigrants" or refugees, they were here on visas. Anybody can come to America on a 90-day tourist visa, buy an old truck, and recreate the Nice massacre at will. A whole bunch of countries, including France and Belgium, don't even need visas to travel to the US. If you want to talk about protecting America from evil foreign visitors, you have to face the reality that this means either (a) a massive expansion of government to scrutinize 180,000,000 visitors every year, or (b) vastly curtailing the ability of foreigners to travel here because we just don't have the ability to scrutinize them - with the concomitant negative impacts on diplomacy, tourism, and business.

It's not easy, folks.
 
Last edited:
Knight said:
I'd like to see a policy where we kill the fuck out of some of them, but then welcome others in with open arms.

You'd think that the problem with that would be choosing who gets killed and who gets welcomed, and you'd probably be right. But hey, those lines are already getting blurred like woah, so what more harm can we do?
Click to expand...

Like Trump said about torturing people: “Even if it doesn’t work they probably deserved it anyway.”

Can't argue with that logic.

Hey, also, he's got another good way to deal with terrorists...kill their families: “And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”
 
You know he got that from the Russians who are well known for those tactics. They unsurprisingly work in the short term, radicalize communities in the long term. human rights, decency, and law aside it has the potential to curb actions.
 
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/world/article91775307.html

So I need some clarification on how to handle this attack in Japan. Should we:
1) Mourn those that died in a senseless attack;
2) Try to score points by stating this was a mass-killing that does not involve radical islam;
3) Try to score points by suggesting that it wasn't an Amish person who committed this atrocity;
4) Try to score points by sating that gun control measures wouldn't have prevented this; or
5) Wait for somebody else to mention one of the above and then criticize them for politicizing the tragedy.

Any ideas?
 
DeaconSig said:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/world/article91775307.html

So I need some clarification on how to handle this attack in Japan. Should we:
1) Mourn those that died in a senseless attack;
2) Try to score points by stating this was a mass-killing that does not involve radical islam;
3) Try to score points by suggesting that it wasn't an Amish person who committed this atrocity;
4) Try to score points by sating that gun control measures wouldn't have prevented this; or
5) Wait for somebody else to mention one of the above and then criticize them for politicizing the tragedy.

Any ideas?
Click to expand...

6) Deny that there was an attack; hope problem goes away on its own.
 
Knight said:
War is an ugly thing, Doofus. You haven't had to taste it - a lot of us haven't.

Keep in mind that Obama's administration does this on the regular with drone strikes. Just because what Trump is saying is horrible to hear, doesn't make it less true.

Look at it this way, if I came to your house and killed your father in front of you - and you KNEW that I would suffer zero recourse, what would you do?

You either kill all of them, or none of them. I'm of the opinion that killing none of them is the best option, but our policies over the last 16 years might have painted ourselves into a corner where that's not possible.
Click to expand...

This is just not true.
 
The population in Syria has grown 7 fold since the 50s. Think about the strain that puts on society and the environment, especially when the population faces a historic drought (as Syria did). This man has three wives and 20 children and expects Denmark to pay for them.
http://archive.is/JMlLZ
 
sounds like Catholics are facing a serious problem

shouldn't we be surprised that ISIS hasn't targeted priests/rabbis/nuns/pastors/etc. in a more focused manner already?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top