Originally Posted by gladius

You are confusing immigration with colonization and conquest. Don't tell that the Muslims themselves didn't conquer and colonize other cultures themselves.

Certainly not claiming that muslim history is any less checkered than anyone elses history I am just saying that I do not want us to repeat the process.

And as far as the colonization goes, all the more we need to worry since if we don't we will wind up as those natives, at least alot of them fought back, you suggest going peacefully. This is actually one of those things that fall in the category of apologizing for Western civilization, that because it happened in our past that we should not defend ourselves against it now, and we should just sit and let it happen to us?

I dont suggest going peacefully at all, I suggest that there is a lot more each country can do internally that doesnt really require rolling over or warfare.
In my opinion all immigrants to a new country should be required to assimilate into that country as "best" as possible (yes that means learn the damn language, etc.). Seriously why the hell do people move to a country from some third world slum and then do their damnedest to recreate the old ways, basically if you dont like it here go home.

But anyway back to the original post, sorry I still think the editorial is a poorly thought out, pompous pile of crap that is both patronising and inflamatory to the point of ludicrous.
European nations have shown more signs of being taken over by a McDonalds culture than Muslim one.

Unfortunately while you accuse me of "scare tactic's" this editorial is exactly that.

I will have a look Bulldogg, because he did manage to arouse my curiosity.

I personally like his style of extreme candor and not smoothing over sensitive areas with watered down "tactful" terminology. It is very refreshing and more to my liking.

However, I spent 8 years at two universities myself and the language he uses isn't academic. It is a volatile mix of populism and social science. Otherwise he would be way more careful with the generalizations!

And for Gladius:

As if we are really going to put them through a something like a Hanoi Hilton now are we. I think thats part of the problem of your thinking you go straight ahead to extremes to scare people as if you make an excuse to take no action at all.

I made this example because Hanson wrote so explicitly on how the European hostages praised their captors and tape. I wanted to show that this isn't just a European thing but human nature (... thnak you Ubique)

Originally Posted by MontyB

I dont suggest going peacefully at all, I suggest that there is a lot more each country can do internally that doesnt really require rolling over or warfare.

I never suggested warfare.

The thing is if we don't do anything now and the longer we wait the bigger the chance of this leading to warfare.

In my opinion all immigrants to a new country should be required to assimilate into that country as "best" as possible (yes that means learn the damn language, etc.). Seriously why the hell do people move to a country from some third world slum and then do their damnedest to recreate the old ways, basically if you dont like it here go home.

Thats what I think too, but what is being done, ---absolutely nothing. And worse yet, the exact opposite is being encourage.

But anyway back to the original post, sorry I still think the editorial is a poorly thought out, pompous pile of crap that is both patronising and inflamatory to the point of ludicrous.
European nations have shown more signs of being taken over by a McDonalds culture than Muslim one.

Unfortunately while you accuse me of "scare tactic's" this editorial is exactly that.

Its not scare tatics, but simple reality. You solutions of always suggesting the extremes is scare tactics. The letter was to simply awake people into taking basic sensible action which need to be done, but isn't.

Like I said this before, just do the math, all you have to do is look at Europe's population shrinkage vs the Muslim's population growth within Europe itself, in around 50 years or so Europe as we know it will no longer exist. The numbers show plain simple fact, which some people simply don't want to face.

The United States actually has a very similar "problem" with immigrants, though ours are primarily illegal immigrants from Latin America. In our case, we don't have Religous Fundamentalism to work against. But the basic rules should apply.
1.) It is not reasonable nor a good idea to sponser preservation of an immigrant groups culture IF it is potentially problematic. If it is getting State sponsoring, it needs people to keep an eye on it.
2.) It is perfectly reasonable to expect immigrants to make a reasonable amount of assimilation into the culture of their new country.
3.) Many of the Islamic Schools in Europe that are receiving state sponsering have become breeding grounds for Islamic Fundamentalism and Terrorism. The Muslim community has not/does not curb this tendency. Somebody really ought to do something about that.
4.) At this point, the Taliban and Iran are the best examples of what happens when "Rule of Law by the Holy Koran" is instituted, and I doubt anyone wants their country to go that direction. It may be a foregone conclusion that eventually, all of Europe will see Muslims become the majority. This would put them in control of things. It is Fundamentalists that tend to love the "Rule by the Koran" idea so very much. If they are in control of a Muslim majority population, that's where you're headed.
5.) The EU and Europe in general seems to be resisting or opposing everything that the USA tries to do to curb these problems where they originate (the Middle East), and often go to great lengths to demonize the US position. And yet the EU and European community do not have a solution to the problem that is probably going to blow up in their face.

It is points like those that the author, in all its tactlessness, is trying to get accross.

5.) The EU and Europe in general seems to be resisting or opposing everything that the USA tries to do to curb these problems where they originate (the Middle East), and often go to great lengths to demonize the US position. And yet the EU and European community do not have a solution to the problem that is probably going to blow up in their face.

You talk of "everything" the US is trying to do. But the last decade the US only offered one clear solution. War in Iraq. And what if you oppose that and you are critical of that particular move? It is just this specific path I dislike, but I never demonized the entire US.. and no I don't hate the US. I just disagree with piece of action.

Originally Posted by Ted

The last decade the US only offered one clear solution. War in Iraq.

For one thing, I'm not 100% in favor of nor against George W, personally. Iraq was sold completely wrong, but was definitely a logical step in any "War on Terrorism". They were, bar none, the number 1 funder of Terrorism globally. George W sold that war on WMD's instead, and it backfired on him. You are welcome to disagree with George's policies in my opinion. The Repulican Party tends to be more confrontational about it: "You're either with us or your against us."

I think that the War on Terror is something that Europeans in general could offer more consideration to, simply for the fact that no approach toward curbing Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism has really worked that well thusfar. Pacify them or hunt them down? I'm no prophet, I can't honestly predict what will work.

I'm strongly of the opinion that the Muslim world must drastically change just as Christianity did. Christianity had its witch burnings, Inquisitions and made no appologies, but for the most part the Christian world has wised up. If you have a theory of how to make that happen in the Muslim world ... well, you can have exclusive rights to the Nobel Peace Prize for a 10 year block.

I like your post GoT9010 and all I can say is that I wish I had the solution. Which obviously I don't! But I have a thought or two and that would include raising the general welfare. Much of the oil wealth flows to only a few families or clans and there are many, very many poor people. If you look at the nannies, contract workers, cheap labor etc it is muslims working for muslims. And who is most suseptible to changing the world they life in..... the poor. Give them a dream and they'll fight to the bitter end. Even the odds money wise and you'll even to odds religion wise, and I dare think religious fanatism will evaporate too. But that is just my tupence worth.

Ted I totally disagree. In no way is terrorism linked to poverty. Terrorism comes from hatred, from a dark ideology and from the will to destroy the alternative world that the non-Muslim societies represent (we are Dar al-Harb). All the examples of terrorists that we witness are people who in no way whatsoever do that because they're poor or they once were. Absolutely. British-Pakistani bombers in London, Moroccans in Madrid, Saudi attackers on 9/11 were all but poor, or poorly educated.
This is a common socialist cliché.

Italian Guy nails an important point here: The majority of the Extremists and Fanatics are not poor. Most are relatively well off, many of them are the rich elite. Osama Bin Ladin is/was a multimillionare for instance. All of the 9/11 attackers were actually "educated" people with well above average wealth. They were most definitely not poor ignorant peasants by any stretch of the imagination.

Then again, I don't know if that is what you were getting at or not.