A Letter To The Europeans.

gladius said:
You are confusing immigration with colonization and conquest. Don't tell that the Muslims themselves didn't conquer and colonize other cultures themselves.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
MontyB said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
I would offer that rather than poverty, terrorism is historically linked with an enemy that lacks the capability to strike at their enemy on equal terms. Usually owing to technological or organisational superiority such as the case with the US military and its Islamic enemies. They are not on an equal footing. There is no way they could face the US military and go mano a mano and be anything but suicidal. So they strike where they can with what they have. The instances where the terrorists are poor is coincidental and not a cause. If it were the case then Bangladesh would be overflowing with terrorists. ;)
 
Granted! I should have put it more into a historical perspective. But what is the motivation behind these attacks? Sure retribution and revege have kicked in, but the early motive is a need to change the balance of power.
The ETA, IRA wanted a souvereign state instead of what they have now. The Sendero Luminoso, FARC and the likes what a communist state. The resistance fighters in WW II wanted the nazi's out.... and they were all called "terrorists".
I remain with my point that many attacks on the vested interests to change the predicament of many is also called terrorism. Redistribute wealth a little and a lot of these men would put their arms.

The terrorism that we see today as indeed of a different category, driven by religious fanatism. This is also power motivated but on a totally different scale and, indeed, not related to poverty. However I really would like to know that financial situation of the guys who actually blown themselves to pieces. I bet you that they are most certainly the richest!
 
Ted, I am trying to get a handle on how you think....

"[Redistribute wealth] a little and a lot of these men would put their arms."

How do you propose to do this to men and women that want you and me dead? (that used to be called a 'payoff', history shows it doesn't work.)

"However I really would like to know that financial situation of the guys who actually blown themselves to pieces. I bet you that they are most certainly the richest!"

Why are they the richest? or do you mean the families of the men and women that throw away the richest gift of all, life.?

bottom line is if you (meaning terrorists) don't value my life, why should I value yours (meaning terrorists)?
 
The concept that poverty is the cause of terrorism is completely false and bogus.

Bin Laden was a multi-milionaire for crying out loud.

And also there are plenty of countries in the world which are poverty stricken which are not Muslin. Now can anybody who says that poverty causes terrorism explain to me why those people aren't becoming terrorist too?
How come we don't see an equal number of terrorist attacking the West from those non-Muslim poor countries as well?


godofthunder9010 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I completly agree.

One of the ways is by introducing openess and democracy to the region like Bush is doing. The biggest opponents are the Europeans themselves, the irony is that this will affect them more than it will the US in the future, hence the validity of the Letter to the Europeans.
 
Last edited:
I re-read my article and it should be "most certainly not the richest!" Just a glitch but an important one..... sorry. Bloody what was I thinking, leaving out the important words :s "put down their arms"... that is what I meant!

And also there are plenty of countries in the world which are poverty stricken which are not Muslin. Now can anybody who says that poverty causes terrorism explain to me why those people aren't becoming terrorist too?
How come we don't see an equal number of terrorist attacking the West from those non-Muslim poor countries as well?
Click to expand...

And to you Gladius, I stated it was "the balance of power" that made the early "insurgents" active. They'd commit sabotag or assassinate someone. And there are plenty of examples in non-muslim countries where this happened. And as I said in my 2nd part, the "new terrorism" is religiously driven and of a different order. But it still has to do with the balance of power. ANd for the 2nd kind I don't have a solution ..... yet.
 
"The concept that poverty is the cause of terrorism is completely false and bogus.

Bin Laden was a multi-milionaire for crying out loud.

And also there are plenty of countries in the world which are poverty stricken which are not Muslin. Now can anybody who says that poverty causes terrorism explain to me why those people aren't becoming terrorist too?
How come we don't see an equal number of terrorist attacking the West from those non-Muslim poor countries as well?"

Your saying all muslims are bad? Isnt that a bit narrow minded?
 
AlexKall said:
Your saying all muslims are bad? Isnt that a bit narrow minded?
Click to expand...
I never said this, when did I say? Where in that statement did I say they were all bad?

The fact is, that there are more terrorist acts done and terrorist coming from Muslim countries, than all the non-Mulsim countries combined. This is total undisputed fact, if you are saying that its not, then that's a bit narrow minded and deluded as well.



Ted said:
And to you Gladius, I stated it was "the balance of power" that made the early "insurgents" active. They'd commit sabotag or assassinate someone. And there are plenty of examples in non-muslim countries where this happened. And as I said in my 2nd part, the "new terrorism" is religiously driven and of a different order. But it still has to do with the balance of power.
Click to expand...

You are right, I actually agreed with you on the balance of power part.

As far as balance of power goes... When that balance shifts towards their favor, they will no longer resort to terrorism for the most part, but instead they will most likely use conventional and direct military force.


ANd for the 2nd kind I don't have a solution ..... yet.
Click to expand...
Don't bother there is none. You wont have non-Muslim poor people from Africa commiting terrorist acts in European soil or the US anytime soon, at least not in any significant numbers. C'mon do you seriously believe that will happen.
 
Last edited:
Rabs said:
Back when we were trying ot keep the commies from over running the free world, yes we did.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? After the cold war America sold numerous weapons to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and probably others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top