Post: #101

(07-26-2016 02:57 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 02:24 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Your problem is you think we're the ones causing this war. Islam, which has 1.6 billion followers, is incompatible with western civilization. They have shown very clearly they are happy to invade us and kill us. Pray tell, how do you propose we repel them without fighting?

Not holding up 'welcome' signs and giving them free housing would be a pretty good start, I reckon.

File that under "ships that already left port and disappeared over the horizon" because while it is a positive step to at least close the borders, the infestation has already taken root.

Post: #102

(07-26-2016 02:14 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  No I'm not mistaking the Crusades with the inquisition and I am incredibly amused you guys in here actually think the armies of Christ were somehow a force for good and did no wrong, as if they didn't destroy anyone in their path. Civilians included.

The Crusades were a fight against an enemy of Christendom but you seem to be all for it. Including the bloodshed.

Has Afghanistan and Iraq not opened your eyes? Syria? These people may not have high IQs but they will throw themselves at you with everything they have and their entire people too.

If you want to fight Islam you're going to need to fight them in the ME. We're talking genocide here because you won't be delivering freedom anymore but straight up anti-Islam military action. Most people here believe in religion, be it Islam or Christianity. Are you prepared to slaughter these people?

Are you prepared to fight upwards of 1 billion people, including those in your home countries who will almost certainly cause havoc. Before you know it there is a Children of Men issue. A scene in that movie shows a town or small city with Muslims parading their dead and demanding justice. The UK government comes in to lay the smackdown.

As bad as these attacks are they will pale into insignificance once you create a THEM vs US agenda across the entire continent. They've already seen NATO and Russian military power attack their homelands and at first, not wanting to take up the likes of ISIS on their word, a large number will now want to get revenge because they believe in that.

That will create your desired WW3 lead-up conflict scenario. There will be no pussy paradise, no free world and certainly no safe space should some sort of religious war comes to fruitition. This doesn't even include what would happen in Africa should Islam and Christianity fight to the death and they have committed genocide for less.

Foolsgold:

I don't agree with what you're saying here. These problems can and should be dealt with without resorting to "WW3."

In the short term, you can and should defeat Islamist radical movements. It can be done provided the right tactics are used and you're prepared to take the gloves off. It's an insurgency, pure and simple. Don't make them out to be more than they are: that's what they want you to do, to make you afraid of them.

If we look at Algeria in the 1990s, Sri Lanka in the early 2000s, and some other insurgencies (Syria in the 1980s), we can learn the answers.

That's the military solution.

In terms of political solutions, they need to stop overthrowing the autoritarian dictators in the Middle East who kept these rabble under control. They overthrew Saddam and Qhaddafi, and are trying to overthrow Assad, and this is what happens. Blowback.

And on the home front, the culture needs to change so that the martial virtues are again valued. (That will take a long time, but it's possible).

Post: #103

(07-26-2016 03:00 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  They're out playing Pokemon Go.

It's so infuriating, it just defies belief. Every single Western European country is impotent or useless. The papacy is impotent and useless.

You just wonder what it's going to take for people to wake up. I wish I knew the answer to that. But it's clear that it's going to take a lot more.

These people need to be rounded up and executed.

All of our societies have been propagandized by leftists and Marxists, emasculated, de-religion-ized, and pacified with spectacles and garbage for so long that it's going to take a long time for the culture to change. It's rotted to the core. These "leaders" can't even do the basics anymore.

This isn't going to be a quick war. It's going to take a couple generations, maybe longer. The rot is so deep that it's going to need years to be scrubbed out.

.

This is a very good article I stumbled across. It basically argues that the Regressive Left (as opposed to the genuine Left) are the 'useful idiots' to Islamism.

Quote:The misguided progressives who denounce “Islamophobia” and turn a blind eye to the mistreatment of, say, women, gays, and adherents of other religions in Muslim communities or in Islamic countries constitute what Maajid Nawaz has dubbed the “regressive left.” Regressive leftists are not genuine progressives at all, of course, but deeply confused de facto apologists for the most illiberal notion conceivable: namely, that one group of humans has, on account of its religion, an inalienable right to dominate and abuse other humans — and to do so unmolested by criticism.

Rest of the article is in the link. It's a must read.

http://quillette.com/2016/05/05/free-spe...ulnerable/

Post: #104

(07-26-2016 02:14 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  No I'm not mistaking the Crusades with the inquisition and I am incredibly amused you guys in here actually think the armies of Christ were somehow a force for good and did no wrong, as if they didn't destroy anyone in their path. Civilians included.

The Crusades were a fight against an enemy of Christendom but you seem to be all for it. Including the bloodshed.

Has Afghanistan and Iraq not opened your eyes? Syria? These people may not have high IQs but they will throw themselves at you with everything they have and their entire people too.

If you want to fight Islam you're going to need to fight them in the ME. We're talking genocide here because you won't be delivering freedom anymore but straight up anti-Islam military action. Most people here believe in religion, be it Islam or Christianity. Are you prepared to slaughter these people?

Are you prepared to fight upwards of 1 billion people, including those in your home countries who will almost certainly cause havoc. Before you know it there is a Children of Men issue. A scene in that movie shows a town or small city with Muslims parading their dead and demanding justice. The UK government comes in to lay the smackdown.

As bad as these attacks are they will pale into insignificance once you create a THEM vs US agenda across the entire continent. They've already seen NATO and Russian military power attack their homelands and at first, not wanting to take up the likes of ISIS on their word, a large number will now want to get revenge because they believe in that.

That will create your desired WW3 lead-up conflict scenario. There will be no pussy paradise, no free world and certainly no safe space should some sort of religious war comes to fruitition. This doesn't even include what would happen in Africa should Islam and Christianity fight to the death and they have committed genocide for less.

thanks, I was asking a legitimate question as I wasn't clear on what you meant.

As for the "are you prepared to make war" part. Well, a colossal world war, in the middle east that kills at least a billion people...Where have I heard that before?

ah right, The book of Revelations. My answer for "are you prepared" is yes, in fact the war has already begun. The crusades lasted what 200 years? The middle east has been a 'world' war zone since the US got involved for only what 20 years now?

The middle east could simmer and boil with bloodshed for another generation or more before the real mount of olives showdown takes place. The war has started, its now only a matter of "how long" before its finished. I'm sure the muslims feel the same way, as the Quran also culminates in some kind of apocalypse anchored in the middle east.

its actually unnerving for me, as when I was a teenager I scoffed that the apocalypitc war would be in the middle east. I was convinced it would be america/russia not a bunch of, at the time, disorganized camel riders fighting with military surplus against each other (Iran/Iraq). Now its real. America and Russia are right in there and the locals are having a deadly global outreach campaign. Two superpowers fighting it out on middle eastern turf, with China pulling a 3rd man in move once it looks like there is a clear loser and a weakened winner could easily all happen on a middle east stage.

So, I don't think its a question of "are you prepared" I think its "get prepared" as it has already begun, way back in 1990.

Post: #105

(07-26-2016 03:08 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  In terms of political solutions, they need to stop overthrowing the autoritarian dictators in the Middle East who kept these rabble under control. They overthrew Saddam and Qhaddafi, and are trying to overthrow Assad, and this is what happens. Blowback.

Quintus, maybe you have already written about this somewhere....but have you ever thought about the fact that maybe it was 100% intentional to overthrow exactly those hardcore rulers who actually kept their populations in check, with the specific intention of causing the present chaos.

I cant help but wonder about that....these 2 were for the most part "secular" style dictators and they got rid of them.

Even in Syria and Turkey....who are the leaders they are against and who do they support ?

Makes you think.

Post: #106

^^^^

@Mercenary:

I agree, it was intentional. And it was done for very specific purposes. But that takes us into other areas....

Post: #107

(07-26-2016 03:17 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  ^^^^

@Mercenary:

I agree, it was intentional. And it was done for very specific purposes. But that takes us into other areas....

Might be worth a new thread.
The hidden agenda behind the removal of strong secular style dictators in north Africa and the middle east.
Egypt should be on that list as well.

Post: #108

(07-26-2016 03:08 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  Foolsgold:

I don't agree with what you're saying here. These problems can and should be dealt with without resorting to "WW3."

In the short term, you can and should defeat Islamist radical movements. It can be done provided the right tactics are used and you're prepared to take the gloves off. It's an insurgency, pure and simple. Don't make them out to be more than they are: that's what they want you to do, to make you afraid of them.

If we look at Algeria in the 1990s, Sri Lanka in the early 2000s, and some other insurgencies (Syria in the 1980s), we can learn the answers.

That's the military solution.

In terms of political solutions, they need to stop overthrowing the autoritarian dictators in the Middle East who kept these rabble under control. They overthrew Saddam and Qhaddafi, and are trying to overthrow Assad, and this is what happens. Blowback.

And on the home front, the culture needs to change so that the martial virtues are again valued. (That will take a long time, but it's possible).

But I'm not afraid of them, I fear the actions of Western civilisation should the gloves come off.

I fear not the actions of the few low IQ, sexually frustrated beta terrorists in the sea of people but the millions who will fall head-first into the breach once they feel their existence is threatened. Both Muslims and Westerners.

An insurgency is only destroyed if you deny it ground to exist. Civilians are the insurgency. The same reason the US military couldn't stop the NVA is because they were unwilling to exterminate on a nation-wide scale a populace who could at a drop of a hat (literally) turn around with a gun kill you.

The same happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. We went in balls deep and stayed too long. US Marines were target practice for snipers in urban centres and kids with Russian anti-armour hand held devices.

Those casualties on our side wouldn't exist if the civilian population was pacified. How can an enemy attack you if there is no body of population to pull fighters from it?

Its why I want them removed and prevented from entering our countries. How the hell do they operate if they're not even here to begin with?

Whats done is done and now the gates are open. We cannot expect our governments to have learned this lesson when there is still talk of hitting Assad in order to replace him. God help us if Hillary gets in.

Post: #109

(07-26-2016 03:07 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 02:57 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 02:24 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Your problem is you think we're the ones causing this war. Islam, which has 1.6 billion followers, is incompatible with western civilization. They have shown very clearly they are happy to invade us and kill us. Pray tell, how do you propose we repel them without fighting?

Not holding up 'welcome' signs and giving them free housing would be a pretty good start, I reckon.

File that under "ships that already left port and disappeared over the horizon" because while it is a positive step to at least close the borders, the infestation has already taken root.

You don't have to wage a worldwide war against Islam to get Muslims out of Europe.

You think Iran is going to bomb Germany because they kick out a bunch of Somalis and Turks? Get real.

Post: #110

(07-26-2016 03:17 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  ^^^^

@Mercenary:

I agree, it was intentional. And it was done for very specific purposes. But that takes us into other areas....

I think it needs to be talked about, and loudly. We are digging our heads into sand for quite a while and it hasn't done us any favor. We must stop and ask ourselves once "For whose sake are we doing this ?" and by this i mean NOT talking about perpetrators of schemes that are bringing us to ruin.

Remember, we have nothing to lose anymore. Even if we pretend to be 100% politically correct we will still be thrown into furnace anyway.

Post: #111

(07-26-2016 03:36 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 03:07 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 02:57 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 02:24 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Your problem is you think we're the ones causing this war. Islam, which has 1.6 billion followers, is incompatible with western civilization. They have shown very clearly they are happy to invade us and kill us. Pray tell, how do you propose we repel them without fighting?

Not holding up 'welcome' signs and giving them free housing would be a pretty good start, I reckon.

File that under "ships that already left port and disappeared over the horizon" because while it is a positive step to at least close the borders, the infestation has already taken root.

You don't have to wage a worldwide war against Islam to get Muslims out of Europe.

You think Iran is going to bomb Germany because they kick out a bunch of Somalis and Turks? Get real.

No. I think there would be massive, bloody resistance to any kind of forced removal and I don't think modern Europeans have the balls for it. Also, there aren't enough police or military to do the job if a significant percentage of the invaders start killing. Are the European countries going to arm their citizens?

Edit - And I think it is vanishingly unlikely that the general public would have the grit to support keeping the "Free shit!" tap closed once the sob story machine got running, so no, I do not think they can just stop supporting the invaders and expect them to go away on their own, even if that wouldn't cause massive unrest by the invaders in and of itself.

Post: #112

(07-26-2016 03:48 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 03:36 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 03:07 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 02:57 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 02:24 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Your problem is you think we're the ones causing this war. Islam, which has 1.6 billion followers, is incompatible with western civilization. They have shown very clearly they are happy to invade us and kill us. Pray tell, how do you propose we repel them without fighting?

Not holding up 'welcome' signs and giving them free housing would be a pretty good start, I reckon.

File that under "ships that already left port and disappeared over the horizon" because while it is a positive step to at least close the borders, the infestation has already taken root.

You don't have to wage a worldwide war against Islam to get Muslims out of Europe.

You think Iran is going to bomb Germany because they kick out a bunch of Somalis and Turks? Get real.

No. I think there would be massive, bloody resistance to any kind of forced removal and I don't think modern Europeans have the balls for it. Also, there aren't enough police or military to do the job if a significant percentage of the invaders start killing. Are the European countries going to arm their citizens?

Edit - And I think it is vanishingly unlikely that the general public would have the grit to support keeping the "Free shit!" tap closed once the sob story machine got running, so no, I do not think they can just stop supporting the invaders and expect them to go away on their own, even if that wouldn't cause massive unrest by the invaders in and of itself.

Bro, I'm not sure what your point is.

You don't think Europeans will fight, but you don't think removing benefits will make them leave on their own.

Then what exactly are you suggesting?

My post was in response to you saying that Islam started the war, and the only way to repel them was to fight.

My point was simply that you don't have to fight all 1.6 billion Muslims just to get them out of Europe.

Post: #113

double post

Post: #114

(07-26-2016 03:59 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 03:48 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 03:36 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 03:07 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 02:57 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Not holding up 'welcome' signs and giving them free housing would be a pretty good start, I reckon.

File that under "ships that already left port and disappeared over the horizon" because while it is a positive step to at least close the borders, the infestation has already taken root.

You don't have to wage a worldwide war against Islam to get Muslims out of Europe.

You think Iran is going to bomb Germany because they kick out a bunch of Somalis and Turks? Get real.

No. I think there would be massive, bloody resistance to any kind of forced removal and I don't think modern Europeans have the balls for it. Also, there aren't enough police or military to do the job if a significant percentage of the invaders start killing. Are the European countries going to arm their citizens?

Edit - And I think it is vanishingly unlikely that the general public would have the grit to support keeping the "Free shit!" tap closed once the sob story machine got running, so no, I do not think they can just stop supporting the invaders and expect them to go away on their own, even if that wouldn't cause massive unrest by the invaders in and of itself.

Bro, I'm not sure what your point is.

You don't think Europeans will fight, but you don't think removing benefits will make them leave on their own.

Then what exactly are you suggesting?

My post was in response to you saying that Islam started the war, and the only way to repel them was to fight.

My point was simply that you don't have to fight all 1.6 billion Muslims just to get them out of Europe.

Ah, those are two separate points, sorry.

My point about having to fight muslims is they want to kill us, whether they're here or not, and we don't have a choice in the matter. We can't just choose not to engage and expect them to leave us alone. I do not think getting them out of the west will stop their aggression, it will simply change the venue (they'll attack western tourists, perhaps). And if another intelligent Osama bin Laden type shows up wanting to play the long game, there are plenty of ways to attack us at home whether we close the borders or not.

The "we have to fight" thing was not really related to getting them out of Europe.

Post: #115

I they're willing to execute a priest in his church, how soon does anyone think they'll go after the church? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they blew up Amiens or Chartres cathedral.

Post: #116

(07-26-2016 04:13 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Ah, those are two separate points, sorry.

My point about having to fight muslims is they want to kill us, whether they're here or not, and we don't have a choice in the matter. We can't just choose not to engage and expect them to leave us alone. I do not think getting them out of the west will stop their aggression, it will simply change the venue (they'll attack western tourists, perhaps). And if another intelligent Osama bin Laden type shows up wanting to play the long game, there are plenty of ways to attack us at home whether we close the borders or not.

The "we have to fight" thing was not really related to getting them out of Europe.

1. You're never going to get rid of all the Muslims in the world, and it'd be suicide to even try. Ensuring that a Western tourist is never at risk is not worth a potential nuclear apocalypse.

2. 9/11 and most other terrorist attacks could have been stopped if our governments had acted on their intel.

3. 9/11 and most other terrorist attacks would not have been possible without Muslim immigration.

The only reason any of this is happening is because Western governments want it that way. ISIS could be wiped out in a week.

Post: #117

(07-26-2016 05:12 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 04:13 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Ah, those are two separate points, sorry.

My point about having to fight muslims is they want to kill us, whether they're here or not, and we don't have a choice in the matter. We can't just choose not to engage and expect them to leave us alone. I do not think getting them out of the west will stop their aggression, it will simply change the venue (they'll attack western tourists, perhaps). And if another intelligent Osama bin Laden type shows up wanting to play the long game, there are plenty of ways to attack us at home whether we close the borders or not.

The "we have to fight" thing was not really related to getting them out of Europe.

1. You're never going to get rid of all the Muslims in the world, and it'd be suicide to even try. Ensuring that a Western tourist is never at risk is not worth a potential nuclear apocalypse.

2. 9/11 and most other terrorist attacks could have been stopped if our governments had acted on their intel.

3. 9/11 and most other terrorist attacks would not have been possible without Muslim immigration.

The only reason any of this is happening is because Western governments want it that way. ISIS could be wiped out in a week.

So what you're saying is if the western governments just tried harder to stop them, Islam would be no threat? I strongly disagree.

You're suggesting we should rely on reactive behavior. That is a recipe for disaster.

If we're going to be reactive, how do you propose we stop islamic terrorists from entering our countries once they realize we're screening for an ideology? They're not all idiots. How do you detect an intelligent islamic terrorist who embraces taqiyah? How successful was the US at keeping soviet spies and sleepers out?

With a decent budget and technical competence, they don't even need to get into the country to do serious damage. I can think of a number of ways to kill an assload of Americans without ever passing through customs.

We need to show islam why attacking us is a really fucking bad idea, not just hope we can stop them every time they try. They respect strength and power, not restraint. Our lack of response to their attacks simply emboldens them and reinforces their belief that we are weak, gutless pussies.

Post: #118

The problem is more bureaucratic and cultural right now in the west than it has to do with actually defeating muslims elsewhere.

If you look at history the British model of conquest won a long time ago already.

The muslim factions hate each other. They kill each other often in various muslim countries and there is very little unity in that world. They are largely impoverished and not a threat from a conventional military point of view.

The mistake was western government (bureaucracy) and ivory tower liberal academia which allowed these savages to mass migrate into the heartland of western power. This would have been absolutely unthinkable in the past. This has literally brought the war right into the living room.

As I said before the cultural rot in academia is what allowed this to happen in the first place. It's white liberals who allowed this to happen.

Post: #119

#iampriest is trending. This is funny on so many levels. Firstly it's a nominally secular group, deeply opposed to 'Christian values'. More amusing though is the fact that in a certain sense #iampriest is an exact description of what these year zero types have become - the chosen caste of a new theocracy. There is something delicious about the entirely undeliberate revelation of this profound truth.

Post: #120

(07-26-2016 06:20 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  "We stand together"
"Not all muslims"
"Love trumps hate"
"It's really our fault"
"Muslims welcome"

(07-26-2016 05:47 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(01-17-1970 07:12 PM)Lucky trumps hate"551' Wrote:  Jesus. Every day it looks like we are getting closer to Samseau's prediction of all-out civil war in Europe.

How is that Samseau's prediction? Anyone with a brain in his head who's read a history book has been saying that's going to happen for decades now. Just look up "gates of vienna".

Indeed, not to take away anything from Samseau but plenty on this forum have said the same thing several times, not to mention tons of people that throughout the years and from very different backgrounds have been talking exactly about this, like you said it doesn't take a genius to have realized this was the path we were heading.

(07-26-2016 05:56 AM)Lucky Wrote:  Because Samseau predicted it first in his goatskin scrolls, circa 1630-1741.

Typically, the first person to predict something receives credit for it.

Samseau is nowhere near the first person to have predicted this.

But no one predicted these events with the timing and accuracy I have. Lots of people have said Muslims are coming but their timing has been all wrong, for example, Anders Breivik titled his manifesto 2080.

Also no one predicted the sequence of the events, which I did last year as well. If anyone want the original links I can send them, I have it on my twitter as well. Many mocked or derided me, not that I cared because I don't say things unless I have extremely good reason to believe it is true. And, I hate to brag, but I am a very sharp man.

Anyone can make wild Nostradamus claims - it takes a lot more logical skill and intellectual finesse to actually provide useful information that can be acted upon in the near future.

Post: #121

(07-26-2016 06:06 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  #iampriest is trending. This is funny on so many levels. Firstly it's a nominally secular group, deeply opposed to 'Christian values'. More amusing though is the fact that in a certain sense #iampriest is an exact description of what these year zero types have become - the chosen caste of a new theocracy. There is something delicious about the entirely undeliberate revelation of this profound truth.

They don't know what hypocrisy is.

Post: #122

This attack in this Church has me thinking about concealed carrying every day. And with something somewhat potent, rather than the pocket pistol that I was before kidding myself into believing was enough. Every location that is a target should have armed citizens if not guards at this point.

Post: #123

Also, the easiest way to start defending a country from Islam is to do what Trump is doing. Shutting down movement between the countries, ramping up intel gathering on Radical Muslims, stopping war with random ME countries, and securing the borders to be as tight as a virgin.

Merely in the course of doing these things, our enemies will reveal themselves and attack us as we try. Mexicans will be shooting at people building the wall, Muslims will go even crazier after radical Mosques are shut down, etc. etc. As they attack us it will give us more moral permission to attack back with stronger measures.

This is how the law of escalating violence works. "Violence always leads to violence." They started it, though, so I have very little pity for what will come their way.

Post: #124

(07-26-2016 05:33 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 05:12 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 04:13 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Ah, those are two separate points, sorry.

My point about having to fight muslims is they want to kill us, whether they're here or not, and we don't have a choice in the matter. We can't just choose not to engage and expect them to leave us alone. I do not think getting them out of the west will stop their aggression, it will simply change the venue (they'll attack western tourists, perhaps). And if another intelligent Osama bin Laden type shows up wanting to play the long game, there are plenty of ways to attack us at home whether we close the borders or not.

The "we have to fight" thing was not really related to getting them out of Europe.

1. You're never going to get rid of all the Muslims in the world, and it'd be suicide to even try. Ensuring that a Western tourist is never at risk is not worth a potential nuclear apocalypse.

2. 9/11 and most other terrorist attacks could have been stopped if our governments had acted on their intel.

3. 9/11 and most other terrorist attacks would not have been possible without Muslim immigration.

The only reason any of this is happening is because Western governments want it that way. ISIS could be wiped out in a week.

So what you're saying is if the western governments just tried harder to stop them, Islam would be no threat? I strongly disagree.

You're suggesting we should rely on reactive behavior. That is a recipe for disaster.

If we're going to be reactive, how do you propose we stop islamic terrorists from entering our countries once they realize we're screening for an ideology? They're not all idiots. How do you detect an intelligent islamic terrorist who embraces taqiyah? How successful was the US at keeping soviet spies and sleepers out?

With a decent budget and technical competence, they don't even need to get into the country to do serious damage. I can think of a number of ways to kill an assload of Americans without ever passing through customs.

We need to show islam why attacking us is a really fucking bad idea, not just hope we can stop them every time they try. They respect strength and power, not restraint. Our lack of response to their attacks simply emboldens them and reinforces their belief that we are weak, gutless pussies.

Western governments are the ones letting Muslims into Western countries, overthrowing leaders in Middle Eastern countries, allying with and supporting extremist countries like Saudi Arabia, and creating and funding extremists groups.

That is not opinion. That is fact.

To be clear, I'm not saying that the West creates extremism within Islam. I'm saying that they're the ones who allow it to threaten us on any existential level.

And no one is saying not to use violence.

The point is that eliminating all Muslims or eliminating all threats to Westerners is not realistic.

We don't live in Narnia. There is always going to be some level of danger in the world.

Meanwhile, if you simply remove all the Muslims from our countries, properly use surveillance and intelligence, and exercise appropriate military force when necessary, you would reduce the chance of Westerners being killed by Islamic extremists down to practically 0.

Yes, it would still be possible for them to kill Americans, but it would be very difficult and would likely only be in small, isolate attacks. And again, you're not going to completely eliminate violence from the world. It's a pipe dream.

Even if Muslims were *poof* gone from Earth, you'd still have school shootings, gang shootings, drug violence, etc.

Post: #125

(07-26-2016 05:12 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 04:13 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Ah, those are two separate points, sorry.
...

The "we have to fight" thing was not really related to getting them out of Europe.

The only reason any of this is happening is because Western governments want it that way. ISIS could be wiped out in a week.

Not being argumentatitve, but how exactly could that be done? Aren't they pretty mixed in with regular population in the cities they are holding? (Rakka?)
Would the military have to level those cities with ~85% innocent people to take out the assholes in days?