Post: #51

The questions that are rarely asked in regards to Muslim immigrants in Europe:

- Why are certain European countries letting these people in?
- Would Europeans be welcome in these immigrants' home countries and societies the way they are in theirs?
- What gives the multiculturalists the right to dictate that the majority is bad and that they're immoral if they do not admit these people?

Post: #52

(06-26-2015 01:23 PM)lowhead360 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:55 AM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:11 AM)lowhead360 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:08 AM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 08:39 AM)Veloce Wrote:  Kindly explain, or post a link to where you have discussed this. I'm just coming back from two countries in EE that were under Ottoman rule (Bulgaria and Romania), and I think the local population would disagree with your assertion here, to put it lightly.

The only "disaster" I can think of caused by the fall of the Ottomans was paving the way for the expansion of Russia and the ensuing fall of communism.

I've mentioned it once in passing last there was an Islamic thread and no one gave a response so I couldn't elaborate. I can't remember the exact thread title, but I'll type up an argument anyways.

First of all, I wholeheartedly agree Romania and Bulgaria should not have been a part of the Ottomon Empire, and both were free by WWI right before the collapse. Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the complex military alliance that would later cause WWI was one of the factors maintaining the status quo as well as as allowing for the slow but steady reforms in both Russia as well as the Ottomon Empire happening before the war. Expansion into certain countries was nearly impossible without all out war as what would later happen.

Fact of the matter is that autocratic and increasingly secular Ottomon Rulers(whom partook in their own fair share of degeneracy) were autocratic rulers whom prevented minority sects(like the later formed Wahhabis) in check to maintain their power by both promoting a unified Islamic ideal coupled with the forced status quo. It prevented Ottomon expansion and kept the country somewhat prosperous and orderly. All whom spoke up at the time and tried to change the status quo were silenced ala the early stages of Turkey. This is why Turkey is a much more "secular" nation today putting that term loosely.

With the Ottomon Empire gone, the Allied Powers literally divided its remnants into random geographical countries with at times opposing minorities that wanted to kill each other, but previously could not under the Ottomons. This is why dictatorships arose to keep those countries stable eventually. So now that those dictatorships fell apart the impetus for their destruction, Wabbbiest non-secular/traditional Islam, could have its own way. They started following their holy book to the letter today, and so we have the issues today.

Countries like Lebanon, Egypt Turkey, etc at one point or still do have good nightlife scenes with alcohol having questionable legality allowing for its sale. Lebanese people are some of the heaviest drinkers I know. So without forced authoritarian secularism the problems of that region become manifest. As it's harder to do so without a regime such at the Ottomons that had both political legitimacy and precedent as rulers.

Is this a joke? The rape of SE Europe and Ottoman colonial policies in the Balkans are the main reason that the region is such a turbulent shithole when compared to the rest of Europe.

Population shifting, redrawing the borders, creating new ethnicities out of thin air by converting them to Islam, depopulating Christian territories. The Ottomans were a disaster for the Balkans and the PRIMARY reason that SE Europe never got to experience the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, etc. with the rest of Europe. Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Romanians had their land stolen from them, occupied, and raped for centuries, they had every right to secede from the dying Ottoman Empire.

As for the Ottomans having some sort of political legitimacy, after they lost in Vienna in 1683, they started a rapid decline. By 1800, the Ottomans were shadow of their former selves and they did NOT have either the means nor the will to enforce any kind of empire.

Did you read my argument on Romania/Bulgaria? I said they had no business in Christian countries and right before WWI they were not in charge of a lot of these population centers. My focus is on Pre-WWI Ottomon Empire(right before the fall) not throughout its history. I would also like to state that the Empire was headed towards Constitutional Monarchy before the war as a lot of of politicians especially those responsible for modern day Turkey were bringing up resistance.

Yes it was going towards rapid decline, but it still had potential for reform and its existence could have resulted in a more peaceful Middle East even if it fell. Possibly from new countries forming around culture groups.

First of, Pre-WWI Ottoman Empire still controlled many areas that weren't rightfully theirs/ethnically Turkish outside of the Middle East (Smyrna was still majority Greek, Armenia, Azerbaijan, parts of Georgia etc). All of these places deserved independence and had little desire to remain a part of a dying Empire that stripped them of their sovereignty for centuries.

Secondly, the Ottomans could not have in any conceivable way shape or form held onto the Middle East even if it did become a Constitutional Monarchy. The PEOPLE living in the Middle East are Arabic and have a completely different language, culture, and customs than the dominant Ottoman group the Turks. The Arabs rose in revolt against the Ottomans during WWI because they wanted (and deserved) self-determination and independence. Any reforms would have done little to quell the popular desire of Ottoman Arabs for independence. The fact of the matter is that imperialism, Ottoman and later Western, is responsible for a lot, if not most, of the problems we see in the Middle East.

You have a point there with your criticism in the first point so I'll give you that. On your second point Ottomons had at that point almost entirely adapted Arab culture as well as spoke Arabic along with their native Turkish(something that is recommended by all Muslims to read the Quran) just as much as the Romans had adapted Greek culture in a sense minus the required language.

I would also like to point out that the Ottomons had the same religious authority as a Caliphate so to rebel unless there was due cause due to weak rulers would have been impossible both due to the religious authority as well as the large standing army that would have quelled it in a heartbeat. If anything if the Empire had stabilized there would have been no rebellion, but due to Ottomon weakness the House of Saud quickly retook the Arabian Peninsula in the ensuing struggle.

You also quickly forget the House of Saud's fanatical religious leanings, and so it would have been much preferable to have the Ottomons in charge rather than the House of Saud as the ensuing restrictions would have dramatically changed life in that area under threat of harder reprisal under Saudi Rulers.

Post: #53

(06-26-2015 01:41 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  The questions that are rarely asked in regards to Muslim immigrants in Europe:

- Why are certain European countries letting these people in?
- Would Europeans be welcome in these immigrants' home countries and societies the way they are in theirs?
- What gives the multiculturalists the right to dictate that the majority is bad and that they're immoral if they do not admit these people?

   


For example for Germany they did come as guest worker - cheap worker for a booming industry. After the stop they still could bring in their family members. Also german society did not care much to integrate them. In other countries they come because of colonies. There the same, they are all send to some areas with no support and care. The problems did start with the 2nd and 3th generation that is kind of lost and turned into fanatics, not integrate into society and so on.

An other reason they try to escape the strict and fanatic situation in those places. And there again, the 2nd and 3th generation did not see it like the parents.

Post: #54

(06-26-2015 01:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Islam has always been a backwards belief system, promoting death and degeneracy. They've never had any business governing any lands, and anything they've touched has crumbled into ashes.

Egypt under Roman rule? The wealthiest country in the world. Today? The poorest. Syria and Lebanon used to be extremely rich 100 years ago, today with encroaching Islam they are poor and dangerous.

Today Islam returns to tradition by raping and enslaving non-Muslim girls so they can fuel their bloodlust and conquest:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...agery.html

Quote:A group of captured Yazidi and Christian women are chained together and marched to a sickening sex slave market where they are sold to become wives for Islamic State fighters

Islam has always been this way, and the only defense people can come up with is a few Islamic scholars who were eccentric enough to preserve a few Roman books while the great majority of Muslims were only interested in slavery and conquest.

Even the most biased of articles on Islam, such as the one on Wikipedia cannot leave a reader with anything but disgust and horror at this culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam

Islam is promoted today for the same reason homosexuality is promoted: our elites want more degeneracy so they can keep total control. And few things are more degenerate than Islam.

I concede the Ottomon/Islamic slave trade(which had largely been shutdown due to European Imperialism and power at this point) was problematic but again due to Strong Western Power.

My main issue with your argument here is that Syria and Lebanon 100 years ago WERE MUSLIM. It's like you're completely ignoring the entire history of the region. Damascus was the seat of the Abbasid Caliphate for fuck's sake, and Lebanon was long part of that same territory as well.

I would also like to point out that Egypt was actually a rich country for several centuries until recently. For one they even pushed back Napoleon himself when he landed. The Egyptian Campaign was the one of the worst campaigns he ever led after his Russian one.

You are also pushing a blanket claim that only religion is the cause of the failure of that entire region. The problem with Islam is that it has too many wayward and at times violent sects. This is why there's a constant need for a Saladin character of sorts. A strongman that unites the region under his rule. Without one there's constant bloodshed.

The entire Middle East in my opinion is in drastic need for forced modernization like Mid 20th Century Iran. It's actually kind of funny because the entire Iranian Elite is almost indistinguishable from Western countries. Want proof?

https://instagram.com/therichkidsoftehran/

Post: #55

Some hot Iranian girls in Tehran for your viewing pleasure, and of course WB.

Post: #56

There is a lot of confusion in this thread. I live in the country where 37 people were killed today.

If you have no fear from death, a weapon, and can sneak to some very crowded place with that weapon; you can kill dozens of people in a short time.

Almost everyone can have access to 2 (weapon) and 3 (sneaking). Fear from death is universal and almost unbeatable. It's innate and so strong. Few people have 1 in the west, and so they can't relate.

On a related news, someone killed dozens and suicided in the west. He has no ideology/religion. But when you are suicidal, killing dozens is as closer as it gets.

These youth are not suicidal. But they are not afraid from the death. The Islam brain-washing is so strong that they no longer have fear from death. This is why on another thread I warned that all muslims can be dangerous. They are too attached that convincing them about an idea can turn them into terrorists overnight.

This is Islam strength too. This is probably why ISIS is the fastest growing nation/population/community in the world history. They are already controlling lands with 10 million people. A feat no previous (al qaeda, shabeb...) group has achieved.

Post: #57

If you are worried about ISIS, look no further than Syria. It's well-known and propagated that Syria is the Arab world hope at the moment.

If Syria defeats ISIS, they'll be gone forever. They are already defeated in Egypt and Tunisia. If ISIS defeats Syria, a whole other scenario will emerge. Iraq, and Liban are probably their first target and will be at their mercy. Followed by Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria. They are already too strong in Morocco too and have political power there.

I'll then need to fly as far as Hong Kong or Australia.

Post: #58

David Cameron has sternly weighed in.
"Those who do this do it in the name of a sick and twisted ideology."

They sure do Cameron but I doubt we're thinking of the same thing.

Post: #59

(06-26-2015 01:41 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  The questions that are rarely asked in regards to Muslim immigrants in Europe:

- Why are certain European countries letting these people in?
- Would Europeans be welcome in these immigrants' home countries and societies the way they are in theirs?
- What gives the multiculturalists the right to dictate that the majority is bad and that they're immoral if they do not admit these people?

The problem with multiculturalists as that they believe that the only thing coming in with these guys are there hookah lounges, food, and another outstanding citizen. They aren't wrong with those that choose to integrate(I would say about 25% of the Islamic youth grow distant from their parentage to either more moderate leanings or full on party mode due to disillusionment myself included from my father's side of the family).

The issue is that the remaining 75% tend to cling to their culture group as a form of group think due to fear of reprisal from parents for blending in with their host country's culture(partying, drinking, etc). These guys are the ones turning incel shut-ins playing video games or religious fetishists(ala the Westboro Baptist Church).

I think the only foreign Middle Eastern group that blends in are Persians(Iranians) for some reason. Though breaking into their social circle is a bitch and the reason I haven't gotten my Persian flag .

I'm honestly for limitations on immigration in that regard because those that have immigrated will be forced to make friends and identify with the host country more due to fear of social exclusion. Heavy screening should be done to limit immigration from those regions for this very reason. The problem is that it's slightly past the time to do that as there's sizable portions of the population in these countries.

The only way to solve this(and I hate to say it as it errs close to the inhumane) is forced deportation of radical elements or those that associate more so with their origin culture. Stuff like France's ban on the Burkha and similar religious clothing just like how Middle Eastern countries force women to wear that type of clothing would be optimal to even do this in a nonthreatening way. Sure let them in, but barring their cultural norms would keep the unruly elements out so there's forced integration.

Post: #60

(06-26-2015 01:41 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  The questions that are rarely asked in regards to Muslim immigrants in Europe:

- Why are certain European countries letting these people in?
- Would Europeans be welcome in these immigrants' home countries and societies the way they are in theirs?
- What gives the multiculturalists the right to dictate that the majority is bad and that they're immoral if they do not admit these people?

This is the secret. I've said much of this to European friends and their minds have actually changed on the immigration issue.
Point out all the violations of the social contract that routinely occur, that these countries see no moral reason to have open borders, that no other advanced countries (japan, south korea) see any reason to, and finally that Europe is seen as racist for ever restricting immigration.

Altruistic Punishment is the way out. Europeans are too altruistic for their own good, but altruistic societies tend to punish people who don't reciprocate.

Post: #61

(06-26-2015 09:25 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:Just because some feeble conservative opposition is allowed to march peacefully, just because the German Flag is not yet banned as hateful, does not mean that anything will reverse.

Their flag was banned, along with connected symbols and even hand gestures. Don't worry, the U.S. will be there within 5-10 years anyway.

I'm aware much of the readership here holds a pessimistic worldview and perhaps even hopes for a collapse in the West, but there's little evidence suggesting our fate is sealed. History is brimming with examples of Europe rising from the ashes in the shittiest of situations, while there are no examples of Europe ever being fully conquered by invading foreigners. I don't think your opinion takes into account:

1. The establishment (government, the wealthy, corporations) benefits from the status quo, not from unrest and change. Protests and demonstrations lead to shifts in political power, and with enough pressure, can lead to revolts, riots, and revolutions. No country or system on earth is invincible, and the establishment will quickly shift gears if threatened.

2. Demographic trends (which most of the doom and gloom seems to be based on) don't take into account the possibility of change. Birth rates will not continue on an infinite trajectory. What happens if EU governments start offering to pay immigrants to return (a very real possibility in the Netherlands), or when home countries are more attractive than Europe?

3. If unrest grows, the wealthy and educated Muslims will return to their home countries. The Jewish population in France is a perfect example of repatriation due to fear. Shaming and violence by natives (e.g. mosque burning) will cause others to leave. Even in less dramatic circumstances, demand to enter Europe will likely decrease.

4. Political parties and nationalist/identitarian groups are sprouting up all over Europe and gaining power. Multiculturalism was abandoned by Holland several years ago, Hungary decided to stop accepting refugees, etc. Small steps, but with very tangible results.

We live in peace and prosperity, it's all we know. We've been taught from birth our system - along with "human rights" and government policies - are permanent and invincible. History proves the opposite. As long as there are Europeans on earth with breath in their lungs, the game is not over.

Blick I would make these simple predictions for the next, say, 20 years:

1. Muslim immigration to Europe continues.
2. Muslim birth rates remain higher than European birthrates.
3. European governments will take no actions that actually have the effect of making Muslims leave Europe.
4. Any nominal efforts to increase European birth rates will have a modest and insufficient effects at best.
5. More accommodations will be made for Muslims in Europe while more restrictions will be made on criticizing them.
6. Jihadis violence will continue and become normalized.

If you think these things won't happen, it will be interesting to look in 5 years, 10 years, and see where we are.

Post: #62

(06-26-2015 02:45 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 01:41 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  The questions that are rarely asked in regards to Muslim immigrants in Europe:

- Why are certain European countries letting these people in?
- Would Europeans be welcome in these immigrants' home countries and societies the way they are in theirs?
- What gives the multiculturalists the right to dictate that the majority is bad and that they're immoral if they do not admit these people?

This is the secret. I've said much of this to European friends and their minds have actually changed on the immigration issue.
Point out all the violations of the social contract that routinely occur, that these countries see no moral reason to have open borders, that no other advanced countries (japan, south korea) see any reason to, and finally that Europe is seen as racist for ever restricting immigration.

Altruistic Punishment is the way out. Europeans are too altruistic for their own good, but altruistic societies tend to punish people who don't reciprocate.

Interestingly, the EU requires VISA for all the Arab/Muslim world and have strict security clearance. While the two countries that you mentioned doesn't require a VISA.

It's never a VISA/Immigration thing. These countries are 1. close and 2. have a large population of immigration. They'll always attract immigrants from all kind because it's easier to blend there. (speak the language, find friend, faster travel etc )

Post: #63

To piggyback the conversation between Blick and Sonsowey.
I think it will vary by country.

What I think will happen is native Europeans will cluster in more "pro-white" (best term I can think of) countries.
The demographic profiles of younger Europeans lean more nationalistic according to the Economist so I would not be shocked if both sides consolidate before deciding to settle things.

I don't actually think Europe is lost. My mind can be changed and things will get worse before they get better but they have to get worse.
Western Europe has the highest standard of living in the world, people are not ready to fight because complacency is rewarded.
When welfare collapses due to social trust dying, when whole parts of countries have white flight then things will happen.

Or not.
If not, I am going to China or Japan to tell them What Not To Do.

Post: #64

(06-26-2015 02:54 PM)almohajem Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:45 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 01:41 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  The questions that are rarely asked in regards to Muslim immigrants in Europe:

- Why are certain European countries letting these people in?
- Would Europeans be welcome in these immigrants' home countries and societies the way they are in theirs?
- What gives the multiculturalists the right to dictate that the majority is bad and that they're immoral if they do not admit these people?

This is the secret. I've said much of this to European friends and their minds have actually changed on the immigration issue.
Point out all the violations of the social contract that routinely occur, that these countries see no moral reason to have open borders, that no other advanced countries (japan, south korea) see any reason to, and finally that Europe is seen as racist for ever restricting immigration.

Altruistic Punishment is the way out. Europeans are too altruistic for their own good, but altruistic societies tend to punish people who don't reciprocate.

Interestingly, the EU requires VISA for all the Arab/Muslim world and have strict security clearance. While the two countries that you mentioned doesn't require a VISA.

It's never a VISA/Immigration thing. These countries are 1. close and 2. have a large population of immigration. They'll always attract immigrants from all kind because it's easier to blend there. (speak the language, find friend, faster travel etc )

Good point. I should say: effectively open borders.

Post: #65

(06-26-2015 02:46 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:25 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:Just because some feeble conservative opposition is allowed to march peacefully, just because the German Flag is not yet banned as hateful, does not mean that anything will reverse.

Their flag was banned, along with connected symbols and even hand gestures. Don't worry, the U.S. will be there within 5-10 years anyway.

I'm aware much of the readership here holds a pessimistic worldview and perhaps even hopes for a collapse in the West, but there's little evidence suggesting our fate is sealed. History is brimming with examples of Europe rising from the ashes in the shittiest of situations, while there are no examples of Europe ever being fully conquered by invading foreigners. I don't think your opinion takes into account:

1. The establishment (government, the wealthy, corporations) benefits from the status quo, not from unrest and change. Protests and demonstrations lead to shifts in political power, and with enough pressure, can lead to revolts, riots, and revolutions. No country or system on earth is invincible, and the establishment will quickly shift gears if threatened.

2. Demographic trends (which most of the doom and gloom seems to be based on) don't take into account the possibility of change. Birth rates will not continue on an infinite trajectory. What happens if EU governments start offering to pay immigrants to return (a very real possibility in the Netherlands), or when home countries are more attractive than Europe?

3. If unrest grows, the wealthy and educated Muslims will return to their home countries. The Jewish population in France is a perfect example of repatriation due to fear. Shaming and violence by natives (e.g. mosque burning) will cause others to leave. Even in less dramatic circumstances, demand to enter Europe will likely decrease.

4. Political parties and nationalist/identitarian groups are sprouting up all over Europe and gaining power. Multiculturalism was abandoned by Holland several years ago, Hungary decided to stop accepting refugees, etc. Small steps, but with very tangible results.

We live in peace and prosperity, it's all we know. We've been taught from birth our system - along with "human rights" and government policies - are permanent and invincible. History proves the opposite. As long as there are Europeans on earth with breath in their lungs, the game is not over.

Blick I would make these simple predictions for the next, say, 20 years:

1. Muslim immigration to Europe continues.
2. Muslim birth rates remain higher than European birthrates.
3. European governments will take no actions that actually have the effect of making Muslims leave Europe.
4. Any nominal efforts to increase European birth rates will have a modest and insufficient effects at best.
5. More accommodations will be made for Muslims in Europe while more restrictions will be made on criticizing them.
6. Jihadis violence will continue and become normalized.

If you think these things won't happen, it will be interesting to look in 5 years, 10 years, and see where we are.

They already made the predictions: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog...ction-2030

Post: #66

(06-26-2015 05:14 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  The best part is that no matter what happens, the leftist fucks will get their comeuppance, either at the hands of the "fascists" they despise or the Islamists/immigrants they adore. Heads they lose, tails we win.

I think you will find that it is the very leftists whom you despise, who are at the forefront of the fighting against the very same Islamo-fascists, wreaking havoc in the Middle East who are incidentally backed by various right wing governments.

Post: #67

(06-26-2015 02:37 PM)almohajem Wrote:  I'll then need to fly as far as Hong Kong or Australia.

You should check out ISIS and Australia first.

Europe will not fail that easy, its like pressure and counter pressure. Some countries will struggle more then others. Eastern Europe is free of muslims and Germany has less problems then other countries.
Many countries drift back and society is quite different then some cultural marxist. It will be hard, maybe it will fail but Europe will not be lost that easy.
I believe in a new dawn of Europe and it will awake.

Post: #68

Lord Tito Wrote:I think you will find that it is the very leftists whom you despise, who are at the forefront of the fighting against the very same Islamo-fascists, wreaking havoc in the Middle East who are incidentally backed by various right wing governments.

It's ironic and absolutely true. The cultural left with the help of multinational corporations who put women in the workplace if they're qualified have wreaked far more havoc on the religious right in the middle east than any social conservative. That's what's happened in places like Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain. The locals have very reluctantly accepted western women in the workplace by the Western multinationals who operate there. They've even set up safe zones where westerners can do the same stuff we do here, get drunk, pickup chicks, etc.

In reality social conservatives in the West, and islamists across the globe are both fighting against what they perceive as degeneracy, against cultural change, against changes to ethno and religious cultural centrism, and a slew of other social isms.

In fact social liberals have been chipping away at middle eastern and African ethnocentric culture for a long time and if you read outside the echo chamber of conservative blogs you'll notice this.

Post: #69

(06-26-2015 03:54 PM)Lord Tito Wrote:  I think you will find that it is the very leftists whom you despise, who are at the forefront of the fighting against the very same Islamo-fascists, wreaking havoc in the Middle East who are incidentally backed by various right wing governments.

Point taken, but leftists in the Middle East are of a very different stripe than the SJW types that predominate in the western left...I object to a lot of their Marxism and/or left-wing nationalism, but it has nothing to do with what you hear from western leftists. For instance I think about figures like Nasser whose blistering nationalist rhetoric and sabre-rattling would cause a western SJW to hyperventilate from shock.

That aside, the Shia militias defending Baghdad are far from leftist...and unless I'm mistaken the same can be said of the Kurdish autonomous authority in Iraq. The Middle East is a mess, it's not a clear left vs right situation by any means.

Post: #70

Article on the continuing huge level of migration from Africa and the Mid East to the EU:

"Across the European Union, 57 percent of residents express negative attitudes about immigration from outside the EU. Naturally, elected politicians take the popular view and promise sharp reductions in immigration. And yet, the reductions never come, because the EU has encoded refugee rights into laws and treaties that cannot easily be changed. As a result, migrants have enormous incentives to present themselves as refugees. In turn, those European elites who favor higher levels of migration pretend to believe them. Altogether, the realities of trans-Mediterranean immigration are thus tightly swaddled in lies."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...rs/395321/

Post: #71

(06-26-2015 06:09 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Cue Mikado in 3...2...1...

Post: #72

(06-26-2015 05:05 PM)Galahad Wrote:  Eastern Europe is free of muslims and Germany has less problems then other countries.
Many countries drift back and society is quite different then some cultural marxist. It will be hard, maybe it will fail but Europe will not be lost that easy.
I believe in a new dawn of Europe and it will awake.

Yes, there is still some hope. There are countries like Hungary, with almost no Muslims, and where the majority of the public support the proposed fence to keep out illegals from the Balkans. (I don't think the fence is a great solution, but at least its support shows some will).

Unfortunately small countries like Hungary can be leaned on by the EU and things can change rapidly. But overall, all is not lost yet.

Post: #73

(06-26-2015 06:23 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  

Lord Tito Wrote:I think you will find that it is the very leftists whom you despise, who are at the forefront of the fighting against the very same Islamo-fascists, wreaking havoc in the Middle East who are incidentally backed by various right wing governments.

It's ironic and absolutely true. The cultural left with the help of multinational corporations who put women in the workplace if they're qualified have wreaked far more havoc on the religious right in the middle east than any social conservative. That's what's happened in places like Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain. The locals have very reluctantly accepted western women in the workplace by the Western multinationals who operate there. They've even set up safe zones where westerners can do the same stuff we do here, get drunk, pickup chicks, etc.

In reality social conservatives in the West, and islamists across the globe are both fighting against what they perceive as degeneracy, against cultural change, against changes to ethno and religious cultural centrism, and a slew of other social isms.

In fact social liberals have been chipping away at middle eastern and African ethnocentric culture for a long time and if you read outside the echo chamber of conservative blogs you'll notice this.

I agree with most of your commentary DjembaDjemba
My 2 cents worth, I reckon the glogalisation formers ie Bankers, Multinational Corporations encourage this sort of action (Terrorist Extremism) and reaction (Nationalism)
The more I think about it, I feel we're being played like a fiddle!
Jumping up and down in acrimony over the "common enemy" gives those who feel threatened by outsiders (Nationalists),…(plus not interested in the Kardashians), a vent, and ditto for the extremists, the justification needed to follow their moral crusade and blow things up
It appears that bigger political games are afoot and this is the current distraction for the righteous minded to denounce
The new world order will see one governing body with the elite already chosen, and we the unwashed, their servants.
And still the Kardashians will entertain us with their narcissistic fatuousness

Post: #74

(06-26-2015 02:37 PM)almohajem Wrote:  If you are worried about ISIS, look no further than Syria. It's well-known and propagated that Syria is the Arab world hope at the moment.

If Syria defeats ISIS, they'll be gone forever. They are already defeated in Egypt and Tunisia. If ISIS defeats Syria, a whole other scenario will emerge. Iraq, and Liban are probably their first target and will be at their mercy. Followed by Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria. They are already too strong in Morocco too and have political power there.

I'll then need to fly as far as Hong Kong or Australia.

Syria will not beat ISIS without significant Russian and US military support. Assad is losing ground to both ISIS and Nusra and the ground they take becomes scorched Earth.

ISIS as an entity is doing well. When it is pressured on one or two fronts it opens up more and believes in a good offense as the best defense. They're taking the opportunity with these suicide attacks like in Kobani to murder as many people as possible before dying.

ISIS will only suffer true defeat once it runs out of bodies but then a new ideology front will take up the baton and the whole cycle begins again.

Post: #75

It is no coincidence that most Islamic attacks on Western soil are committed by Salafi/Wahhabi Muslims. A sect of Islam considered almost heretic by other more orthodox/traditional sects.

There will be some crossover here and there, but generally the violence predominantly comes from this section of Islam.

The influence is widely documented. Steve Coll's Ghost Wars is somewhat of a benchmark on the hows and whys(Afghan nationalists were fighting Salafi/Wahhabi Taliban for control of the country).

Here is some more recent writing on it http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4355/s...sts-threat

Citing this paper http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR637.html

Quote:Abstract

This report examines the status and evolution of al Qa'ida and other Salafi-jihadist groups, a subject of intense debate in the West. Based on an analysis of thousands of primary source documents, the report concludes that there has been an increase in the number of Salafi-jihadist groups, fighters, and attacks over the past several years. The author uses this analysis to build a framework for addressing the varying levels of threat in different countries, from engagement in high-threat, low government capacity countries; to forward partnering in medium-threat, limited government capacity environments; to offshore balancing in countries with low levels of threat and sufficient government capacity to counter Salafi-jihadist groups.

Key Findings

The number of Salafi-jihadist groups and fighters increased after 2010, as well as the number of attacks perpetrated by al Qa'ida and its affiliates.
Examples include groups operating in Tunisia, Algeria, Mali, Libya, Egypt (including the Sinai Peninsula), Lebanon, and Syria.
These trends suggest that the United States needs to remain focused on countering the proliferation of Salafi-jihadist groups, which have started to resurge in North Africa and the Middle East, despite the temptations to shift attention and resources to the strategic "rebalance" to the Asia-Pacific region and to significantly decrease counterterrorism budgets in an era of fiscal constraint.