Muslim Civil War in Europe

[Elegant Winter]

If we keep them out of Western countries this isn't a question we have to wonder about.

 

[the]

We could run together all the way to the White House like Forest Gump. Stupid is as stupid does. Damn, Robin Wright was hot.

She was also fine in The Princess Bride. We should definitely run together to the White House, but let's make sure to stretch after. I feel terrible today.

 

[Skarekrow]

If we keep them out of Western countries this isn't a question we have to wonder about.

How about we quit bombing the shit out of the middle east, selling them weapons, and then quit crying about the surge of immigrants war displaces?
We can go make war there and call it “just”, but when they bring it to us (which hasn’t happened in the US I might add besides 9/11, it's statistically factual that most mass shooters are white christians) we try to isolate ourselves?
But you would rather isolate them right? In camps...with arm badges...don’t let them in and kick out or detain the ones already here?
Because that also, historically doesn’t work really well at stopping those you wish to contain...how would you like to be put in a group just because you are white or this or that and be ostracized and deported or made to wear some kind of identifier?
It would make you fight back don’t you think?

 

[Elegant Winter]

How about we quit bombing the shit out of the middle east, selling them weapons, and then quit crying about the surge of immigrants war displaces?
We can go make war there and call it “just”, but when they bring it to us (which hasn’t happened in the US I might add besides 9/11, it's statistically factual that most mass shooters are white christians) we try to isolate ourselves?
But you would rather isolate them right? In camps...with arm badges...don’t let them in and kick out or detain the ones already here?
Because that also, historically doesn’t work really well at stopping those you wish to contain...how would you like to be put in a group just because you are white or this or that and be ostracized and deported or made to wear some kind of identifier?
It would make you fight back don’t you think?

If they're smart they understand that it isn't the United States, the UK or France they're actually fighting. It's globalists who want to culturally/economically dominate every country on Earth. So when you say "we" you're incorrect.

As for segregation, yea, I think it's a fine idea. We segregate ourselves either way. Consider white flight. Why not, you know, simply segregate everyone into their own countries? It makes sense.

 

[Skarekrow]

If they're smart they understand that it isn't the United States, the UK or France they're actually fighting. It's globalists who want to culturally/economically dominate every country on Earth. So when you say "we" you're incorrect.

As for segregation, yea, I think that's a fine idea. We segregate ourselves either way. Consider white flight. Why not, you know, simply segregate everyone into their own countries? It makes sense.

When I say “we” I specifically mean the US and the UK, one of which we happen to live in...we “vote” for our leaders but they are really chosen by the rich...then we talk about how we are a “democracy”...and how we are “spreading democracy” around the world.
Either way, they see their attackers as a whole...as in “we” - much the same way you bundle all Muslims together, or african americans...so who’s incorrect?
You present a jaded and very narrow viewpoint, very few people support segregation.
So once again...good luck with the wall and the death camps.

 

[5r6jhd]

That is utter nonsense as you well know. I've never called any his posts conspicuous because I disagreed with it. When have I shown signs of bitterness toward my fellow members? Are you going to start accusing me of personally attacking someone again? Goodness, I'm sick and tired of some of these members dragging down debates on those political threads, and several people I know are sick and tired of it too, they just don't suggest it outright because they're too busy with other things.

I had already planned to take a break from the forum anyway, so perhaps that will be to the benefit of those that think I am 'conspicuous'. Either way, I need it to secure my own sanity.

I was referring to the part about accepting other people have different perspectives. You haven't exaclty been tolerant of those with differing views to your own lately.

 

[5r6jhd]

The terribly bitter reaction from members of the British electorate after the Brexit vote has drove me further to insanity, so I must apologise to both [MENTION=14199]brightmoon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5297]Katniss Neverbeef[/MENTION] for getting incredibly overzealous in my responses. Much has happened over the course of the last few days that has made my blood boil to record temperatures. I'll take a break from the forum until the hysteria in my country has died down, and people finally end their tirades against the voters.

Hi Jack, I clarified in my last response to you. I've been out all day at a christening, so I haven't had the change to catch up on all thats happened in threads and most likely wont this evening.

No apology is needed. I am sorry if you tool my posts to heart. I consider you a friend and no ill will ism eant to you. I know you have been very emotionally involved in this last referendum. My posts to you in recent days weren't to put you down, but just point out that maybe you were being unfair to people who meant no harm. We all get emotional in the poltical threads, dont worry about it. I have been guilty of it myself. I hope you don't leave, but understand if you need to take a break. Trust me, I've been there!

 

[Krypton]

If we keep them out of Western countries this isn't a question we have to wonder about.

On its own, this isn't justification to keep the non-radical Muslims out. When you factor in foreign aid, maybe, but I kind of would want to evaluate that separately, and many of the politicians currently supporting immigration limits seem to be doing it for reasons that would also justify (to them) limiting foreign aid.

If they're smart they understand that it isn't the United States, the UK or France they're actually fighting. It's globalists who want to culturally/economically dominate every country on Earth. So when you say "we" you're incorrect.

As for segregation, yea, I think it's a fine idea. We segregate ourselves either way. Consider white flight. Why not, you know, simply segregate everyone into their own countries? It makes sense.

What exactly did globalists do?

 

[Elegant Winter]

On its own, this isn't justification to keep the non-radical Muslims out. When you factor in foreign aid, maybe, but I kind of would want to evaluate that separately, and many of the politicians currently supporting immigration limits seem to be doing it for reasons that would also justify (to them) limiting foreign aid.

What exactly did globalists do?

"On its own, this isn't justification to keep the non-radical Muslims out. When you factor in foreign aid, maybe, but I kind of would want to evaluate that separately, and many of the politicians currently supporting immigration limits seem to be doing it for reasons that would also justify (to them) limiting foreign aid."

Yes, alone it's not enough, but in combination with other things there is more than enough reason to keep them out.

Let's look at France, since they have a relatively large Muslim minority - around ten percent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-have-become-no-go-zones-for-non-Muslims.html

"'Most big French cities have areas which have become 'no-go zones' which non-Muslims and even police cannot enter,' Nigel Farage has said. The UKIP leader has said that Britain and European countries have suffered from 'moral cowardice' and allowed 'big ghettos' to develop. 'It's happening right across Europe. We've been turning a blind eye to preachers of hate that have been coming here from the Middle East and saying things for which the rest of us would be arrested.'

'In parts of northern England we've seen the sexual grooming of under-age girls committed by Muslim men, in the majority, and for all of these things we are seeing the law not being applied equally, we're seeing the police forces not doing their job because we've suffered from moral cowardice. We have through mass immigration and through not checking the details of those people who have come to our countries allowed big ghettos to develop and when it comes to confronting tough issues we're run a mile and that is why we're in the mess we're in. We've been led very badly.'"

This article's from a year and a half ago and it's only worsened since then, especially in Germany. Also, it's essential to note that this "moral cowardice" he refers to is political correctness and political correctness (also commonly referred to as Cultural Marxism) is a creation of the globalists. I suspect it was created in order to coerce us into compliance regarding the immigration of third world migrants (often Muslim), the artificial elevation of black "culture," affirmative action style quotas and so on.

This is in the article as well: "So wherever you look you see this blind eye being turned and you see the growth of ghettos where the police and all the normal agents of the law have withdrawn and that is where sharia law has come in and you know it got so bad in Britain that our last Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of our church, actually said we should accept sharia law."

Outrageous, right? Not to the left-wing. They welcome this. This is the multiculturalism they think they desire, but they live in an entirely separate reality and don't understand what's happening in the real world. They often think being able to eat tacos and sushi is an advanced form of multiculturalism, for example.

I'm sure you've heard of Rotherham, but even if you have and everyone else has I'd bring it up anyway. It's very important to acknowledge those horrors, so we remember why we believe what we do.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28939089

"At least fourteen hundred children were subjected to appalling sexual exploitation in Rotherham (almost completely by Muslim Pakistanis) between 1997 and 2013, a report has found. Children as young as eleven were raped by multiple perpetrators, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated, it said.

The inquiry team found examples of 'children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone.' Five men from the town were jailed for sexual offenses against girls in 2010, but the report said police 'regarded many child victims with contempt.'

The report found: 'Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.'"

A few interesting parts from this particular article, which is somewhat light on the horrific details. Anyway, it's all a direct result of political correctness. A lot of these children would've been spared this incredible suffering if the police officers didn't have to deal with threats of "racist" or "bigot" and so on with the possibility of also losing their jobs (or obviously they would've been spared it if there were no Muslim Pakistanis there to begin with). Then combine that unwillingness to act with Muslim Pakistanis and their disdain for women and the West and, well, it's evident where that leads, isn't it?

Also, I think the British police were often resentful of the children and teenagers who were being raped, etc, because they reminded them of their own cowardice.

Here's a similar event, which doesn't spare the horrific details people require in order to be excited into some kind of change:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-t-face.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

"Twelve rapists, a thirteen-year-old victim and a terrifying truth Britain still won't face: The disturbing full story behind the gangs of Pakistani men who target white girls.

One such drug dealer was teenager Arif Chowdhury. He is twenty now but he was fifteen when this story begins. His 'runner' back then was a vulnerable thirteen-year-old white girl from a broken home. She didn’t just deliver drugs (heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, cannabis, steroids) to Chowdhury’s low-life customers, she also became his sexual property and was passed around his associates. The location where much of the abuse took place was the underground car park of the disused police station, a perverse irony in the circumstances, which has now been converted to an office block. The words 'Top End' are daubed in big blue letters near the entrance.

Chowdhury put a sofa in this subterranean lair - the building was empty at the time - then he and four friends (two sets of brothers, all in their early twenties or late teens) gang raped the thirteen-year-old at will. After one sustained attack, they mocked their victim by scrawling their names next to hers on the wall of a parking bay, in the same way that, say, young lovers might innocently carve their initials on a tree. The car park, which became a dungeon for the girl, was just yards from Keighley's main shopping thoroughfare on Devonshire Street. Often, people would be walking past on the pavement, virtually above her head, while she was being raped.

Sometimes, Chowdhury went so far as to 'share' the girl with rival Asians (Pakistanis) from Dalton Lane and Lawkholme, the so-called 'Bottom Enders.' Such was their collective contempt for the girl that traditional rivalries were set aside. In all, twelve Asian youths and men took it in turns to violate her in the course of one hellish year. The persecution was not just physical. The perpetrators also telephoned her at home and called her a 'slut' and a 'slag.' One of her tormentors turned up at her house when her mother and stepfather were out and threatened to douse the property in petrol and set it alight unless she had sex with him. She was insulted on Facebook, and, once, when she was out with her grandmother in the town center, they shouted out: 'We'll see you tonight.'"

The punishment handed down to the culprits a few days ago at Bradford Crown Court, following a complex and lengthy police investigation, reflected the wickedness and depravity of their behavior: one hundred and forty three years in total, with individual sentences ranging from three-and-a-half to twenty years."

These are events that will become increasingly common in the coming decades as Muslim minorities continue to grow and I have no doubt similar events are happening right now in Sweden, France, Germany and wherever else there are large Muslim minorities. That is the collective contempt toward women - especially white women - that Muslims have. They commonly see white women as sluts or whores who are worthy only of degradation and abuse.

Moving on, note how quickly immigrant populations are growing:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-population-jumps-in-some-european-countries/

As you see here, there have been considerable increases in the number of immigrants - most of which are in fact Muslim - in many European countries in the last year and it's been slowly increasing for a very long time now.

Also, this is while many European countries have abysmal fertility rates. Consider Germany's fertility rate. It's 1.3, which means the German population is shrinking rather rapidly while the Muslim population is growing very quickly, through a much higher fertility rate and mass immigration. An obvious recipe for disaster, no? It would not be a surprise to see ethnic Germans a minority in their own country within the next thirty years and it also would not be a surprise to see a Muslim majority in Germany in the next forty or fifty.

I think it's safe to say in the long term Muslims pose an existential threat to the Germans and many other European peoples. A lot of others see this as well and you can see articles inspired by fear all over the place on the internet. It's a reasonable fear. Also, to quote Marine Le Pen, "The progressive Islamization of our country and the increase in political-religious demands are calling into question the survival of our civilization."

Anyway, back to sharia law, since that's an incredibly important point to make.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Let's pay special attention to the fact that around thirty percent of Muslims believe in executing apostates. You said there's not enough justification to keep "non-radical" Muslims out. I'm of the belief that Islam and the culture which currently surrounds it are radical in nature, so we should keep them all out. Even if you don't consider it radical, you have to understand that the Middle East is the nightmare it is not because of Western oppression, but because they live in an entirely different era spiritually. They have not advanced with the rest of the world. To quote Winston Churchill, "Islam is the most retrograde force in the world." He said that a long time ago, but it still holds true.

These are a few of the reasons why I believe a Muslim ban is the right decision. I'll answer your other question later.

 

[Krypton]

[MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION]

For me, the thing is that they don't stop being criminals when they've left the country, or if they remain in Egypt or Iraq or Syria or whichever one they came from. Criminal operations are still going to exist where they're at, and where they're at there's not even a theoretical cultural interest in stopping them. even during Egypt's "secular rule", sharia was the basis for laws and numerous religious laws were in place, for instance. So, in my own opinion, I think we ought to try to do what we can in the West to pull those people away from areas in which it's part of the culture to do what they do, and into areas where they can be arrested for it. Or hell, killed for it in extreme cases.

That they aren't doing this in Europe is something that needs to change. But that can be advocated for just as easily as a more nationalist sentiment.


The population argument is, I agree, a better one, but the fact is that moderate muslim populations will grow alongside the extremist populations, and could serve to block them. The majority, and probably a larger number of them than the extremists, will be neutral rather than involved in the conflict if it happens, but you only need some and some of the white population not to be neutral.