Political Roundtable - Part VII

[fishercob]

Nothing about France? No worries since it is happening in Europe and not here.

They clearly brought it on themselves - we should probably just ignore it. Probably need to get our troops out of Europe

My thoughts:

1. It will happen again, and again, and again. Diversity is not a strength. It's a weakness the undermines the bonds of community and leads to mistrust and ultimately violence.

I agree that it will happen again until some underlying causes get addressed and/or ISIS gets weakened and/or isolated. Your claim about diversity is pretty funny considering you are posting this on a basketball forum.

2. It will get worse as more and more Muslims invade Europe. The majority of Muslims are peaceful, but a significant minority are not. Europe as we know it is probably already doomed. The fertility of Muslims relative to Westerners will take care of that. Muslims are having 4-6 kids, Westerners are having 1-2. In two generations, Muslims of Middle Eastern and North African descent will be the majority in many European nations. Europe will become Turkey. A great civilization will be lost - lost because the people lacked the political will to defend themselves from invasion.

I dunno. It does seem like Europe's immigration policies have led to some really big problems.

3. Our wars in the Middle East are a clear failure. It inspired massive anti-Western sentiment while doing very little to subdue radical Islam. Our tactics need to change. They won't.

Hard to argue that. The Iraq war was a spectacular failure. The decision to pull out of Iraq seems to have compounded the problem -- but I don't know how you leave the middle east without leaving the middle east.

4. To defeat radical Islam, we would need to kill a whole lot of people, take over the land, seize the oil to fund the occupation, and forcibly either moderate Islam or convert them to Christianity. We clearly do not have the will to do this (and understandably so) so the next best thing is to pull out altogether and isolate the region from the West. That's what I would do. Pull out. Let them have the Middle East. Let Israel fend for themselves.

There's clearly a lot of killing in the offing. "Converting them to Christianity" is hilarious. Kudos.

5. Islam and the West are culturally incompatible and should be separated. Both Europe and the U.S. should halt all immigration from Muslim nations. A careful vetting procedure should be set up where only highly educated Muslims with no history of violence and a high probability of assimilation should be admitted. Everyone else should be denied entry. Furthermore any recent Muslim immigrant who is not yet a citizen should have their visas revoked and they should be expelled. Immigration policy should be set up for the good of the country, not the good of the immigrants.

What? Islam and the West are incompatible, but education negates that? Then they're obviously not incompatible. The millions of peaceful Muslims living in the west (not to mention the denizens of criminal christians, jews, atheists, et al) would seem to counter that as well. There's so much more nuance here than you're interested in applying.

6. This of course will never happen. Every other nationality and ethnicity has the right to exist, but Westerners are not allowed to defend their culture. We must be understanding and accepting of diversity. Japan can be xenophobic and not permit immigration. Muslims can kill or expel all Christians. Jews can establish a Jewish-only state. Mexico can have draconian anti-immigration rules. But Westerners have to let everyone in and watch their institutions and traditions be undermined.

Yikes.

7. All the liberal politically correct do-gooders on this board will tell me that I'm Hitler and continue to vote for the status quo. If we start letting in hundreds of thousands of Muslim "refugees", 20 years from now, we will be where Europe is now. There will be more terrorist attacks from within, greater community strife, more rapes and crime, worse educational institutions, and an eventual
collapse of the welfare state. 20 years further down the road, our society will begin to fail. Civil war will be the likely outcome. Liberals will still manage to blame conservatives.

You are most assuredly not Hitler, but I'm pretty unimpressed at the intellectual rigor you've applied here.

[nate33]

Nothing about France? No worries since it is happening in Europe and not here.

They clearly brought it on themselves - we should probably just ignore it. Probably need to get our troops out of Europe

My thoughts:

1. It will happen again, and again, and again. Diversity is not a strength. It's a weakness the undermines the bonds of community and leads to mistrust and ultimately violence.

2. It will get worse as more and more Muslims invade Europe. The majority of Muslims are peaceful, but a significant minority are not. Europe as we know it is probably already doomed. The fertility of Muslims relative to Westerners will take care of that. Muslims are having 4-6 kids, Westerners are having 1-2. In two generations, Muslims of Middle Eastern and North African descent will be the majority in many European nations. Europe will become Turkey. A great civilization will be lost - lost because the people lacked the political will to defend themselves from invasion.

3. Our wars in the Middle East are a clear failure. It inspired massive anti-Western sentiment while doing very little to subdue radical Islam. Our tactics need to change. They won't.

4. To defeat radical Islam, we would need to kill a whole lot of people, take over the land, seize the oil to fund the occupation, and forcibly either moderate Islam or convert them to Christianity. We clearly do not have the will to do this (and understandably so) so the next best thing is to pull out altogether and isolate the region from the West. That's what I would do. Pull out. Let them have the Middle East. Let Israel fend for themselves.

5. Islam and the West are culturally incompatible and should be separated. Both Europe and the U.S. should halt all immigration from Muslim nations. A careful vetting procedure should be set up where only highly educated Muslims with no history of violence and a high probability of assimilation should be admitted. Everyone else should be denied entry. Furthermore any recent Muslim immigrant who is not yet a citizen should have their visas revoked and they should be expelled. Immigration policy should be set up for the good of the country, not the good of the immigrants.

6. This of course will never happen. Every other nationality and ethnicity has the right to exist, but Westerners are not allowed to defend their culture. We must be understanding and accepting of diversity. Japan can be xenophobic and not permit immigration. Muslims can kill or expel all Christians. Jews can establish a Jewish-only state. Mexico can have draconian anti-immigration rules. But Westerners have to let everyone in and watch their institutions and traditions be undermined.

7. All the liberal politically correct do-gooders on this board will tell me that I'm Hitler and continue to vote for the status quo. If we start letting in hundreds of thousands of Muslim "refugees", 20 years from now, we will be where Europe is now. There will be more terrorist attacks from within, greater community strife, more rapes and crime, worse educational institutions, and an eventual collapse of the welfare state. 20 years further down the road, our society will begin to fail. Civil war will be the likely outcome. Liberals will still manage to blame conservatives.

The ideas expressed in this post are repugnant, scary and (thankfully) unrealistic. Man I'm glad you're not in a position of power.

Okay. Since you are obviously so morally superior, what is your solution?

Assume the following premises are correct or tell me why you don't think that they are:

1. Islam is growing as a religion. Islam encourages high fertility and it is very effective at proselytizing. Where there are currently a 5% Islamic population on an otherwise low fertility society, in a generation it'll be 10%.

2. Between 50% and 90% of Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa favor the imposition of Sharia Law. That same sentiment is likely to be shared by Muslim immigrants originating in the Middle East and North Africa.

3. If there is a terrorist attack or a rape committed by a recent Muslim immigrant, it will involve your daughter.

Note that my solution is the most peaceful possible solution. There is no violence proposed in the Middle East, no bombs, no boots on the ground. I also have a plan to minimize the potential for terrorist attacks here to the maximum extent possible. And it does nothing to violate anyone's civil rights. I'm not doing a thing to any U.S. citizen. I'm merely adjusting our immigration policy and deporting those who are here on guest visas. Heck, it's also really cheap. We'd save billions on our military budget. Yet you consider it repugnant and scary.

What would you do? It's easy to get on a high horse and talk about "our" need to care for these poor refugees when it's somebody else footing the bill for it and/or dying in a future attack.

[nate33]

I agree that it will happen again until some underlying causes get addressed and/or ISIS gets weakened and/or isolated. Your claim about diversity is pretty funny considering you are posting this on a basketball forum.

Is there not significant distrust and violence between black and white culture? And that's after 300+ years of living among each other. There is also considerable distrust and violence between Hindus and Muslims. And between Christian Africans and Muslim Africans, and between the Chinese and the Buddhist Tibetans. Different cultures don't really get along. The fact that I enjoy basketball doesn't negate what I said. (Note, the black/white issue is different since blacks were brought here against their will. We have a duty to resolve those differences. But I see no compelling reason to continue to import radically different cultures here. What is the upside?)

There's clearly a lot of killing in the offing. "Converting them to Christianity" is hilarious. Kudos.

The "convert to Christianity" part was mostly tongue in cheek. I lifted it from Ann Coulter because it stirs the pot a bit. But the thrust of my argument is that we would need to stick around long enough to significantly moderate and/or eliminate Islam. I certainly wouldn't advocate doing so. Their culture doesn't need to be exterminated - merely separated from ours.

What? Islam and the West are incompatible, but education negates that? Then they're obviously not incompatible. The millions of peaceful Muslims living in the west (not to mention the denizens of criminal christians, jews, atheists, et al) would seem to counter that as well. There's so much more nuance here than you're interested in applying.

I think it's pretty obvious that education tends to moderate religious beliefs, if not completely convert the educated to atheism or psuedo-atheism. That's why I think we are less threatened by the educated. I'd be open to eliminating all immigration from Muslim countries completely, if you think that's necessary to maintain consistency of policy.

Yikes.

What do you mean by "yikes"? Do you think my point is inaccurate? You haven't noticed that nearly every other culture except the West is much more restrictive of immigration and other influences that could impact their culture?

I'm pretty unimpressed at the intellectual rigor you've applied here.

I assumed you would be.

What is your solution? How do you propose to curtail radical Islamic terrorism in Europe and eventually in the United States? Do you have any proposal or even desire to preserve Western culture at all?

I'm sure 20 years ago, when France first started admitting Muslims on a large scale, they were all smugly sure that it wouldn't undermine their society. Now they have "no go zones" where French police cannot enter and Sharia Law is displacing French civil law; and terrorist attacks of mass murder are becoming common. There will inevitably be a lot more violent conflict, death, sadness and fear. A little healthy xenophobia, applied early enough, would have averted all of this. But it's the xenophobes who are considered evil.

I simply propose an immigration policy no different than Japan, or Israel. It's amazing that I'm being branded as "scary".

[dckingsfan]

I think Obama's plan hasn't worked very well. Basically keep your finger in the pie but no boots on the ground. Unimpressed.

Emotionally, I like the isolationist plan. But eventually that one falls down when our citizens can't travel abroad. Are we going to have an isolationist economy as well?

It will be interesting to see if the French react like the Bush administration did...

[I_Like_Dirt]

The modern world, as a culture, has brought on their own problem, which inclus areas like Europe, North America, Japan, Korea, Russia and even China. Muslim society has it's issues, too, but the west has basically been living in a bubble where they increase rights and decrease responsibilities for a long time now, bot realizing that righta and responsibilities go hand in hand. Low birth rates are going severely hurt those countries moving forward and it has nothing to do with Muslim birth rate.

Catholicism is actually spreading faster than Islam, or it was a few years ago the last time I checked, but is spreading in poorer areas of the world and largely goes unnoticed. No kids in wealthier countries combined with increasing debts are a problem.

[dckingsfan]

I think one other interesting thing to note - somewhere after 2060 it is projected that whites are no longer the majority.

[dckingsfan]

The modern world, as a culture, has brought on their own problem, which inclus areas like Europe, North America, Japan, Korea, Russia and even China. Muslim society has it's issues, too, but the west has basically been living in a bubble where they increase rights and decrease responsibilities for a long time now, bot realizing that righta and responsibilities go hand in hand. Low birth rates are going severely hurt those countries moving forward and it has nothing to do with Muslim birth rate.

Catholicism is actually spreading faster than Islam, or it was a few years ago the last time I checked, but is spreading in poorer areas of the world and largely goes unnoticed. No kids in wealthier countries combined with increasing debts are a problem.

Describe the increased rights and then the decreased responsibility please...

[nate33]

The modern world, as a culture, has brought on their own problem, which inclus areas like Europe, North America, Japan, Korea, Russia and even China. Muslim society has it's issues, too, but the west has basically been living in a bubble where they increase rights and decrease responsibilities for a long time now, bot realizing that righta and responsibilities go hand in hand. Low birth rates are going severely hurt those countries moving forward and it has nothing to do with Muslim birth rate.

Catholicism is actually spreading faster than Islam, or it was a few years ago the last time I checked, but is spreading in poorer areas of the world and largely goes unnoticed. No kids in wealthier countries combined with increasing debts are a problem.

Good point about the West living in a bubble. They've had the luxury of a banking system that borrows from the future to an extent never before contemplated. With that borrowed prosperity, they have fooled themselves into thinking they have all the answers and that they have secured a position of dominance in the world in perpetuity. This borrowed prosperity has allowed them the cushion to make several egregious mistakes which, when the costs of those mistakes are fully realized, will probably cripple their society.

For cryin out loud, we spent a trillion dollars on Middle Eastern war with nothing to show for it. What society has ever squandered so much wealth so pointlessly?

[nate33]

I think one other interesting thing to note - somewhere after 2060 it is projected that whites are no longer the majority.

I'm sure this chart makes lots of people giddy. Those people should go check the crime rates in Brazil.

[dckingsfan]

Nate the other choice would be in Spain? Or Portugal? I think the crime rates that we have in the US will be dependent on the culture we set.

[fishercob]

I think one other interesting thing to note - somewhere after 2060 it is projected that whites are no longer the majority.

I'm sure this chart makes lots of people giddy. Those people should go check the crime rates in Brazil.

Are you implying the Brazilian crime rate is due to the genetic characteristics of the populace?

[dckingsfan]

Also, I am pointing out that the demographics in the US is going to change...

[DCZards]

Nate the other choice would be in Spain? Or Portugal? I think the crime rates that we have in the US will be dependent on the culture we set.

Yes...on the culture we set, the education we provide and the opportunities we create.

[bsilver]

It's easy to simplify the administrations position when you don't have to run the country.
We have many Muslim allies including those that practice radical Islam (Saudi Arabia).
We have important relationships with other Muslim countries that are unstable and could be jeopardized (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc)
We have about 6 million Muslims in the US that could potentially be radicalized if rhetoric and policy becomes too anti-Muslim.
We could stop accepting Syrian refugees, but not stop accepting Muslim immigrants. That's illegal.
The problem is too important to politicize. We're at war with ISIS, the Taliban, and al-qaeda and its off-shoots. We should fight these groups and skip the broad labeling of enemies when it accomplishes nothing other than harming our long term interests. We have to live in a world with 1.57 billion Muslims whether we like it or not.

I would add that this country has millions of peace-loving Muslims, many of them American citizens and veterans who are as patriotic as any of us on this board, who could potentially become targets because of the anti-Muslim rhetoric.

The rhetoric only has an effect if they are in an environment that is conducive to them being radicalized. Simple bigotry won't do it I think. Economic despair has a considerable effect on the ones susceptible to this. If a lot of these Muslim nations actually had some semblance of an economy there wouldn't be such a large populous to leech off of. I think most have read how badly off a lot of muslims are in France, so of course their hopelessness will be easy to leech off of (not to say I blame France for their economic woes, I don't know French economics well enough to BLAME anyone). I don't know where muslim americans stand economically compared to everyone else in the US, but I don't think xenophobia alone would cause radicalization unless, like someone physically assaulted you in the name of some judeo-christian 'merica deity.

A lot has been written on the relationship between poverty and terrorism. In my opinion, there really isn't a direct link between the two. Billions of people are dirt poor and show no sign of terrorist activity. Also, most terrorist leadership is from middle class or above backgrounds.

The situation in the US is maybe on the edge. There's a lot of nasty anti-Mulim rhetoric underway, but like you said, "I don't think xenophobia alone would cause radicalization unless, like someone physically assaulted you in the name of some judeo-christian 'merica deity". Older people tend to take whatever sh*t is dealt out, but younger ones are more likely to look for revenge. With the bombardment of anti-westernism available on social media it doesn't take too many current US citizens to get converted to a terrorist response. There's no reason to fan the flames. Just go after the bad guys.

[nate33]

I think one other interesting thing to note - somewhere after 2060 it is projected that whites are no longer the majority.

I'm sure this chart makes lots of people giddy. Those people should go check the crime rates in Brazil.

Are you implying the Brazilian crime rate is due to the genetic characteristics of the populace?

The Constitution, the Magna Carta, and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations are not state secrets. I must conclude that others either don't want a society like ours (which is fine with me), or they are unable to replicate a society like ours. I'll change my mind when I see an African, Middle Eastern or Latin American nation with crime rates in line with ours while also maintaining freedom. (Saudi Arabia, for instance, has pretty low crime but I wouldn't want to live there.)

Perhaps the reason is cultural, perhaps it's genetic, perhaps it's a combination of the two. Indeed, I suspect cultural and genetic trends are intertwined and self-reinforcing. A culture shapes a society so that those that have the innate skills and temperament to thrive in such a society have more offspring. Then the genetically adapted offspring continue to guide society in their direction.

I think there's a reason why all Middle Eastern societies, for example, tend toward autocratic governments. It's the type of government that is best suited for innate behavior tendencies and desires of the people there. If they had the same history and cultural heritage that shaped the people of Europe, they would probably tend more toward free market democracy. This is not to say that European culture and institutions are superior in the abstract. It just means that European institutions are preferable for those of European heritage. European style governance has been largely a failure when practiced among non-Europeans (see African colonialism). With that the case, I suspect that our European institutions will become less and less successful as our people become less and less European in heritage.

We have evidence of this already. Here's a list of the Best and Worst Small Cities in America where 1268 small cities are ranked. Scroll down to the bottom of the list. Notice a trend?

[bsilver]

Nate the other choice would be in Spain? Or Portugal? I think the crime rates that we have in the US will be dependent on the culture we set.

Yes...on the culture we set, the education we provide and the opportunities we create.

Exactly. Hispanics and Asians are coming here for the economic opportunities - not handouts. No different than my grandparents about a 120 years ago. If immigrants are welcome and successful, crime won't be a problem.

[TheSecretWeapon]

My thoughts:

1. It will happen again, and again, and again. Diversity is not a strength. It's a weakness the undermines the bonds of community and leads to mistrust and ultimately violence.

2. It will get worse as more and more Muslims invade Europe. The majority of Muslims are peaceful, but a significant minority are not. Europe as we know it is probably already doomed. The fertility of Muslims relative to Westerners will take care of that. Muslims are having 4-6 kids, Westerners are having 1-2. In two generations, Muslims of Middle Eastern and North African descent will be the majority in many European nations. Europe will become Turkey. A great civilization will be lost - lost because the people lacked the political will to defend themselves from invasion.

3. Our wars in the Middle East are a clear failure. It inspired massive anti-Western sentiment while doing very little to subdue radical Islam. Our tactics need to change. They won't.

4. To defeat radical Islam, we would need to kill a whole lot of people, take over the land, seize the oil to fund the occupation, and forcibly either moderate Islam or convert them to Christianity. We clearly do not have the will to do this (and understandably so) so the next best thing is to pull out altogether and isolate the region from the West. That's what I would do. Pull out. Let them have the Middle East. Let Israel fend for themselves.

5. Islam and the West are culturally incompatible and should be separated. Both Europe and the U.S. should halt all immigration from Muslim nations. A careful vetting procedure should be set up where only highly educated Muslims with no history of violence and a high probability of assimilation should be admitted. Everyone else should be denied entry. Furthermore any recent Muslim immigrant who is not yet a citizen should have their visas revoked and they should be expelled. Immigration policy should be set up for the good of the country, not the good of the immigrants.

6. This of course will never happen. Every other nationality and ethnicity has the right to exist, but Westerners are not allowed to defend their culture. We must be understanding and accepting of diversity. Japan can be xenophobic and not permit immigration. Muslims can kill or expel all Christians. Jews can establish a Jewish-only state. Mexico can have draconian anti-immigration rules. But Westerners have to let everyone in and watch their institutions and traditions be undermined.

7. All the liberal politically correct do-gooders on this board will tell me that I'm Hitler and continue to vote for the status quo. If we start letting in hundreds of thousands of Muslim "refugees", 20 years from now, we will be where Europe is now. There will be more terrorist attacks from within, greater community strife, more rapes and crime, worse educational institutions, and an eventual collapse of the welfare state. 20 years further down the road, our society will begin to fail. Civil war will be the likely outcome. Liberals will still manage to blame conservatives.

The ideas expressed in this post are repugnant, scary and (thankfully) unrealistic. Man I'm glad you're not in a position of power.

Okay. Since you are obviously so morally superior, what is your solution?

It's not about moral superiority. Rather, it's about actually believing in the benefits of a free and open society, it's about actually living in and enjoying diversity in my day-to-day life. It's about not worshiping at the altar of the superiority of White "culture" or European culture or Western culture.

As far as solutions to terrorism, war, etc. -- I don't don't have one. Best I can tell in my reading of history, there have always been conflicts. There have always been , but what you're proposing -- segregation -- has been tried in various guises through history and have led to some of the worst atrocities in history.

Assume the following premises are correct or tell me why you don't think that they are:

1. Islam is growing as a religion. Islam encourages high fertility and it is very effective at proselytizing. Where there are currently a 5% Islamic population on an otherwise low fertility society, in a generation it'll be 10%.

And?

What's so scary about this? I have Muslim friends and neighbors. We're very close friends with one family in particular. Except, in my house, we really don't think of them as "Muslims" or "Arabs" or "Islamic" -- they're people we spend time with now and then.

2. Between 50% and 90% of Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa favor the imposition of Sharia Law. That same sentiment is likely to be shared by Muslim immigrants originating in the Middle East and North Africa.

And? People want all kinds of things. In a democratic society, those things are decided by debate and voting.

3. If there is a terrorist attack or a rape committed by a recent Muslim immigrant, it will involve your daughter.

Great argument. To avoid the extremely remote possibility that my daughter (or someone else I love) gets victimized by a Muslim immigrant, I now agree with your plan of segregation and/or genocide. Oh wait, am I being morally superior now?

Note that my solution is the most peaceful possible solution. There is no violence proposed in the Middle East, no bombs, no boots on the ground. I also have a plan to minimize the potential for terrorist attacks here to the maximum extent possible. And it does nothing to violate anyone's civil rights. I'm not doing a thing to any U.S. citizen. I'm merely adjusting our immigration policy and deporting those who are here on guest visas. Heck, it's also really cheap. We'd save billions on our military budget. Yet you consider it repugnant and scary.

What would you do? It's easy to get on a high horse and talk about "our" need to care for these poor refugees when it's somebody else footing the bill for it and/or dying in a future attack.

Your various "solutions" included invading the Middle East, taking over territory, stealing oil to fund the occupation, and then segregating the world based on religious, cultural and ethnic lines. That's not peaceful. It's violent.

And yes, your thoughts on this subject (as articulated in that 7-point post yesterday) are scary and repugnant. Also racist and xenophobic.

[nate33]

The ideas expressed in this post are repugnant, scary and (thankfully) unrealistic. Man I'm glad you're not in a position of power.

Okay. Since you are obviously so morally superior, what is your solution?

It's not about moral superiority. Rather, it's about actually believing in the benefits of a free and open society, it's about actually living in and enjoying diversity in my day-to-day life. It's about not worshiping at the altar of the superiority of White "culture" or European culture or Western culture.

As far as solutions to terrorism, war, etc. -- I don't don't have one. Best I can tell in my reading of history, there have always been conflicts. There have always been , but what you're proposing -- segregation -- has been tried in various guises through history and have led to some of the worst atrocities in history.

Assume the following premises are correct or tell me why you don't think that they are:

1. Islam is growing as a religion. Islam encourages high fertility and it is very effective at proselytizing. Where there are currently a 5% Islamic population on an otherwise low fertility society, in a generation it'll be 10%.

And?

What's so scary about this? I have Muslim friends and neighbors. We're very close friends with one family in particular. Except, in my house, we really don't think of them as "Muslims" or "Arabs" or "Islamic" -- they're people we spend time with now and then.

2. Between 50% and 90% of Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa favor the imposition of Sharia Law. That same sentiment is likely to be shared by Muslim immigrants originating in the Middle East and North Africa.

And? People want all kinds of things. In a democratic society, those things are decided by debate and voting.

3. If there is a terrorist attack or a rape committed by a recent Muslim immigrant, it will involve your daughter.

Great argument. To avoid the extremely remote possibility that my daughter (or someone else I love) gets victimized by a Muslim immigrant, I now agree with your plan of segregation and/or genocide. Oh wait, am I being morally superior now?

Note that my solution is the most peaceful possible solution. There is no violence proposed in the Middle East, no bombs, no boots on the ground. I also have a plan to minimize the potential for terrorist attacks here to the maximum extent possible. And it does nothing to violate anyone's civil rights. I'm not doing a thing to any U.S. citizen. I'm merely adjusting our immigration policy and deporting those who are here on guest visas. Heck, it's also really cheap. We'd save billions on our military budget. Yet you consider it repugnant and scary.

What would you do? It's easy to get on a high horse and talk about "our" need to care for these poor refugees when it's somebody else footing the bill for it and/or dying in a future attack.

Your various "solutions" included invading the Middle East, taking over territory, stealing oil to fund the occupation, and then segregating the world based on religious, cultural and ethnic lines. That's not peaceful. It's violent.

And yes, your thoughts on this subject (as articulated in that 7-point post yesterday) are scary and repugnant. Also racist and xenophobic.

My solutions have never included invading the Middle East because in order to win militarily, we would need to convincingly conquer the entire region. My entire premise is that we can't do that because the associated death and destruction would be unconscionable. That's why I'm proposing separation.

And I note your response to my first two premises are "so what". Apparently, you haven't thought this through (or worse, maybe you have). If Islam has demonstrated the ability to expand rapidly in a low fertility society, and if Muslims tend to favor Sharia Law, then it is only a matter of time until there are voting blocks large enough to allow that to happen here. We are already seeing this in the "no go zones" in Paris. I, for one, do not wish to see Sharia Law enacted here. Perhaps you don't mind. If that's the case, then we are never going to agree. I hope it's not your daughter who gets stoned to death for the crime of being raped.

Basically, you stance is to ignore the future consequences of your inaction. That's very convenient for moral grandstanding, but it does nothing to address the problem. And there IS a problem. These attacks in Paris will NOT be the end of it.

[TheSecretWeapon]

My solutions have never included invading the Middle East because in order to win militarily, we would need to convincingly conquer the entire region. My entire premise is that we can't do that because the associated death and destruction would be unconscionable. That's why I'm proposing separation.

And I note your response to my first two premises are "so what". Apparently, you haven't thought this through (or worse, maybe you have). If Islam has demonstrated the ability to expand rapidly in a low fertility society, and if Muslims tend to favor Sharia Law, then it is only a matter of time until there are voting blocks large enough to allow that to happen here. We are already seeing this in the "no go zones" in Paris. I, for one, do not wish to see Sharia Law enacted here. Perhaps you don't mind. If that's the case, then we are never going to agree. I hope it's not your daughter who gets stoned to death for the crime of being raped.

Basically, you stance is to ignore the future consequences of your inaction. That's very convenient for moral grandstanding, but it does nothing to address the problem. And there IS a problem. These attacks in Paris will NOT be the end of it.

There isn't an instance in history where "separation" has "worked" in the way you seem to imagine it will. Humans have been, and probably always will be, in some form of conflict with each other. There have always been barbarians or other cultures or other people who want what one group has and is willing to use violence to get it. In my reading of history, this has been true of every culture, and every people.

And yes, my response to your first two premises IS "so what?" Again, the history of civilization shows that laws, societies, cultures, etc. are strict at times, and then are liberalized, and then are made tighter, and then are liberalized, and then made tighter, and so on. One of the benefits of diversity is (or can be) moderating the extremes. When it comes down to it, I believe our relatively free and open society isn't so fragile and weak that it won't be able to withstand debate. I also believe that in the decades necessary for Muslims to gain a big enough majority to do something like impose Sharia law, many would have experienced the benefits of a free and open society, and moderated their views.

I'm aware there will be more attacks like the one in Paris or Beirut or Cameroon or Kenya. I expect them. But segregation (or separation, if you prefer) won't stop these kinds of attacks. Invading the Middle East and establishing a military dictatorship won't do it either. There have always been groups on the fringes of civilization doing stuff like this. Technology changes, but human nature hasn't. My solution would be to continue trying to improve intelligence and investigation, and attempt to stop attacks before they're carried out.

[nate33]

I also believe that in the decades necessary for Muslims to gain a big enough majority to do something like impose Sharia law, many would have experienced the benefits of a free and open society, and moderated their views.

That's a pretty big gamble you are making there with potentially the entire future of our culture at stake. France made that same gamble. This isn't simply a matter of absorbing a culture. Fundamentalists in Islam have explicitly stated that they their goal is to conquer Europe by population displacement. Here is Imam Sheikh Muhammed Ayed in his own words:

They have lost their fertility, so they look for fertility in our midst. We will give them fertility! We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries. Whether you like it or not, oh Germans, oh Americans, oh French, Oh Italians, and all those like you. Take the refugees! We shall soon collect them in the name of the coming Caliphate. We will say to you: These are our sons. Send them or we will send our armies to you.

Doesn't this cause you any concern? Any concern at all?

I'm sorry. I'm just not as sanguine as you about this. I just don't see the compelling need to import a lot more Muslims. Why the rush? Why can't we hold off on permitting Muslim immigration until we see how France ends up? Why is this so "repugnant" and "scary".