patrick.net

Dan8267 says

No. I blame you and the assholes in our military who made bad decisions.

PLEASE STOP the self-flagellation.
Belgium can hardly be blamed for its military and exploitative role in the middle east.
Arab Muslims always had hegemonic ambitions and do believe heaven will not come upon the earth until they conquer the world.
Were it not for Charles the Hammer you might be a Muslim devot bending over 5 times a day.

Dan8267 says

the Middle East hates America

Because that's what they do. Brussels has nothing to do with America, it's just Muslims being Muslims, they like to blow people up in the marketplace.

Heraclitusstudent says

Belgium can hardly be blamed for its military and exploitative role in the middle east.

No one has blamed Belgium.

P N Dr Lo R says

Because that's what they do. Brussels has nothing to do with America, it's just Muslims being Muslims, they like to blow people up in the marketplace.

Ignorant white-washing of your country's history is neither patriotic nor useful to protecting our national security. Thankfully, the people at the Pentagon are a lot smarter than you and have recognized that what they call blowback is a serious national security threat.

Hornets love to sting other creatures, especially those wacking their nests with a big stick. Learn cause and effect. It's in our national security interests.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

Belgium can hardly be blamed for its military and exploitative role in the middle east.

No one has blamed Belgium.

Yes ISIS did. And followed up with an attack.

Brussels is still safe. Around 30 people died in a tragic bombing today. It's still a very safe place to be.

In the US, 400 people die each year due to heat related stress: http://www.nrdc.org/health/climate/heat.asp That's > 100 people per month in the hot period. Global warming should be striking more fear than jihadi jock itch. Not that jock itch is not a problem.

Placing blame is not the point. The point is coming up with a good strategy to overcome terrorism. More bombing is probably not the solution, as indicated by the OP.

You're comparing one city to a nation of 320+ Million people.

YesYNot says

Placing blame is not the point. The point is coming up with a good strategy to overcome terrorism. More bombing is probably not the solution, as indicated by the OP.

One great method is to identify the characteristics of terrorists and exclude people with those characteristics from entering the area, and encouraging those already there to leave.

YesYNot says

Brussels is still safe. Around 30 people died in a tragic bombing today. It's still a very safe place to be.

Yeah everything is well, not worse than whether. Go back to sleep.

The problem with this is that this is just a symptom: a large fraction of the Belgian population that harbor extremist beliefs, hate western values, and want to impose shariah law. These people are strong in their beliefs. They thrive on chaos and conflict. They reproduce much faster than the host society. They use our liberties against us.
They live in a society that is weak in its beliefs. A society that is extremely reluctant to even admit that there is a problem, and willing to bend backward to accommodate them. (as you, Dan and others are doing now)

The logical result is a confrontation that can only grow, until we end up with a full fledged civil war, and if these people ever get their hands on a nuke, they will not hesitate one second to use it .

All this because regressive leftists, which should be the first to confront these ideas, are instead doing everything they can to accommodate them.

Just look at this thread: it's the fault of everybody else except the ideas and beliefs that actually led to this crime.

YesYNot says

Placing blame is not the point.

That's exactly the point. Placing blame on the failed politicians (who mandated this onto their own people often without consent) and charging them with treason. Without blame and consequences nothing is learned or gained. Start securing borders, building walls, culturally (and racially if necessary) profiling wrt to those most likely hostile towards you and your area will become a much safer place. This used to be common sense before progressive leftoid and globalist politics. Do you think Israel has been profiling just for shits and giggles? Why do you think Marin (even better Mill Valley) is ultra-homogenous with very little crime? Why do you think the Asians keep outer Sunset and outer Richmond SF neighborhoods tightly within themselves and maintain a very low crime rate compared to the rest of the city?

To solve the problem of Muslim terrorists in the world, you have to enlist the help of peaceful Muslims. Otherwise, we are just going to continue some holy war that most Americans don't want. Eventually, some terrorist will get a dirty bomb or worse. It would be nice to solve this issue before that happens.

Walling ourselves off would probably reduce terrorism in the short term in our country, but would exacerbate the wider problem, which our military would have to deal with anyway. It would also potentially cause problems for our economy due to energy concerns. If we threw out all Muslims or people who are children of Muslims and people from Muslim countries, it would present a humanitarian concern. If we kept all Muslim citizens in the country, it would cause resentment, and could potentially increase terrorism from domestic Muslims.

Dan8267 says

Ignorant white-washing of your country's history

That's the same principle Jeanne Kirkpatrick sounded over and over:

"When Marxist dictators shoot their way into power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies. They blame United States policies of 100 years ago. But then they always blame America first."

"When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the "blame America first crowd" didn't blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States. But then, they always blame America first. . . . The American people know better."

Dan8267 says

Learn cause and effect.

We already know that--Muslims love to bomb people in the public square, it happens every day. That's how they make their living.

YesYNot says

In the US, 400 people die each year due to heat related stress:

I'll take my chances with heat related stress, thank you.

Dan8267 says

your country

I guess it goes without saying that although you're a citizen now you'll never refer to America as "my country"?

Heraclitusstudent says

No one has blamed Belgium.

Yes ISIS did. And followed up with an attack.

I was talking about on Patrick.net.

P N Dr Lo R says

"When Marxist dictators shoot their way into power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies. They blame United States policies of 100 years ago. But then they always blame America first."

Honey, I can blame multiple parties. I blame both Western imperial policies over the past 200 years AND the people running Middle Eastern Islamic states. In almost every conflict in Earth history, both sides share the blame. Only immature dumb-asses don't understand that.

Do you condone the use of the military to steal resources? Do you condone the setting up of violent despots who gas their own people? If not, you blame American politicians as well.

Oh, and honey, blaming politicians is not the same thing as blaming America. Our politicians and generals are not our country, dumb ass. I would never blame a country for evil. Countries do not make decisions. They are imaginary constructs. People make decisions. Individual persons. There is no such thing as blaming any country including America. There is only blaming people who enact evil policies. One day you might just grow up enough to understand this distinction, but I doubt it.

YesYNot says

Walling ourselves off would probably reduce terrorism in the short term in our country, but would exacerbate the wider problem

Clearly the problem is not accepting or refusing people from entering the country. In the US the Muslim community is far from being a threat the way it is in Europe.

The problem is to confront evil medieval ideas and denounce them as evil - even if such confrontation of other people beliefs makes everyone involved uncomfortable.

"Enlisting the help of peaceful Muslims" doesn't mean just letting all Muslims be and just asking for a bit of police help. It is asking them to renounce formally and publicly to some beliefs, in spite of the fact that such beliefs are enshrined in their sacred texts. And if they refuse then by definition they are not moderate Muslims.

The problem is this is like Voldemort: only Harry Potter sees the problem and no one else can bring themselves to admit that evil actually exists there.

Dan8267 says

It's time we rethink this strategy.

Maybe, but some of the basic factors in the calculation have not changed, including Islam.

Long ago, people used to say that "all roads lead to Rome." In Islam, all roads lead to Jihad. Islam requires Jihad. According to Islam, death by Jihad is the only sure path to eternal paradise. Whatever setbacks or disappointments or disillusion a Muslim might experience, whatever behavior he might be shamed for, the answer is always Jihad, preferably fatal so he can go to paradise. If he dies by Jihad, all his sins and failures are washed clean, and he will dwell in paradise forever, and can advocate up to 70 of his relatives go to paradise as well. Dan, as much as you might want to help people or free them, you cannot save them from themselves; you cannot provide everyone a perfect life with no disappointments or setbacks. Everybody experiences disappointments and setbacks. The problem is that in Islam, these events become excuses for Jihad, because all roads lead to Jihad.

I encourage you to read George Packer's current article for The New Yorker, which I excerpted in the Islam thread. Now that one New Yorker (Donald Trump) started saying it, The New Yorker is beginning maybe to consider it. What happened in New York on 9/11 could happen in Brussels or anywhere else with large crowds and attractive targets. In Belgium, they have had to shut down the country for security, putting everyone under a sort of house arrest or domestic confinement, and in France they have had to give up constitutional freedoms for security. No country with more than 20% Muslims has ever been able to sustain the freedoms that we take for granted in the west, and even around 10% the Muslims outnumber the police and the country cannot afford to contain them while maintaining western levels of freedom.

RIP the 30 in Belgium. The only solution I can think of that is consistent with western values is to offer everyone a free one-way ticket to Mecca, on one condition: if they go, they can never return. Islam requires all believers to go to Mecca. If you offer them the opportunity, believers can't refuse. It's about the only vulnerability in the religion, as far as I can tell. Offering everyone a free ticket is not discriminatory, and it isn't persecution, but it might work, and it would cost less than our current campaigns of invade&invite&surveillance. If you guarantee that the believers can't come back, then those who don't believe could say so without fear of getting killed by the believers.

Europe is under no obligation whatsoever to accept muslim refugees. They must make peace with the "new normal" that comes with lower birthrates and adjust accordingly. I believe some of their decisions regarding refugee issue come from collective guilt they feel for their ancestors allowing nazis to come to power, but they need to step back and realize that the situation is not morally equivalent whatsoever. Since 9/11, the continent has been hit numerous times: renfe bombing in spain, bombing in london subway, 2 attacks in paris last year, and now belgium today. These atrocities warrant a merciless response that will etch themselves in memory of all those that would even consider committing further acts of terror.

curious2 says

The only solution I can think of that is consistent with western values

The first step of any solution is to go after the stupid ideas.
Ask "moderate" to renounce them.
Go full propaganda shaming for those (including foreign powers) who support them.

curious2 says

Until you export the believers who say they are required to cut off the heads of apostates, it seems unrealistic to expect the "moderates" to renounce Islam.

The point is not that everyone will accept. The point is to make it obvious: such person believes people should be killed on the basis of their beliefs.

From there submit them to constant shaming for such beliefs.

The point is also to make it obvious who and what we are fighting against - and who we are not fighting. If really Islam is a religion of peace and most Muslims are really peaceful then obviously most people will say they don't have such beliefs and will be willing to say it.

curious2 says

Also, asking people to renounce their religion, whether in whole or in part, may raise First Amendment issues.

This is not the same as asking people to renounce their religion. This is only asking people to agree to some common value with people around them: i.e. we are all equal regardless of beliefs, we don't kill people for beliefs.

curious2 says

Personally, I prefer to take a man at his word: if he says he believes he must go to Mecca, then let him go. We are not required to let him return.

You can never prevent people from not leaving or coming back. Especially citizens cannot be prevented from coming back and this is the end of your plan.

Heraclitusstudent says

You can never prevent people from not leaving or coming back. Especially citizens cannot be prevented from coming back and this is the end of your plan.

Your comment is incorrect there. In any free society, people are free to waive their visas or renounce their citizenship. As I wrote, offer everyone a free one-way ticket to Mecca, on one condition: if they go, they can never return. People agreeing that they can never return are inherently renouncing whatever right to return they may have had, whether visa or citizenship. So that isn't the end of the plan, it is the plan.

If you are saying we can never have secure borders, I believe that we could, actually, if TPTB wanted that. Alternatively, whatever happens once a believer has gone to Mecca is (according to believers) the will of Allah.

Islam has a lot in common with the KKK. Both are religious beliefs associated with violence, which in some instances they require believers to commit. They share similar clothing and beliefs, and a shared heritage among Abrahamic faiths. The major difference is KKK members insist on staying here. If they had a belief that they must go somewhere else, then I would be delighted to send them there, on condition that they never return here. It is neither hate nor phobia, it's just self-defense against doctrines that advocate overthrowing our government and killing us.

Heraclitusstudent says

most people will say

You should read about taqiyya and dawa. Islam allows believers to say what they must, especially to infidels, until they become powerful enough in a particular area to impose Sharia, at which point they are required to do that. Islam defines "peace" to mean the peace that will prevail when people stop denying Islam.

curious2 says

You should read about taqiyya and dawa. Islam allows believers to say what they must, especially to infidels, until they become powerful enough in a particular area to impose Sharia

That's ignoring several important propaganda principles: the heart follows the hand, rationalization and social proof.
1 - If a large number of people, of the same community, come out and say the same, it becomes acceptable.
2 - the desire for consistency is a potent technique, particularly if repeated, and public.
3 - Rationalization it is the final nail. If used well, it can change how one sees oneself. i.e. you're made to think that you believe this not because you had to, but because it makes sense and that's actually who you are.

These religious beliefs are not that powerful. They plainly don't make sense. They are plainly medieval and obviously evil for anyone that takes the time to think about it. The only power they have comes from the fact that no one is in fact trying to debunk them.

curious2 says

People agreeing that they can never return are inherently renouncing whatever right to return they may have had, whether visa or citizenship. So that isn't the end of the plan, it is the plan.

All you are offering is a free ticket to renounce citizenship? No one will take it. They will pay for their own trip. Or some rich Saudi asshole will.

Heraclitusstudent says

These religious beliefs are not that powerful. They plainly don't make sense. They are plainly medieval and obviously evil for anyone that takes the time to think about it. The only power they have comes from the fact that no one is in fact trying to debunk them.

Please read The New Yorker article that I excerpted. Tunisia has in fact been trying to shame the Muslims who are "radical" (i.e. faithful) while accepting Muslims who are "moderate" (i.e. blasphemers and infidels). It hasn't worked.

To the contrary, the believers cite the blasphemy and shaming as provocations to "defend Islam" by means of violence, as required by Islam.

Heraclitusstudent says

All you are offering is a free ticket to renounce citizenship? No one will take it. They will pay for their own trip.

That's a point. I suppose you could also enact a law saying anybody who chooses to go to a specific list of places that advocate the violent overthrow of our government are, by going there, renouncing whatever right to return here that they may have had.

curious2 says

To the contrary, the believers cite the blasphemy and shaming as provocations to "defend Islam" by means of violence, as required by Islam.

The US is not Tunisia, and you can select the most extreme idea.
Imagine in the US people defending their right to believe that apostate should be killed...
Have the press interview them and ask them to elaborate on why they thing they need to do that.
Make sure their opinions are publicly known.
I want to see how it will work for them.

Heraclitusstudent says

I want to see how it will work for them.

It works all too well, not with a majority but with enough to get a large number of people killed. Maybe you call the murdered and maimed "statistically insignificant" but I disagree. When you look at what is happening in France (8% Muslim), and what happened to Lebanon when it got above 10% Muslim, and what is happening in Pakistan and Iran, I think the evidence shows the fork in the road. No civilization has ever sustained western Enlightenment liberties amid a population even 20% Muslim. If you look what happened to Weimar, things fell apart when the Nazis outnumbered the police. If you want a police state where the police outnumber the Muslims and spy on everyone, then that is the most likely consequence of what you are advocating: giving Muslims a platform where they can promote one version of Islam while others promote a different version. Again, I wish you would please read George Packer's article in The New Yorker; I am not even saying he would agree with me, and to the contrary his article does not advocate what I do, but he is a serious journalist who has devoted extensive travel and study throughout the Muslim world.

People define themselves with their identity. As they say of British expats "More British than Britons". Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised that 1st/2nd Gen immigrant youth are more "Muslims than most Muslims".

The reason Europe can't do anything is the Neoliberal line of the EU and the Centrist parties, which are open borders oriented; they feel they can't discriminate. Also their supporters want to stop wage increases or rental income decreases from a declining population.

thunderlips11 says

People define themselves with their identity. As they say of British expats "More British than Britons". Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised that 1st/2nd Gen immigrant youth are more "Muslims than most Muslims".

The reason Europe can't do anything is the Neoliberal line of the EU and the Centrist parties, which are open borders oriented; they feel they can't discriminate. Also their supporters want to stop wage increases or rental income decreases from a declining population.

This. Precisely this, plus the fact that converts can be even more extreme than native born. I say that without hatred; to the contrary, I love Anglophiles and Scotophiles, but if they move to Britain they will find they are more enthusiastic about kilts or whatever than the average native.

If an American says he has converted to Islam, I would love to be able to say, "Congratulations, did you know about the free program offering everyone a free ticket to Mecca? Islam says believers have to go Mecca, and all you have to do now is visit the Post Office and sign up for your free ticket. Bon voyage!"

www.youtube.com/embed/ntf-SMAxjMU

This was filmed 11 days before the tragic ISIS attacks 3/22/2016 in Brussels. Mischal Modrikamen (born 22 February 1966) is a Belgian lawyer and politician. He is the co-founder and leader of the People's Party. He is the vice-prsident of the Alliance For Direct Democracy in Europe and the publisher of Le Peuple.

curious2 says

It works all too well, not with a majority but with enough to get a large number of people killed. Maybe you call the murdered and maimed "statistically insignificant" but I disagree.

Not sure what you are talking about. The US has a tiny fraction of Muslims.
Have a public register of Muslims who do not renounce extreme ideas the way we have a register of sex offenders.
Bar them from buying weapons.
They will be harassed. Their children will be bullied at school. Maybe they will leave.
It will be a giant confrontation, but a confrontation focused strictly on their worse and most vulnerable ideas.
The problem now is that the refusal of any confrontation gives a free pass to the most extreme ideas. The final result of this - as Trump shows - can only be a confrontation with *all* Muslims. That would be very unfortunate.

thunderlips11 says

The reason Europe can't do anything is the Neoliberal line of the EU and the Centrist parties, which are open borders oriented; they feel they can't discriminate.

And the regressive left that would hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the devil.
What I said above would halt that by isolating individuals who believe in absolutely indefensible ideas.

And remember once you renounce even one extreme idea, you admit that these ideas are not absolute and dictated by God.
That cracks the entire edifice of beliefs in an irreparable way, and puts you on a slippery slope to the liberal side.

Heraclitusstudent says

once you renounce even one extreme idea, you admit

No, again, read about taqiyya. Islam allows Muslims to lie in service of Islam. They don't even have to cross their fingers behind their backs.

thunderlips11 says

This was filmed 11 days before the tragic ISIS attacks 3/22/2016 in Brussels

"A majority of Muslims within 15-20 yrs" in Brussels.
Europe should smell the coffee and wake up. fast.

curious2 says

No, again, read about taqiyya and dawa. Islam allows Muslims to lie in service of Islam. They don't even have to cross their fingers behind their backs.

You assume that taqiyya and dawa is more powerful in someone minds than anything else. This is not the case.

Heraclitusstudent says

more powerful in someone minds than anything else.

I believe the evidence shows religion can become more powerful in a person's mind than anything else, even the instinct to survive. Once a person accepts the basic premise of a particular religion, e.g some pederast was a prophet and his writings are sacred, they can rationalize following those writings at any time. Their past sins, and even past renunciations within the context of taqiyya and dawa, will be forgiven if they die in Jihad. If they stay, then you must beware if they experience any stress at all in life: a divorce, the loss of a job, foreclosure, any stress that might set them off. It's like keeping a timebomb in the middle of a classroom, and saying the timer says it isn't about to blow up yet: you're going to need to keep a very close eye on that timer, until you get the bomb out of the classroom.

That's why I say offer everyone a free one-way ticket to Mecca, on condition they can never return, and maybe add a rule that going forward anyone who chooses to go to a specific list of places (including Mecca) can never return. It gets the bomb out of the classroom.

curious2 says

I believe the evidence shows religion can become more powerful in a person's mind than anything else

Yeah, this is a cult and I agree the effects are very strong. However the remedies for that are well known as well. It can be done. It's just that no one even starts. And most people don't have beliefs so strong as you describe. People are absorbed by their lives and most just don't care that much, though they are vulnerable.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah, this is a cult and I agree the effects are very strong. However the remedies for that are well known as well.

Deprogramming remedies may work among people who fell into tiny cults, once they are rescued and returned to the outside world where practically nobody believes in the cult. There is no known remedy to deprogram people from a cult that has more than a billion members, and in fact there is even a definitional question regarding whether such a widely held belief can still be called a cult after more than 1,000 years.

Heraclitusstudent says

What I said above would halt that by isolating individuals who believe in absolutely indefensible ideas

How do you do that ? Truth serum ?

curious2 says

there is even a definitional question regarding whether such a widely held belief can still be called a cult after more than 1,000 years.

It is a cult in propaganda terms.

marcus says

Heraclitusstudent says

What I said above would halt that by isolating individuals who believe in absolutely indefensible ideas

How do you do that ? Truth serum ?

Do you defend the right of people to believe apostates should be killed?

Heraclitusstudent says

curious2 says

there is even a definitional question regarding whether such a widely held belief can still be called a cult after more than 1,000 years.

It is a cult in propaganda terms.

It's a cult that never stopped growing. We are in deep poo poo.