patrick.net

marcus says

rando says

Do you find it objectionable?

I don't know Patick. Is it that you really don't have any idea what my point of view is ?

Of course the fundamentalists are bad, the radical terrorist types that use it as an excuse for violence are evil.

I just don't believe that returning hate for hate is the answer, especially if it is returned to the generalized majority for the crimes of a tiny minority. Hasn't history proven this ? Maybe there was a logical reason for Jesus suggesting that we should turn the other cheek. Maybe it's basically game theory.

Why do I have to explain this again. You know. You're not stupid. I believe that growing the moderate part of Islam may in the long run be more important than we can possibly imagine (versus walling them off until they learn ?) This happens by bringing Muslims in to the west

I am not sure if Patrick knows this but his POV is very much in line with the goals of ISIS. The reason those fuckers blow up shit in Paris etc. is to provoke an anti-muslim backlash. ISIS is a master manipulator and the goal of the spectacular attacks is to create F.U.D., to get western people and governments to make rash choices and make life uncomfortable for the moderate muslims who choose to live among us. The hope is to polarize moderate western muslims so they must choose sides and (as ISIS hopes) realize that westerners are the enemy. Like much of Patnet, ISIS lives in a world of black and white and wants to eliminate the greyzone for moderate Muslims who are living in the West and feel like they can make a life for themselves here.

Thus, while it may not be intentional, by constantly pointing out the truth about islam, Patrick is indeed demoralizing the moderate muslims who intrinsically know all these things about their mid east counterparts. Constantly pointing out the truth does not make them feel welcome, and ISIS hopes this will cause them to come home to the middle east and create the all out culture war ISIS wants. I am not sure what the answer is to the problem, but I am sure that doing anything that would make ISIS happy is not it.

somecrappynumber says

I am not sure what the answer is to the problem, but I am sure that doing anything that would make [ISIL/Daesh] happy is not it.

You seem to suffer from the too common fallacy that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, when in reality it can be an even worse enemy.

The difference between Islamic State and supposedly "moderate" Muslims (e.g. KSA) comes down to timing. ISIL/Daesh are true believers who imagine they have an omnipotent deity on their side and thus they want to fight right now. KSA prefer to spread Islam and develop a stronger position, then take over at a time when they have greater advantage. The House of Saud conquered Mecca and Medina less than a century ago, and on present trend Islam will very likely conquer France and Belgium less than a century from now. Spreading Islam plays into the Saudi strategy, and you can be sure that is not a good solution for the west. To the contrary, as Nassim Taleb wrote, "The west is currently in the process of committing suicide" by importing Islam.

Like it or not, confronting, denouncing, and containing Islam are the least bad options for the west. Whether ISIL/Daesh are happy about that or not is irrelevant. If you want them to be unhappy, then carpet their territory with Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Make it absolutely impossible for them to maintain the Islamic bubble that prohibits blasphemy. Whatever you do, don't be fooled by the veil that "moderate" sponsors of Islamic terror and conquest use to hide their intentions until they can stick a knife in your back. The west should treat Islam much the same way the west treated communism; in fact, Islam is worse than communism, so it warrants a higher priority and a consistently clear message.

curious2 says

somecrappynumber says

I am sure that doing anything that would make [ISIL/Daesh] happy is not it.

You seem to suffer from the too common fallacy that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, when in reality it can be an even worse enemy.

Yeah - I thought about that - fair enough.

Incidentally - you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes a "moderate" muslim. When I think of a moderate, I think of the guys I work with who say they are Muslim, but when we hang out and drink beer while watching the NFL call the Quran more "guildlines" than anything. Or the girl who has a prayer rug and does pray 5 times a day, but has a particular affinity for bacon and jokingly says that Muhammad wants her to spread pork to her people" In short they are more like the "catholics" who think the Vatican's stance on concoms is lunacy, or the "Mormon" who introduced me to the vices of alcohol, tobacco and pornography in my youth. All would be ostracized by the orthodoxy - but the contradictions between what their orthodox faith says they should do versus how they are - no matter the religion are fairly common to me.

curious2 says

Like it or not, confronting, denouncing, and containing Islam are the least bad options for the west

Maybe - but if Patrick is as committed to the truth as he says, he should also be ready to accept the truth that his views are very much in line with ISIS.

somecrappynumber says

you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes a "moderate" muslim. When I think of a moderate, I think of the guys I work with....

They are not a representative sample of Muslims generally. In most countries that have Muslim majorities, most Muslims demand Sharia. As Islam metastasizes through a society, it takes over and kills everything else: most countries that have more than 20% Muslims, have more than 90% Muslims. As John Walker pointed out citing Freedom House ratings of 200 countries and territories around the world:

Muslims less than 20% of the population, 62% free
Muslims more than 20% of the population, 5% free

That dramatic disparity reflects what I consider the Weimar threshold: when the Nazis got to be more than 20% of the population, they achieved critical mass and took over. The combination of vigilante violence, plus outnumbering and permeating the police and military and government, proved too powerful to resist.

Pim Fortuyn had a similar insight, before he was murdered for criticizing Islam and campaigning against further Muslim immigration. (Theo Van Gogh made a film about him, and was then murdered by a Muslim for blasphemy.) As Fortuyn had said, he had a lot of support from voters who had immigrated from Muslim countries; he explained the reason was very simple: those people had immigrated to get away from Islamic rule, and had to compete for jobs with subsequent migrants who wanted to spread Islam. As Hillary Clinton acknowledged, lethal terrorism "is clearly rooted in Islamic thinking," and she used that as an argument for mass surveillance and further empowering her Saudi clients, whom she called "moderate" despite her own e-mails saying "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." The bottom line for target countries is as 2Scoops and others have described: labor competition driving down wages, more mistrust and strife, more surveillance, widening gap in power (including in the form of revenue) between elite and everyone else, less liberty and prosperity for most people.

somecrappynumber says

I think of the guys I work with who say they are Muslim, but when we hang out and drink beer while watching the NFL call the Quran more "guildlines" than anything. Or the girl who has a prayer rug and does pray 5 times a day, but has a particular affinity for bacon and jokingly says that Muhammad wants her to spread pork to her people"

I quoted just part of the comment on the other thread, here's the whole shebang:

"What happens to countries that Muslims occupy? As long as the Islamism following population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness: United States Muslim 1.0% Australia Muslim 1.5% Canada Muslim 1.9% China Muslim 1%-2% Italy Muslim 1.5% Norway Muslim 1.8% At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs: Denmark Muslim 2% Germany Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom Muslim 2.7% Spain Muslim 4% Thailand Muslim 4.6% From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves along with threats for failure to comply. (United States ). France Muslim 8% Philippines Muslim 5% Sweden Muslim 5% Switzerland Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago Muslim 5.8% At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule them under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris car-burnings) . Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam Mohammed cartoons). Guyana Muslim 10% India Muslim 13.4% Israel Muslim 16% Kenya Muslim 10% Russia Muslim 10-15% After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning: Ethiopia Muslim 32.8% At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare: Bosnia Muslim 40% Chad Muslim 53.1% Lebanon Muslim 59.7%"

P N Dr Lo R says

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare: Bosnia Muslim 40% Chad Muslim 53.1% Lebanon Muslim 59.7%"

Totally ridiculous. Bosnia was a purely ethnic war, not religious. and it's been over since 1995. What widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare are going on? Bosnia/Herzegovina is a big tourism area for christ sakes. Lebanon started the civil war with christian groups fighting each other then spreading to every group in the country. Specifically the christian Maronite fighting the christian Palestinians and it's been over since 1990. It's anecdotal but my cousins Lebanese christian wife says the country is fine now. Her family all lives there and she goes back every year so I would think she knows. Chad is in constant warfare with Sudan sponsored rebels. Chad is 60% muslim with a muslim government, Sudan is 97% muslim so this is a pure land and power grab not a religious conflict.

Is the rest of the quote any more accurate? I doubt it.

bob2356 says

Bosnia was a purely ethnic war, not religious

Hahahahahahahaha. That's why so many Wahabi Fighters were there, yes? Bosnians and Albanians only burned down Orthodox Churches for ethnic reasons, eh?

bob2356 says

Lebanon started the civil war with christian groups fighting each other

Whoohoohoohoohoo. Hahahahahahahaha.

curious2 says

The bottom line for target countries is as 2Scoops and others have described: labor competition driving down wages, more mistrust and strife, more surveillance, widening gap in power (including in the form of revenue) between elite and everyone else, less liberty and prosperity for most people.

Just to amplify, I think in Europe the desperate fight by wealthy landlords to prevent a drop/flattening of housing costs in the face of an aging (downsizing) and shrinking demographic. Protecting rental income, is a big factor in Elite support of mass immigration. Also why they prefer big family Muslims over other groups, esp. Eastern Europeans who have few kids.

bob2356 says

Bosnia was a purely ethnic war, not religious.

No, just the opposite, a purely religious war, not ethnic. Bosnians are basically indistinguishable ethnically from their Serbo-Croatian neighbors, and are simply the local people who converted under Turkish pressure:

Following its conquest by the Ottoman Empire in the mid-15th century, Bosnia experienced a rapid and extensive conversion of the local population to Islam, and by the early 1600s roughly two thirds of Bosnians were Muslim.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Also why they prefer big family Muslims over other groups, esp. Eastern Europeans who have few kids.

rando says

No, just the opposite, a purely religious war, not ethnic. Bosnians are basically indistinguishable ethnically from their Serbo-Croatian neighbors

Bosnia was a religious war, but it started as a war between Croats (Catholics) and Serbs (Orthodox). In some way, Bosnians were victims of a war started by others and suffered much more heavily than anyone else. I believe Bosnian leadership were the "moderates" in Yugoslavian collective presidency. Furthermore, Bosnians are about as much Muslims these days as Germans are Lutherans - in name only. In culture and behavior (including fertility rate) they are indistinguishable from their East and South European neighbors. I know a lot of them as I was in former Yugoslavia in 1989-1991 for several extended periods of time. They booze as much as Serbs, women do not cover their bodies (I saw very few wearing headscarves, and many more in dresses that do not fully cover their asses - much more revealing than in US). Seems that 50 years of communism has cured Bosnians of ills of Islam.

https://knoema.com/atlas/Bosnia-and-Herzegovina/topics/Demographics/Fertility/Net-reproduction-rate

rando says

No, just the opposite, a purely religious war, not ethnic. Bosnians are basically indistinguishable ethnically from their Serbo-Croatian neighbors, and are simply the local people who converted under Turkish pressure:

Yep. Bosnians are also perceived as Slav Traitors for the Turks and against fellow Slavs.

Forgotten is the war between Croats and Bosnians. This is because the Media demonized the Slavs, as the real EU head, Germany, has always loved Croatia; the Gulf States and Turkey loved Bosnia, Serbia was isolated as Russia was too weak to protect it, so it became the whipping boy from a lack of wealthy or powerful allies.

drBu says
Seems that 50 years of communism has cured Bosnians of ills of Islam.

To a degree, just like Communism cured most "lowland" Chechens of Islam. However, many young people in Bosnia, like the "Highland" "Mountain" Chechen, have re-embraced an extreme version of Islam. There are quite a few Bosnian Fighters in ISIS and other groups who have become worldwide Jihad volunteers, and many Bosnians from around Europe have joined ISIS, like the two dumb Bosnian Gals living in Austria.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

However, many young people in Bosnia, like the "Highland" "Mountain" Chechen, have re-embraced an extreme version of Islam. There are quite a few Bosnian Fighters in ISIS and other groups who have become worldwide Jihad volunteers, and many Bosnians from around Europe have joined ISIS, like the two dumb Bosnian Gals living in Austria.

True, and to a very large extent their embrace of Islam goes back to the civil war. The only ones who really helped them initially were Islamists who got entrenched there - so we can say that Serbian/Croatian aggression is the cause of radical Islam in Bosnia. Without the war there would be nearly no Islam in Bosnia. It is quite similar with Chechens as well - their first president was a Soviet army general who was married to a Russian woman and fought against Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. After Russians killed him, each new Chechen President was more and more Islamic and misery of war made Chechen population more and more Islamic. Carpetbombings, killings, war misery, and Saudi-financed propaganda made Chechens into Islamic fanatics. They have not completely succeeded with Bosnians yet.

Edit: and this is a fairly typical Bosnian fashion I remember from my visits there in late 80's: https://www.rooshvforum.com/attachment.php?aid=11612

Does not look too Islamic to me as it is not clear if she is wearing a short dress or a slightly enlarged belt :)