Posted on 10/06/2006 10:53:59 AM PDT by Dark Skies
After years of dithering over political correctness with Muslims and Islam, Europe is waking up to a different morning.
A three-week tour of Italy, France, and Britain last month was enough for me to conclude that Western Europeans have moved way beyond dialogue. Confrontation, indeed even provocation, is their preferred approach to the Muslims in their midst.
Long before Pope Benedict XVI's scathing comments in mid-September on the fallacy of phony Muslim-Christian dialogue, signs of hardening European views toward current Islamic values were plentiful on the Continent
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
THEY SHOULD GROW SOME MORE - intolerant of Islamics and their perverted arrogance and intolerance of Christianity and other faiths.
I think they should be totally removed from the west and from the non-Muslim part of Africa and Asia.
The first step should be removal and containment of the contagion. The next step should be to attack and destroy it before it can break out again.
Ther can be no co-existance with Islam any more than there can be co-existence with NAZism.
The "moderate Muslim majority" is non-existent fiction, a creation of gullible western minds. There are only those Muslims who wish to Islamcize us by the sword and those who wish to use our own institutions - the courts, etc to accomplish it.
"What if the KKK declared itself to be a religion?"
This has nothing to do with anything. Completely absurd.
"In Germany, the Scientology religion is banned, in Italy the Masons are too."
Since when are the Masons a religion? Anyway, I like to think of the U.S. as a better place than Italy or Germany, so I really don't care what they ban.
Like it or not, Islam is recognized worldwide as a religion and there's nothing any of us can do to change that. And if we (the U.S.) were to follow your suggestions about Muslims, then terroritss will truly have own.
Let us hope so.
L
Surely you understand that countries like Jordan, Kuwait and even Yemen are more moderate than, say, the government of Iran is?
Yemen is a desert sheikdom. The central government doesn't even control the entire country. The present government may favor us, but it hardly represents the opinions of most Yemenis. Ditto for Jordan, except the central government is a powerful dictatorship.
Kuwait likes us because the west buys its oil and its dripping with western cash. At any rate, Kuwait is a tiny state. Again, the government's feekings towards us are not necessarily reflective of those of most of its citizens.
They are a death cult, with destruction and killing as the main tenets. Why can't a sane govt outlaw their existence? Even that wacky calypso playin' Louie Farrakhan causes dissent and hatred of America, and he is recruiting in prisons for his "army".
Amish flying airplanes into buildings, beheading hostages?
What rock do you live under? Amish is nearly 180 degrees different from muslim.
The nuclear "sabotage" I guess you're referring to is probably a long-term goal of only the most fantasy-ridden of Jihadist types who may be living here. It will prove at least as difficult to get hold of them, infiltrate plants, steal technology and/or set one off, as it will to go through the long vetting process it would take to get say, 50 or 60 Muslims in Congress petitioning us for Sharia law, they way they are
doing in some countries of Europe. So far the only European country that seems completely lost is Norway.
It is pathetic to watch their leadership wringing its hands with its head bowed down, and muttering "Well, it IS democratic, after all that if they get to be the majority they should rule us....."
And as far as percentages go, I can't dispute the 3% figure for both the US and the UK, but I can tell you, that the vivid horrors of 9-11 are still with us, and if they started blowing up subways and trains in the US the way they recently did in London, the repercussions from the American citizens AND finally large numbers of politicos and lawmakers would be a wonder to behold. We would NOT put up with that stuff the way the enfeebled Brits did. Hell, were that to happen here even the most duplicitous of Liberals would have to start talking and BEING tough rather than conciliatory: look how suddenly "vocal" some key Libs got over the one-two punch of Ahma-nutjob and Hugo Chavez in the same week at the UN.
They know they would LOSE enough of their constituencies to put an end to their existence as a political party once and for all.
How would you suppose such a violent confrontation would take place? (BTW, I think you're right, I'm not challenging you). Let's just restrict it to one scenario, say, that might transpire in France. And let's just assume that the violence, rioting and car-burning that occurred last year there has continued to fester and sporadically break out in less dramtic ways since then (it has in fact.)
The only difference for the riot-ready Muslims in France will be HOW THEY WILL BE DEALT WITH by any new French President, not WHETHER THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. It may come down to the POLICE being given free reign to defend the country and THEMSELVES in a situation even more out of control than the recent one.
If France wants to go through that, that's their own business. It would be much easier for a new government to get laws passed that would enable it to DEPORT the real troublemakers back to their countries of origin.
I think this would be a logical first step and would solve part of the problem. However, many of the troublemakers are native born citizens who will have to be confronted by all resources available to the government, including martial law and the military.
"Amish is an excellent comparison......would be death for the economy" Not only is it not a good comparison on any level, it's uhhhhh, insensitive to evoke the Amish in light of what just happened this past week. You might have proposed as "death to the economy" the fact of 20 billion dollars earned here by Mexicans being sent back to that country as "remittances". I don't actually know what effect that has on the US economy but unless large amounts of that money are used in Mexico to buy American-made goods,(unlikely) the effect can't be good, can it?
Your #6---"discontinuing benefits to Muslim illegals."
---that would probably work wonders in England, where it is my understanding that large numbers of the mouthiest Muslims are on the dole. Plus I don't know what percentage of them are technically "illegal". Just on general principles, though, the British MUST move away from their social welfare/dole system. If anything proves the bankruptcy of that philosophy and its adolescent idealism, it is seen NOW in the behavior of their arrogant, murderous Muslims who have only been too happy to take advantage of it. But once off the dole I have no doubt that monies would find their way, on way or another, to these people, just as it no doubt is now: there would just be MORE money coming from MORE Islamic sources, like Iran, like maybe even Hugo Chavez ---the common characteristic of ALL of said money , though, is PETRO. The new alliances that are forming on Planet Earth would be hamstrung were it not for their petrodollars.
"mozzies taking over, or another Hitler emerging...."
why do you think they're mutually exclusive?
I have got news for you---Muzzies are a more intractable enemy than Hitler was---if they were equivalent to Hitler all you would have to kill binLaden, Zawahari, et. al. and the non-existent "High Command" of the global Islamic Jihad and expect them to surrender after decisive battlefield victories, and the "WAR" to be over.As we all know, this is NOT that kind of war, or that kind of enemy.
I know that many of the troublemakers are native-born citizens,and are in fact on their second or third generation as "French citizens.I am sure masses of Frenchmen in or out of government recognize THAT fact as one that makes their situation as a homogeneous culture even knottier and more intractable. The laws that need to be passed would have to apply EXCLUSIVELY to them as individuals: I am sure there are some tricky legalisms that can be employed within new Law of the Land legislation to help the deportation process. In times of crisis, nations do temporarily up-end some existing laws.
Having said all that I don't think French "lawmakers" will do anything "draconian": I think they will find a way to live with the problem and figure out ways to deal with it.
And I think that would be out a recognition that they brought this problem largely upon themselves. Massive unemployment among those groups has only exacerbated the other problems, like resistance to assimiliation. The world has never seen such good arguments AGAINST these sloppy forms of "multiculturalism" as it has in the last several years.
BUMP
So, every moosie country is as bad as the Taliban?
Well, sort of like comparing rattlesnakes, taipans, cottonmouths, copperheads, coral snakes, bushmasters, cobras, Gaboon Vipers, etc.
Get the picture?
Some are worse than others, some not as bad as others, but all a bunch of dangerous snakes.
Then we agree for the most part. I wasn't saying that the more moderate moosie countries were GOOD, just that some are not troublesome while others are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.