Yeah I guess it's easy to put me in the liberal camp. I don't deny that people are doing horrible things, I don't deny there is a problem, I don't deny there is suicide bombings, I don't deny anything.

What I am saying is that if all people are going to do are looking for who is right and who is wrong, then this is is going to last for a thousand years longer than is necessary. It's all you see. 'The Isralis are to blame'. 'The americans are to blame'. The muslims are to blame.' 'The martians is to blame'. 'The west is to blame'. 'The imams are to blame'.

I don't care who is to blame, I see what is going on and I want to point out how it can be solved - not sitting around in my couch slouching in my own or any other's moral superiority.

So please, don't call me anything like a liberal, or conservative or any of those bloody things. This whole thing is going on because people are putting eachother in camps in the first place.

I want realpolitik, not useless mudflinging. The problem is spreading and we're talking extremely large masses of people being alienated from eachother, this is not good.

Your position just seems too far to the left to be justified. The world is full of nasty people who'd slit your throat for a dollar or a chance at heaven, or simply because they're trained to think that way. And I say that as someone who believes in humanity in general.

It's easy to forgot in the West since the people who believe in freedom are also the ones in charge of overwhelming military might. But it hasn't been like that through most of history and it won't be at times in the future. We need to be careful - cohesive peaceful communities and freedom loving ideologies are fragile things. A few generations without war are making us soft toward the realities of the world.

I applaud this guy's attempt to show us some reality. I disagree with your attempts to apologize for nasty ideologies and the moderates who support them.

I believe it can be solved by sending them back to their home countries, or at least closing the borders to them. Placating these guys is like inviting a pack of wolves into the living room then trying to play nice doggy.

If it makes you sleep better at night I despise the typical liberal 'semi-radical' stance much more than a classic conservative stance.

Mostly because they claim moral highground and repeatedly insist on removing any kind of stability to foreign relations, and are generally much more outspoken and intent on useless debate.

My view on this is not of politics, it is of practicality.

The first part has been answered with the various links above...increased crime, social unrest, rioting, feelings of insecurity in once very peaceful and cohesive communities.

The future will get worse. These people are fanatical, and there's a high propagation rate to the next generation since they isolate themselves from Western culture. But what's worse is that they're constantly immigrating and breeding like crazy. They are already taking over parts of various cities in Europe and at current rates the population will outnumber natives in some areas. With that comes all the dangers of democracy + majority crazies. They'll petition for Sharia courts to run alongside normal courts, at first to settle things like debts but they will expand. And with the EU liberal mindset and a fairly large population of people like tame_deuces, they're going to get it.

The West needs to keep its borders closed to people who don't share the ideologies of freedom, peace and rationality.

It is all rehashed material. Nothing new in there. It was just placed in a carousel and spun round without context.

We dont attempt to apologise any act of terror, both by the west (torture) or by people who claim Islam.

You are disgustingly and irrationally promoting banning of books and sending "them" back to their home countries. (actually who u wanna sent back, the people who did our dirty jobs in the sixties and were not born here, or even the people born in holland)

You sound like a fascist wolf in sheep clothes.

I wasn't labelling you. The choice of action you advocate is a liberal one though, coming from a belief that these ideologies can be reformed with enough exchange of ideas. I disagree strongly with that.

I don't know whether it's in there genes, but some people and cultures are just inhuman. There's no other word for it. In Australia we had large Lebanese gangs of young men - born in Australia - going around Sydney raping scores of teenage Anglo-Saxons over a centuries old grudge. They showed no remorse at all. They believed wholeheartedly in what they were doing.

They'd grown up in Australian culture, gone to Australian schools, been free from poverty and oppression. But they still turned out like they did.

Who needs that ****? Let them **** up their own countries and rape and honor kill their own women. There are plenty of needy people from China, India, Africa, South America who would love to immigrate and who aren't subject to religious, cultural or genetic factors that result in freedom hating and inhuman behavior.

I'm not promoting the banning of a book. That doesn't work. Although it's amusing that you're not nearly as alarmed about the censorship of other written works that don't have nearly the violent outcomes of the Koran.

I'm advocating closing the borders to these people and not tolerating any of their bull****. It has no place in Western society.

There's nothing fascist about keeping violent scum from taking over your country. There's nothing fascist about decided who gets to immigrate and who doesn't.

U close the borders, send all Muslims away; this is economic suicide.

Not to worry right, we could import lots of Chinese people to clean our toilets, and they wont complain nor steal the flush water.

Banning the book is a fine idea that would go a long way to solving the problem. But no one in the EU would ever allow it, so it's a waste of time.

Economies do fine without slave workers, especially since the EU has made trade more efficient. People adjust.

The white Dutch female doesn't get enough children to support the labour market, and the one child she does get will feel too highly educated to do the lowerend jobs.

Yup that sounds more nationalistic, and that doesn't suprise me.

What does surprise me and reeks of fascism, is being for banning of books and forcefully exporting people based on race or ideology.

I don't believe in revoking resident visas based on race. I do believe in revoking resident visas based on ideology. I mean, I assume you agree with deporting known terrorists, right? Even if they haven't committed a crime, but for example trained with Bin Laden. If you're for that, then you're for deporting people based on ideology.

Large insular Muslim communities, such as many of those in Europe, are more dangerous to Western Society than any number of Bin Laden trainees in my opinion.

Ideology is not a crime, terrorism is.

I don't support the banning of books, not even the Koran. I do support the idea of revising it, but that can't happen. So the best we can hope for is for people to just ignore portions of the book. I don't see a problem ejecting people from your country based on their ideology. If their ideology is contrary to your nation's well being, why would you not deport them?

Here is a funny link.

Things that offend Muslims


For those who haven't heard yet, Fitna the Movie was removed from Liveleak due to threats against the people that work for the company. This is exactly what is wrong with Islam, and exactly why movies like this need to exist. How do we not blame the religion in general for these threats?

Here is the liveleak link.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

Well who get's to decide what is for the nation's well being and how my ideology may be interpreted.

If Bill o'Reilly or the american president says to support the troops and the war in Iraq, and disagreeing with that is contrary to whats beneficial for your nation at the moment (nations do not need people critical of war).

Having hippy views as a canadian in america is reason for forced ejection? Without defining Islam ideology to terrorist acts you are standing on a very slippery slope with that viewpoint.

If you have fought for the freedom of opposing ideologies to exist, don't start a fight to exterminate an opposing ideology.

But the situation is unique in that these are immigrants who brought ideologies with them and are causing most of this cancer. They were allowed in by the invitation of the Dutch people, and if there's going to **** on the carpet then they can be asked to leave. If a native Dutch person wants to turn Muslim and campaign for Sharia then that's his right. But immigrants bringing their sick ideologies are another story.

Might as well take the idea to the extreme. You understood exactly what we both meant, as did most of the other people reading this thread.

Here is a good article by a US congressman in regards to Islam and Free Speech. It's a quick read.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120649269618764219.html

Phil, the people were first allowed in by invitation of the Dutch people are now in their fifties and are ****ting on the carpet, because they can't make it to the toilet.

Their sons and daughters are born in Holland, they could be asked to leave, but their homecountry IS Holland.

Yeah I understand what you both mean and it scares me. We both agree the koran has verses that are interpreted and used as violent, I just want to hear what you propose to do about that.

That way u learn what the other person thinks about the problem, and I can tell more about the person, with what they offer as a solution.

A drain, immigration stop and a ban are ridiculous solutions for someone who wants to continue to live together, agree to disagree, or for someone who sees the outcomes of these for our economy.

You claim that all muslims are fanatical?

It is interesting. What will happen when say for example in Sweden where already 5 procent of the population are muslims, what will happen in 50 years when they are 30-40 procent of the population?
I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion but when that opinion is going to start ruling my world we are going to have a big problem.

Nobody said all Muslims are Fanatical. We have all agreed many times that is not the case. We said that the ones that matter are fanatical. The moderates never say anything. The 2nd part of your post is exactly the reason why we need to do something now.

The only real answer I can see is to ensure that the children of immigrants are raised with values according to their new home country, and not based on their parent's original country.

This get circumvented by people who send their kids back to Koran School in their homeland, and by those who ostracize or kill the Muslims who do embrace the values of their new country.

The easiest way to start accomplishing these goals are by stopping new immigration, and deporting any radicalized Imams or Muslims. We should have people recording the sermons in the Mosques believed to be teaching radicalism, and we should put a stop to those that are found to be doing it.

There's one thing I don't understand.

When Pope Benedict XVI. cited Manuel II. on Islam "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached", there was an uproar throughout the entire islamic world, many reactions were violent.

Now Wilders makes this silly movie, where he accuses Islam of being violent, there will be again a huge uproar and a lot of violence.

What are they so upset about? Do they feel themselves to be misjudged? If they think that they are misjudged and if they think that their religion is peaceful, then why all this violence?


1. If the peaceful muslim fraction reacts without violence, then thats great, by this they prove that they can argue rationally and that there can be a rational dialogue. Their reaction is consistent to their beliefs.
2. It gets interesting when we have violent protests by the radical fraction. What are they so upset about? They are mostly protesting because we have accused islam of being violent. If this accusation is correct, then why do they protest violently? If this accusation is false, then why do they again protest violently? Doesn't that simply disprove their intent?


If you tell me that I'm violent, then why in the world would I ever want to kick your ass as a reaction to this accusation? This is completely beyond me.

Yeah I struggled with this too. "Those Danish cartoons show us as violent aggressors! This is outrageous! Let's burn an embassy! That will show them!"

I think those extremists don't feel themselves to be misjudged or under critique. They must feel deeply hurted and so wrongly attacked at their core beliefs they strike back.

Viewing rude critique as declerations of war becomes somewhat more understandable this way.

Really? I didnt hear that it was as bad as you portray it.

Well, islam is now a lot more than the middle-east, but a lot of people tend to put an = between the two...so anyone who takes a look at the middle-east and can only see religion as the reason for conflict is a not very well versed. It is more an outlet for conflict than anything else.

Well, islam is now a lot more than the middle-east, but a lot of people tend to put an = between the two...so anyone who takes a look at the middle-east and can only see religion as the reason for conflict is a not very well versed. It is more an outlet for conflict than anything else.

But a poster in this thread even wrote that muslims identify them as muslims first and foremost...an enormous misconception, and one of many I suspect is pretty widespread.