Islam = Jihad = War

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Carlson on May 31, 2012 at 13:53

I don't find Muslim "war" to be much of a threat. Certainly, there are a lot of terrorist groups out there waging nickel-and-dime campaigns but "war"? In 2012, Muslims totally stink at war. They're all talk and no follow through. They get severely beaten in every single war they engage in. Arab armies have been destroyed 5 times by Israel, and Hamas is still getting mauled on a regular basis. Iraq was destroyed by the US military in a month. Any Muslim army would be completely incinerated in a full-out conflict with the US military. Furthermore, the terrorists attacking the US are completely inept. They can't blow up their underwear or their shoes. They can't maintain operational security, they always invite in a FED undercover guy. When they do trigger a bomb, it sputters. So jihad, in the sense of "war," is almost no threat at all. In fact, it's almost comical to compare Muslim warmaking capability with the US. If anything, war is the West's strong suit, and the sooner we get into a war with Islam, the better.

Permalink Reply by shiva on May 31, 2012 at 17:01

John said.

I don't find Muslim "war" to be much of a threat.

Yo John.

Well I do

Armed warfare is only one aspect of war, there are many ways of fighting a war. Mohammed and his band of rag-ged bag-ged jihadist declared war/jihad 1400 years ago, and this war/jihad is still going strong.

Just look how much islam has advanced since 9/11, mosque cropping up every where, muslim population expanding all over the west, you even have a president who thinks the shahada is the most beautiful sound.

John said.

Muslims totally stink at war. They're all talk and no follow through. They get severely beaten in every single war they engage in

Yes, they know they stink at war, thats why they have the west to help them. Indonesia to the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan Libya. If the USA attacks Iran, it won't be to help Israel, but to save Saudia butt.

John said.

Furthermore, the terrorists attacking the US are completely inept

I would not call 9/11 inept, it has cost us billions of dollars, and the cost is still rising.

John said.

So jihad, in the sense of "war," is almost no threat at all. In fact, it's almost comical to compare Muslim warmaking capability with the US. If anything, war is the West's strong suit, and the sooner we get into a war with Islam, the better.

John, it is far from comical to compare muslim war making capability with the US, I find it tragic that the US and the west fail to understand islamic warfare. Military power maybe the west,s strong suit, islam has lost thousands of battles on the battle field but it has always come back again and again stronger until it finally wins even though in some cases takes several hundreds years.

So John, I would say the sooner the West starts to understand the concept of islamic warfare , the better.

Are we going to bomb Dearborn or Tower Hamlets, areas the muslims have won, without the use of military. 

It could be to late, as history will prove, every nation that has allowed islam to gain a foot hold has fallen.

Permalink Reply by paul collings on May 31, 2012 at 17:33

John as Shiva has said there are many ways to fight a war. The 'War' that we know, we are good at. Only its no good in this case because islam cares not that we are able to wipe out thousands of their followers. We could kill them all day, and still they wouldn't care. if needed, they'd just surrender, make a treaty and wait a bit longer.

In most western countries, Islam is spreading itself around. The children that will be needed for the grand jihad are being born now. They are citizens of the countries they are born to, but they will be educated to follow a different path than non-muslims of the same country.

Large areas of Britian will become islamic enclaves.  We can see that already with Tower Hamlets and bradford. Thats just to name a popular two.

Are the Torys or labour or the Librals going to admit this. And if they did what could they plan to do about it? You can't just move them out, or shoot them all!. And you wouldn't bring the Army on to the streets of Britian to attack them. Can you imagine the worldwide  outcry.

What we've we done is allowed a problem to grow in this country that is going to worse. We will either win or lose. Thats the only choise we get. Our govenment is unable to counteract the islamic war on the west. Thats makes them quite good at war.  

 

Permalink Reply by John Carlson on May 31, 2012 at 17:39

Shiva: Muslims aren't waging war on the West. If they did we would obliterate them. There are no Muslim military forces at all in the West, aside from Muslims serving in the military of the countries they live in. That's why it isn't war.

The reason why Muslims are in the West has almost nothing to do with Muslims. They are in the West because the elites of the West decided to make their countries "multicultural" and Muslims just tagged along for the ride.

Permalink Reply by shiva on May 31, 2012 at 21:53

Yo John, Old Buddy,

I think I will say this before Joe steps in Ho Ho

The muslims have been telling us a long time what they intend to do, but the West just ain,t listening 

In 1974 Algerian President Boumendienne made a prophetic statement to the United Nations General Assembly:

“One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women.”

You said

They are in the West because the elites of the West decided to make their countries "multicultural" and Muslims just tagged along for the ride.

 Yes they tagged along for the ride. but in their hearts is a deeply-held secret agenda (wish) that Islam will conquer their host country and turn it into an Islamic nation. Such is their indelible conditioning, they have been inherently programmed to conqueror its host nation, by wreaking havoc, litigating as warfare, demanding special privileges This is the war being waged by muslims in England, Spain, India, France, Thailand, Holland, Bali, Lebanon, Denmark, Sweden, Philippines, Russia, America and elsewhere.

Permalink Reply by paul collings on May 31, 2012 at 21:53

John,

Europe decided on using muti-culturism for many reasons. Islam just tagging along in noway discribes the events that have followed. Islam has seen the opening that muti-culturism has given them. And as for them not having armies in the west, or military forces as you say?  Theres some 2000 cells under obsevation in the UK alone. It depends how your defining a millitary force of course, but i would say there is plenty of well trained paramillitary types in britian. As there is in many other countries.

What makes you think we'd obliterate them. How are we to go about that? You think muslims just tagged along for the ride, in what way?.

Permalink Reply by John Carlson on June 1, 2012 at 11:44

Here's an example I've pointed out to a number of Muslims over the years: The number of Muslims in the world is estimated to be about 1.6 billion. There are 13.4 million Jews. Now there is nothing the Muslim world desires more than to conquer the Israelis, and return Palestine to the rightful ownership of Muslims. They outnumber the Jews 1200 to 1; they have plenty of money available from oil revenue; and, according to you and Joe, they are incredibly skilled at waging war. So why don't they just overrun Israel and take it over? The answer is that they aren't skilled at waging war. They have no native sources of technology or manufacturing, and their outdated armies would be utterly mutilated in a head-on contest with the West and Israel. They could unleash oceans of fierce bearded mujahideen, and we'd just mow them down with cluster bombs and drones and machine gun fire. It would be the best thing that ever happened to us if they attacked Israel en masse. (In fact, provoking such an attack would be a great idea. Demolishing Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock anyone?)

If you say to ordinary people in the West that the Mooslims are waging war on us, they'll look at you like you're a complete idiot. The reason why is that you're not using the word "war" in the accepted sense of the word. They'll respond that the Muslims are virtually all peaceful law-abiding people, that they aren't hurting anyone, and that they aren't doing anything except settling as immigrants, just like say the Italians settled in the US. Furthermore, they'll say that, if anybody is waging war, it is the West. And they're pretty much right, really. It's the West that invaded Iraq, and Afghanistan, and bombed Libya. It's the Israelis who are really racking up the body count, not the Palestinians. So if you start talking about the Muslims waging "war" on the West, you'll get a lot of egg on your face, and come out looking like a hypocrite who is trying to call peaceful immigration "war" while completely minimizing the massive casualties the West is causing in real "wars."

The problem in the West isn't Muslim jihad, or Muslim extremism. The problem is peaceful Muslim immigration, and that problem requires a totally different line of attack. As I said above, the real enemies in this situation aren't the Muslims. The Muslims are just lucky people who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Compare Europe with the US. The US has already reached the point where minority babies are in the majority. The traditional European ethic profile was overthrown by multiculturalists in a mere 45 years. What's happening in Europe is essentially the same process, it's just that Europe is closer to Turkey and the Arab countries, so it is importing Muslims instead of Latinos. The basic concept is the same though. The Mexican revanchists in the US are seeking revenge on the gringos for the humiliation of 1848 (the Mexican cession). And the Muslims are seeking revenge on the West for their own experiences of colonization and humiliation. In short, the Muslims were just in the right place to serve as the "Mexicans" of Europe.

The following gives us the words of the real enemy, who is shuttling the Muslim hoards into our countries (I'm quoting Bill Clinton, but I'll paraphrase and adapt to the case of Europe):

"Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Brussels or Paris or London. Within five years, there will be no majority race in our Beligum. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in Europe. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time ... [These immigrants] are energizing our culture and broadening our vision of the world. They are renewing our most basic values and reminding us all of what it truly means to be European."

Breivik was very shrewd on that point: it's the left who is driving the process, not the Muslims. And it is the central ideas of the left (particularly multiculturalism) which have to be negated.

On the other hand, there is a lot to be optimistic about. Far right (i.e., anti-immigrant) parties are quite strong and getting stronger all over Europe. And there is plenty of room to grow. Look at this graph (from a 2011 Ipsos poll) showing the number of citizens agreeing with the proposition "there are too many immigrants" in various European countries:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2833...
That is a lot of fertile ground for far-right (anti-immigrant) parties.

Permalink Reply by Joe on June 1, 2012 at 16:22

John, can you point out to me where I said that muslims "are incredibly skilled at waging war"?  You're obviously not stupid, so I have to wonder why you are putting words in my mouth.  And if Iran does get nuclear missiles, your complacency about Israel's survival will make you look like a chump.  Iran may not survive such a conflict, but I don't think they care. 

This discussion started with an article from the Centre for the Study of Political Islam, an article which highlights that waging war is a fundamental feature of islam (contra the claims of the liberal-left that islam is "the religion of peace").  You've managed to transform that into a discussion about the political elite's motivation for importing muslims, and then to a general cry to advance far-right, anti-immigrant parties.  Again, is this oversight on your part, or have you got some agenda?

You are not alone in thinking that the power elite (capitalists as much as socialists) have probably had an agenda to import islam into europe.  Geographical proximity has nothing to do with where europe's immigrants are coming from - Switzerland has no empire, yet still has a problem with muslim immigration.  Holland has immigrants from Surinam (much further than Morocco or Turkey), yet the problem is with their muslim immigrants.  Britain has muslim immigrants from ex-empire countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, but also from Morocco and Turkey.

Your claims that it is immigration per se that's the problem is wrong; rather it is muslim immigrants not assimilating that is the problem.  Islam demands that others be dominated.  Multi-culturalism  in Britain was erected as a post-hoc justification for the barbarity and non-integration of British muslims, following the fallout from the Salman Rushdie affair.  Multi-culturalism was never erected to defend those who arrived in Britain from the caribbean, because they were integrating and they were a tiny % of the population.  But now, following the rise of multi-culturalism as a way of not dealing with the problems of muslim non-integration and barbarity, even the feral descendants of blacks are protected from criticism.  Whether or not the power elite were scared to tackle islamic barbarity and muslim non-integration head-on was because of fear of being accused of being racist, or fear that muslims would be more violent, or fear that it would de-rail some unspoken project of theirs is a moot point.

I take it you are simply opposed to immigration.  I do not have a fundamental opposition to immigration.  Multi-cultrualism might be a serious problem.  But the DNA of the US is almost entirely that of immigrants.  Do you think that North America should be returned to the original tribal inhabitants?  It seems rather hypocritical of someone who is descended from immigrants to be so opposed to immigration.  

I'm also not interested in helping "far-right (anti-immigrant) parties".  I'm the son of immigrants; my boyfriend is an immigrant.  I live with another immigrant.  Two of my siblings are married to immigrants. 

Have you mistaken 4F for an organisation dedicated to opposing immigration?

We are quite open to discussing what has motivated the power elite to import people and the threat that multi-culturalism and religious exemption pose to secular democracy.  But this is not a platform that exists to simply boost far-right anti-immigrant parties.  As i pointed out to you before I think, at the critical juncture when British politicians should have stood up to islamic aggression in Britain we had the most right-wing government we have had since before WW2.  And that right-wing government did nothing, not even apply the existing laws.  And from that point on multi-culturalism and mass immigration followed.

Muslims in Britain have not yet reached sufficient numbers to wage war in any more dramatic way than to set off car bombs and to blow up the Tube, and to attempt to blow up aircraft.  Still, that is not insignificant, considering the official figure puts them at 2% of the population.  In France, where they are 10% of the population they are able to torch 1,000 cars a night across France, and the government has banned reporting of these events.  The threats to violence following the Rushdie affair have been enough to silence the vast majority of middle-class people, who are the gatekeepers of most of the memes and political activities in the west.

I'm no military tactician, but war does not consist of solely of hand-to-hand combat all the time.  Often the objective of a battle could be won without even being fought.  The true physical battles in europe will begin to be fought when muslims have sufficient numbers that they can start to take control through the ballot box.  By the time that starts to happen, the majority population will realise that the writing is on the wall.  And violence will ensue, probably leading to Balkanisation, which in itself will only provide temporary relief because islam is like The Terminator, and it seeks total domination.

Muslims are simply following the rules of war laid down in the Sira.  Which brings this discussion back to where it should have been.  When Mohammed was in Mecca, much of his message was about peace and tolerance.  When he moved to Medina then he discovered that by becoming a gangster he could get far more followers.  And from being a gangster he acquired the numbers to become a warlord.  And from being a warlord a local medieval form of totalitarianism has managed to engulf much of the world.  

Permalink Reply by John Carlson on June 2, 2012 at 13:00

Joe

Sorry I put words in your mouth. It was just a passing remark, and I withdraw it.

1) If the Muslims are anywhere near as evil as you portray them to be, and you still believe they should be allowed to mass immigrate into the West, then you simply can't be taken seriously. On the other hand, if you believe that mass immigration should continue, but that Muslims should be barred from entry, then you are a racist who is violating the fundamental principle of multicultural society (i.e., non-discrimination). So if you don't mind, can you please state your position on Muslim immigration?

2) As an immigration supporter, I take it you are opposed to far right organizations such as the British Freedom Party, EDL, PVV (Holland) etc. Is that correct? (In my experience, this forum has very strongly supported such parties in the past.) If  you don't mind my asking, what party/organization do you support as a bulwark against Islam?

3) Should the European peoples continue mass immigration to the point that the indigenous people of Europe are reduced to minorities in their own homelands? Yes or no?

Permalink Reply by Joe on June 2, 2012 at 18:56

I notice you have side-stepped my question of the hypocrisy of a citizen of the United States of America being opposed to immigration per se.  We shall return to that below.

1.a) I don't believe that muslims as humans are intrinsically evil. I believe that islam is evil and islam encourages (and demands) certain behaviours from muslims that lead them into being evil.  
1.b) There is a position between being against immigration per se and being for mass immigration per se.  You seem to be blinding yourself to that intermediate position.

1.c) Even if I was saying that muslims should be barred from entry into western countries, that would not mean I was a racist. A racist is someone who cannot distinguish between the colour of someone's skin and the nature of their religion. I think that those who are indoctrinated into islam from an early age (almost entirely non-white people) are less reprehensible than those white adults who choose to convert to islam. 

1.d)  I reject your assertion that our "multicultural society" was founded on the basis of explicit principles (there might be motivating principles that are hidden). Multi-culturalism, as a supposed ideology, is a post-hoc attempt to patch over the conflicts that arise from failure to integrate and from non-integrationist ideologies (islam in particular). As such, multiculturalism necessitates discrimination. It necessitates that members of the host society should be discriminated against in favour of the non-integrating sub-cultures. Before the rise of islam in Britain we had no talk of multiculturalism.  The kids-gloves treatment accorded to murderous muslims would have been inconceivable if they had been non-muslims.  

1.e) My position on muslim immigration is that it should be restricted forthwith, until the populations of western countries are in a position to make an informed and explicit decision that they wish to import more muslims. If, following a period of informed debate and a referendum, a population decides to throw open its doors to islam, then so be it - that is what democracy means.

2. a) What makes you think that the EDL or the PVV is "far right"?  Because the media have told you?  Why are you echoing the phrases and biases of the enemy? As someone who's been around 4F for some years, I would expect more from you. How many times does Tommy Robinson or the EDL have to deny it is far-right (for want of a better spatial image, I'm left-wing, and was heavily involved in EDL for 18 months or so)?  Geert Wilders has denied that the PVV is far right, and any informed person who is prepared to think for herself will see that the PVV is a classic liberal party.  As for the BFP, well it's early days, and I don't think their policy decisions are well-formed enough to say what their views are.  But I'm sure I have pointed out to you before, that the party which all the media in Britain agree is "far right" is the BNP.  Yet the BNP's policies are lifted almost entirely from The Labour Party circa 1965.  

2.b) I think there is much to admire about the PVV.  I don't see any party in Britain that comes close to the PVV.  I see no need to support any party in Britain, since it appears that the 3 main parties are all in cahoots and are all promoting mass immigration and islamisation.  And I think that some of the minor parties (e.g. the BNP) are probably tools of the state, designed to make sure that the project of mass immigration and islamisation continue with no serious opposition.

3. If the people of Europe make an informed and explicit decision to encourage mass immigration and to bring about minority status for the indigenous europeans, then that is their decision to make.  Only someone who believed in Der Volk or The Motherland could argue otherwise. Now, let us return to the position you dodged concerning America and immigration.  Let's re-phrase your question in an American context. Does a negative answer to this question mean that you will be leaving the US of A and returning it to the Sioux, etc.?  "Should the American peoples continue mass immigration to the point that the indigenous people of America are reduced to minorities in their own homelands?" 

I hope those detailed answers satisfy your curiousity about me.  Maybe I will still seem to you like a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma. But I'm not trying to give elusive answers.

John Carlson said:

Joe

Sorry I put words in your mouth. It was just a passing remark, and I withdraw it.

1) If the Muslims are anywhere near as evil as you portray them to be, and you still believe they should be allowed to mass immigrate into the West, then you simply can't be taken seriously. On the other hand, if you believe that mass immigration should continue, but that Muslims should be barred from entry, then you are a racist who is violating the fundamental principle of multicultural society (i.e., non-discrimination). So if you don't mind, can you please state your position on Muslim immigration?

2) As an immigration supporter, I take it you are opposed to far right organizations such as the British Freedom Party, EDL, PVV (Holland) etc. Is that correct? (In my experience, this forum has very strongly supported such parties in the past.) If  you don't mind my asking, what party/organization do you support as a bulwark against Islam?

3) Should the European peoples continue mass immigration to the point that the indigenous people of Europe are reduced to minorities in their own homelands? Yes or no?

Permalink Reply by John Carlson on June 3, 2012 at 15:06

1.b) I'm not opposed to an intermediate position on immigration. My belief is that a limited amount of immigration is good for a country because diversity does have some value. Even Muslims (in limited amounts) can be a good thing. I draw the line at mass immigration which threatens to dispossess the native/current inhabitants.

1.c) If you believe Muslims should be barred from entering the West, then you are *discriminating* on the basis of religion. That is a huge no-no in liberal society because the core postulate of liberalism is that discrimination is the worst thing in the world. Yes, it's true that Islam isn't a race, but that doesn't matter from the standpoint of the law. According to the European Court of Human Rights, any form of discrimination – whether it be on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, or sexual orientation etc. – is the exact moral equivalent of racism. This is not my viewpoint. It's the viewpoint which is enshrined in European law, and taken very seriously at all levels of the government.

1.d) As I said above, I would argue that the underlying axiom of multicultural society is that discrimination is the worst thing in the world. I agree that multiculturalism does necessitate discrimination against the host culture. But in the multicultural discourse that is not regarded as a problem. This is because multiculturalism allows discrimination against one group of untouchable pariahs: racists. And the host cultures happen to be racist because a) they have a long history of murdering and exploiting people of color, and b) they are white, and thus inherently guilty of white privilege and racism.

1.e) I think that's a fair view. I would prefer to see a more incremental policy whereby each tranche of immigration (and its composition) must be approved by referendum.

2.a) I just call them "far right" because that's the generally accepted term for parties that are opposed to immigration. I know it's irritating that the media uses that smear, but I'm just trying to communicate in an easy-to-understand way. We can use another word if you prefer.

3. Your point about democracy is fair enough. However, I'm more interested in you personal opinion. Do you think it would be good for the indigenous European peoples to give up their lands to non-Europeans?

With regard to my position on immigration as an American: You accuse me of hypocrisy, but I think that reflects a universal moral stance which I don't share with you. My reasoning goes like this: for me as a white person (what was known as an "American" at the time of my birth), it's good for me that my people control the USA, not the Indians. Therefore, I would not support returning the land to the Indians. On the other hand, allowing in endless non-white immigration into the USA is also not good for people like me, so I would not support that either. Therefore I don't believe there is any inconsistency at all. I'm simply acting in my own self-interest, like any other rational actor. Do you believe that since you moved into your house, it would be hypocritical to say no if an endless string of other humans want to move in too?

Permalink Reply by Joe on June 4, 2012 at 10:18

I don't see any need to reply to all your points.  If you wish to pursue a point that I ignore, please highlight it, and I'll try to answer it.  I've numbered your final points 3.a) and 3.b)

1.c) The "laws" of the ECHR do not apply to those outside of europe. Prohibiting people from entering europe would seem to be perfectly admisssible, even if that is construed as "discriminatory".  In fact, even within the EU, countries have prohibited the entry of other "Europeans".  With the influx of muslim immigrants to Italy in the past year, France suspended the Schengen arrangement, in order to prohibit those new muslims from leaving Italy and going to France.  Geert Wilders was prohibited from entering Britain, on the grounds that telling the truth about islam was wrong (the courts found otherwise).  Britain is currently threatening to prevent an influx of Greek and Spanish immigrants, should/when the Euro goes tits up.  Britain can prevent the entry of muslims from other european countries, on the grounds of social policy.

2.a) I don't see any need to shoe-horn political responses to complex social and economic problems into the one-dimensional framework of "left/right".  I've expressed which party I would support, should I live in a country where I could vote for them.

3.a) I don't believe there is anything that is biological superior about indigenous europeans.  I think that christianity, the enlightenment and capitalism have had more of a shaping hand on the development of european civilisation than white skin and blue eyes.  I do think that white skin and blue eyes are just as appealing as dark skin and brown eyes.  I think it would be a great pity if white skin and blue eyes were to be eradicated from the variety of human anatomy (which looks like it will happen).  But ultimately I care more about the civilisation and culture of Europe than I do about anatomy.

3.b) If I had taken my house from someone else by force, I do not think I would have any moral grounds to prevent someone else from taking it from me.  If I had no morality and would not even share it, then it would be a matter of the house going to the person who was prepared to use the most violence or who had the greatest number of helpers.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page