Breaking: Van runs into crowd outside N. London Mosque

[Dalia]

Coyote If They Really Want To Be Integrated Being British Why they don't Take Off Their veil ?

They aren't wearing veils....

Wearing the veil on the head or the Burqa is not part of English fashion !

 

[Coyote]

Looking at the coverage - I don't think so. I think this is just one more.

What I think horrifies them is that the potential for civil unrest and more nutters taking things into their own hands in an eye for an eye retaliation - whether it's Islamic or other. All you need is a car or a knife. How do you combat that?

I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.

That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....

What's the alternative?

What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?

I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:

• making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
• expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
• better funding for police over all
• better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
• continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
  
• monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
  
• working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda

In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:

• the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
• the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
  
• human trafficking
• the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
  
• Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
  
• deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
• Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.

There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:

INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?

HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.

So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...

INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.

HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.​

It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.

I totally agree - but keep in mind, it's the government's job to also protect the rights of it's citizens as well, isn't it? Start infringing on too many rights and - civil unrest.

The government has to listen to the people, but it can not allow a "tyranny of the majority" to take effect either.

When you're dealing with the likes of countries in the ME it's more complex, one faction rules, is deposed and a vacuum is created and another steps up to replace it. Been going on for a millennia.

Agree.

The problem seems to be being able to assimilate, when you go to another country you adopt that nation's laws, you don't bring your own and expect it to be accepted. Many Muslims do just that but an increasing number refuse to. There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in? It's obvious they can't in Europe and the same problem exists here in the US.

Those are good points...and assimilation is a tricky question. You shouldn't have to give up your entire cultural identity in order to do so, and that shouldn't be demanded. You must however, adopt the laws and should learn the language and some of the cultural norms. But there is also an expectation on the other side - that the host country should also accept them as members of that country. I thought it was a sad commentary that even people living for several generations in Britain might still not be accepted as "British" no matter what they did.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote If They Really Want To Be Integrated Being British Why they don't Take Off Their veil ?

They aren't wearing veils....

Wearing the veil on the head or the Burqa is not part of English fashion !

They aren't wearing a burka or veil though are they? A hijab is no different then a kippah, shouldn't bother anyone.

 

[jasonnfree]

They do have free speech - no right, including that of free speech - is unlimited.

Free speech in America has reasonable limits. Europe and Canada's limits to free speech are unreasonable because they exist to appease the unreasonable demands of minorities and satisfy the tyranny of the Left.

That is why all these groups want to change your First Amendment to include what they consider "Hate Speech", hate speech = saying nothing to upset the Kebabs and other minorities.

But for instance the Blacks can say Kill All White People and that's not considered hate speech.

Yes it is considered hate speech. But it's not illegal. People who want to change our First Amendment are in a minority - they would encounter stiff resistance from the left and the right, and the ACLU would fight them in court.

Free speech is only valuable if people understand the truth when they hear it.

 

[Coyote]

I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.

That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....

What's the alternative?

What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?

I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:

• making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
• expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
• better funding for police over all
• better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
• continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
  
• monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
  
• working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda

In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:

• the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
• the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
  
• human trafficking
• the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
  
• Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
  
• deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
• Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.

There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:

INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?

HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.

So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...

INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.

HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.​

It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.

When you're dealing with the likes of countries in the ME it's more complex, one faction rules, is deposed and a vacuum is created and another steps up to replace it. Been going on for a millennia.

The problem seems to be being able to assimilate, when you go to another country you adopt that nation's laws, you don't bring your own and expect it to be accepted. Many Muslims do just that but an increasing number refuse to. There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in? It's obvious they can't in Europe and the same problem exists here in the US.

"There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in?"

Which is why the Trump Travel Ban is entirely appropriate, logical and sensible. Considering the majority of these people are coming from literally some of the worst places on this planet, which are very hostile to The West in general and you have no idea who any of these people are - I mean they are not exactly going to announce at the Immigration Desk that they plan to commit acts of terrorism and kill your people - the Trump Travel Ban should not only be for 90 days it should be permanent. Period.

These Activist Groups which include the SPLC and the ACLU are basically Traitors, they do not care about the safety of either the American people or the safety of the American nation, they are using and perverting the American Constitution to go to Leftist Activist Judges to block the Trump Travel Ban and allow in potentially very dangerous individuals under the motto of them being "poor refugees", it's a Trojan Horse.

There is NOTHING in the American Constitution that says you HAVE to allow UNLIMITED amounts of hordes into your nation.

The ACLU, like the NRA - protects our Constitutional rights even when it's unpopular to do so....

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.

That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....

What's the alternative?

What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?

I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:

• making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
• expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
• better funding for police over all
• better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
• continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
  
• monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
  
• working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda

In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:

• the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
• the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
  
• human trafficking
• the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
  
• Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
  
• deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
• Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.

There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:

INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?

HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.

So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...

INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.

HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.​

It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.

I totally agree - but keep in mind, it's the government's job to also protect the rights of it's citizens as well, isn't it? Start infringing on too many rights and - civil unrest.

The government has to listen to the people, but it can not allow a "tyranny of the majority" to take effect either.

When you're dealing with the likes of countries in the ME it's more complex, one faction rules, is deposed and a vacuum is created and another steps up to replace it. Been going on for a millennia.

Agree.

The problem seems to be being able to assimilate, when you go to another country you adopt that nation's laws, you don't bring your own and expect it to be accepted. Many Muslims do just that but an increasing number refuse to. There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in? It's obvious they can't in Europe and the same problem exists here in the US.

Those are good points...and assimilation is a tricky question. You shouldn't have to give up your entire cultural identity in order to do so, and that shouldn't be demanded. You must however, adopt the laws and should learn the language and some of the cultural norms. But there is also an expectation on the other side - that the host country should also accept them as members of that country. I thought it was a sad commentary that even people living for several generations in Britain might still not be accepted as "British" no matter what they did.

We have seven children...I don't want them growing up in an environment like what is going on in Europe at the moment. Our children (with the exception of one but she's been here since she was eight months old) are born Americans, until there is some way to properly vet these people coming in then it needs to stop. A nation HAS to take care of it's own before attempting to take care of others.

 

[jasonnfree]

That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....

What's the alternative?

What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?

I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:

• making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
• expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
• better funding for police over all
• better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
• continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
  
• monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
  
• working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda

In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:

• the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
• the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
  
• human trafficking
• the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
  
• Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
  
• deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
• Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.

There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:

INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?

HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.

So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...

INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.

HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.​

It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.

When you're dealing with the likes of countries in the ME it's more complex, one faction rules, is deposed and a vacuum is created and another steps up to replace it. Been going on for a millennia.

The problem seems to be being able to assimilate, when you go to another country you adopt that nation's laws, you don't bring your own and expect it to be accepted. Many Muslims do just that but an increasing number refuse to. There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in? It's obvious they can't in Europe and the same problem exists here in the US.

"There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in?"

Which is why the Trump Travel Ban is entirely appropriate, logical and sensible. Considering the majority of these people are coming from literally some of the worst places on this planet, which are very hostile to The West in general and you have no idea who any of these people are - I mean they are not exactly going to announce at the Immigration Desk that they plan to commit acts of terrorism and kill your people - the Trump Travel Ban should not only be for 90 days it should be permanent. Period.

These Activist Groups which include the SPLC and the ACLU are basically Traitors, they do not care about the safety of either the American people or the safety of the American nation, they are using and perverting the American Constitution to go to Leftist Activist Judges to block the Trump Travel Ban and allow in potentially very dangerous individuals under the motto of them being "poor refugees", it's a Trojan Horse.

There is NOTHING in the American Constitution that says you HAVE to allow UNLIMITED amounts of hordes into your nation.

I have no problem with legal immigration if US law is followed, I do however have a problem with this "refugee" crap going on. We have no idea who these people are, their intentions, etc. Hell some of them claim to be teenagers and one look and you know they are late 20's early 30's...no way in hell they should be allowed in, they are lying from the get go

People who have nothing to offer America shouldn't be allowed in here anyway. Immigration now is just inviting in more people who have many needs and nothing else to offer. And in the case of muslims, they offer dislike of our way of life and want to change it to the ways of the failed countries they came from. Ultra liberal airheads don't understand this of course

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....

What's the alternative?

What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?

I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:

• making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
• expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
• better funding for police over all
• better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
• continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
  
• monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
  
• working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda

In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:

• the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
• the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
  
• human trafficking
• the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
  
• Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
  
• deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
• Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.

There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:

INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?

HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.

So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...

INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.

HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.​

It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.

When you're dealing with the likes of countries in the ME it's more complex, one faction rules, is deposed and a vacuum is created and another steps up to replace it. Been going on for a millennia.

The problem seems to be being able to assimilate, when you go to another country you adopt that nation's laws, you don't bring your own and expect it to be accepted. Many Muslims do just that but an increasing number refuse to. There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in? It's obvious they can't in Europe and the same problem exists here in the US.

"There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in?"

Which is why the Trump Travel Ban is entirely appropriate, logical and sensible. Considering the majority of these people are coming from literally some of the worst places on this planet, which are very hostile to The West in general and you have no idea who any of these people are - I mean they are not exactly going to announce at the Immigration Desk that they plan to commit acts of terrorism and kill your people - the Trump Travel Ban should not only be for 90 days it should be permanent. Period.

These Activist Groups which include the SPLC and the ACLU are basically Traitors, they do not care about the safety of either the American people or the safety of the American nation, they are using and perverting the American Constitution to go to Leftist Activist Judges to block the Trump Travel Ban and allow in potentially very dangerous individuals under the motto of them being "poor refugees", it's a Trojan Horse.

There is NOTHING in the American Constitution that says you HAVE to allow UNLIMITED amounts of hordes into your nation.

I have no problem with legal immigration if US law is followed, I do however have a problem with this "refugee" crap going on. We have no idea who these people are, their intentions, etc. Hell some of them claim to be teenagers and one look and you know they are late 20's early 30's...no way in hell they should be allowed in, they are lying from the get go

This is identical to what we have faced, where these Activist Groups are saying "poor refugee children" and 90% of them are in their 20s, 30s and some have been in their early 40s. They must think we are stupid.

Also with regard to us, this crowd have left the Middle East into Turkey onto the Greek Islands and travelled across ten to twelve SAFE nations to deliberately go to the wealthier European nations where upon they DEMAND to be allowed to stay.

This is completely against the UN 1951 law on what constitutes an actual refugee. A refugee is someone who flees and the first safe nation they arrive in that isn't in a war, they ask to be considered for asylum there.

So in the case of the Kebabs that first safe nation would be Turkey.

They are not refugees, they are Economic Migrants and they've been coached by these NGOs on the ground what to say, where to head for, what to demand and also if ANYONE opposes they've been coached to say "Racist" "Nazi's"

We do need to get over this shit and say fuck Political Correctness and NO you CANNOT stay so GTFO already.

 

[Coyote]

What's the alternative?

What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?

I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:

• making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
• expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
• better funding for police over all
• better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
• continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
  
• monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
  
• working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda

In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:

• the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
• the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
  
• human trafficking
• the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
  
• Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
  
• deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
• Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.

There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:

INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?

HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.

So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...

INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.

HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.​

It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.

When you're dealing with the likes of countries in the ME it's more complex, one faction rules, is deposed and a vacuum is created and another steps up to replace it. Been going on for a millennia.

The problem seems to be being able to assimilate, when you go to another country you adopt that nation's laws, you don't bring your own and expect it to be accepted. Many Muslims do just that but an increasing number refuse to. There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in? It's obvious they can't in Europe and the same problem exists here in the US.

"There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in?"

Which is why the Trump Travel Ban is entirely appropriate, logical and sensible. Considering the majority of these people are coming from literally some of the worst places on this planet, which are very hostile to The West in general and you have no idea who any of these people are - I mean they are not exactly going to announce at the Immigration Desk that they plan to commit acts of terrorism and kill your people - the Trump Travel Ban should not only be for 90 days it should be permanent. Period.

These Activist Groups which include the SPLC and the ACLU are basically Traitors, they do not care about the safety of either the American people or the safety of the American nation, they are using and perverting the American Constitution to go to Leftist Activist Judges to block the Trump Travel Ban and allow in potentially very dangerous individuals under the motto of them being "poor refugees", it's a Trojan Horse.

There is NOTHING in the American Constitution that says you HAVE to allow UNLIMITED amounts of hordes into your nation.

I have no problem with legal immigration if US law is followed, I do however have a problem with this "refugee" crap going on. We have no idea who these people are, their intentions, etc. Hell some of them claim to be teenagers and one look and you know they are late 20's early 30's...no way in hell they should be allowed in, they are lying from the get go

This is identical to what we have faced, where these Activist Groups are saying "poor refugee children" and 90% of them are in their 20s, 30s and some have been in their early 40s. They must think we are stupid.

Also with regard to us, this crowd have left the Middle East into Turkey on the Greek Islands and travelled across ten to twelve SAFE nations to deliberately go to the wealthier European nations where upon they DEMAND to be allowed to stay.

This is completely against the UN 1951 law on what constitutes an actual refugee. A refugee is someone who flees and the first safe nation they arrive in that isn't in a war, they ask to be considered for asylum there.

So in the case of the Kebabs that first safe nation would be Turkey.

They are not refugees, they are Economic Migrants and they've been couched by these NGOs on the ground what to say, where to head for, what to demand and also if ANYONE opposes they've been couched to say "Racist" "Nazi's"

We do need to get over this shit and say fuck Political Correctness and NO you CANNOT stay so GTFO already.

I think there is a lot of conflation between refugee, asylum seeker and migrant. A lot of them aren't refugees.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....

What's the alternative?

What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?

I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:

• making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
• expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
• better funding for police over all
• better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
• continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
  
• monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
  
• working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda

In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:

• the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
• the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
  
• human trafficking
• the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
  
• Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
  
• deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
• Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.

There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:

INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?

HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.

So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...

INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.

HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.​

It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.

I totally agree - but keep in mind, it's the government's job to also protect the rights of it's citizens as well, isn't it? Start infringing on too many rights and - civil unrest.

The government has to listen to the people, but it can not allow a "tyranny of the majority" to take effect either.

When you're dealing with the likes of countries in the ME it's more complex, one faction rules, is deposed and a vacuum is created and another steps up to replace it. Been going on for a millennia.

Agree.

The problem seems to be being able to assimilate, when you go to another country you adopt that nation's laws, you don't bring your own and expect it to be accepted. Many Muslims do just that but an increasing number refuse to. There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in? It's obvious they can't in Europe and the same problem exists here in the US.

Those are good points...and assimilation is a tricky question. You shouldn't have to give up your entire cultural identity in order to do so, and that shouldn't be demanded. You must however, adopt the laws and should learn the language and some of the cultural norms. But there is also an expectation on the other side - that the host country should also accept them as members of that country. I thought it was a sad commentary that even people living for several generations in Britain might still not be accepted as "British" no matter what they did.

We have seven children...I don't want them growing up in an environment like what is going on in Europe at the moment. Our children (with the exception of one but she's been here since she was eight months old) are born Americans, until there is some way to properly vet these people coming in then it needs to stop. A nation HAS to take care of it's own before attempting to take care of others.

"A nation HAS to take care of it's own before attempting to take care of others."

Exactly and wanting to take care of your own isn't in any shape or form racist or bigoted.

The situation is we don't hate these people, we just don't want them, we are under no obligation to take them and certainly are under no obligation to use OUR money to put them and their entire family on Welfare and give them free things when we have many of our own people who are struggling to keep their heads above water.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?

I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:

• making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
• expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
• better funding for police over all
• better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
• continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
  
• monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
  
• working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda

In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:

• the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
• the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
  
• human trafficking
• the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
  
• Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
  
• deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
• Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.

There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:

INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?

HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.

So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...

INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.

HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.​

It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.

When you're dealing with the likes of countries in the ME it's more complex, one faction rules, is deposed and a vacuum is created and another steps up to replace it. Been going on for a millennia.

The problem seems to be being able to assimilate, when you go to another country you adopt that nation's laws, you don't bring your own and expect it to be accepted. Many Muslims do just that but an increasing number refuse to. There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in? It's obvious they can't in Europe and the same problem exists here in the US.

"There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in?"

Which is why the Trump Travel Ban is entirely appropriate, logical and sensible. Considering the majority of these people are coming from literally some of the worst places on this planet, which are very hostile to The West in general and you have no idea who any of these people are - I mean they are not exactly going to announce at the Immigration Desk that they plan to commit acts of terrorism and kill your people - the Trump Travel Ban should not only be for 90 days it should be permanent. Period.

These Activist Groups which include the SPLC and the ACLU are basically Traitors, they do not care about the safety of either the American people or the safety of the American nation, they are using and perverting the American Constitution to go to Leftist Activist Judges to block the Trump Travel Ban and allow in potentially very dangerous individuals under the motto of them being "poor refugees", it's a Trojan Horse.

There is NOTHING in the American Constitution that says you HAVE to allow UNLIMITED amounts of hordes into your nation.

I have no problem with legal immigration if US law is followed, I do however have a problem with this "refugee" crap going on. We have no idea who these people are, their intentions, etc. Hell some of them claim to be teenagers and one look and you know they are late 20's early 30's...no way in hell they should be allowed in, they are lying from the get go

This is identical to what we have faced, where these Activist Groups are saying "poor refugee children" and 90% of them are in their 20s, 30s and some have been in their early 40s. They must think we are stupid.

Also with regard to us, this crowd have left the Middle East into Turkey on the Greek Islands and travelled across ten to twelve SAFE nations to deliberately go to the wealthier European nations where upon they DEMAND to be allowed to stay.

This is completely against the UN 1951 law on what constitutes an actual refugee. A refugee is someone who flees and the first safe nation they arrive in that isn't in a war, they ask to be considered for asylum there.

So in the case of the Kebabs that first safe nation would be Turkey.

They are not refugees, they are Economic Migrants and they've been couched by these NGOs on the ground what to say, where to head for, what to demand and also if ANYONE opposes they've been couched to say "Racist" "Nazi's"

We do need to get over this shit and say fuck Political Correctness and NO you CANNOT stay so GTFO already.

I think there is a lot of conflation between refugee, asylum seeker and migrant. A lot of them aren't refugees.

Exactly most of them are not refugees, the actual refugees we should help, we should give them temporary stay until such a time they can be sent home, we should NOT give them permanent residence.

What we find is that the actual refugees are very homesick and will very often express the wish to eventually go home to help rebuild their own nations and I have a lot of respect for that, because to me love of your nation is so important, the soil that your Ancestors preserved and loved is the soil that you now also stand on.

The Economic Migrants are immediately gibs me dat, gibs me permanent stay gibs me a passport the NGOs have told me I'm European now, gibs me a house and a car or else you're a racist Nazi.

 

[jasonnfree]

Our country will survive, but what kind of country will it be if we keep bringing in a political mindset that has nothing in common with our culture and way of life? A political mindset that has crapped on the great European civilization that allowed them into their wonderful and generous countries? The great Orianna Fallaci wrote about this political mindset called Islam in some of her books, especially in "The Rage and the Pride". These people literally urinated and spit on some of the great treasures in her country. What good is education if our universities are producing more and more politically correct students who will try to destroy a university that tries to allow an Ann Coulter a forum to speak in?

 

[Brynmr]

I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.

That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....

What's the alternative?

What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?

I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:

• making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
• expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
• better funding for police over all
• better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
• continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
  
• monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
  
• working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda

In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:

• the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
• the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
  
• human trafficking
• the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
  
• Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
  
• deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
• Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.

There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:

INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?

HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.

So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...

INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.

HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.​

It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.

I totally agree - but keep in mind, it's the government's job to also protect the rights of it's citizens as well, isn't it? Start infringing on too many rights and - civil unrest.

The government has to listen to the people, but it can not allow a "tyranny of the majority" to take effect either.

So too the tyranny of the minority. We already have that in many areas thanks to the Obama administration and the 'do nothing to upset the status quo' Republican congress.

 

[Brynmr]

What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?

I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:

• making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
• expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
• better funding for police over all
• better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
• continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
  
• monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
  
• working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda

In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:

• the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
• the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
  
• human trafficking
• the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
  
• Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
  
• deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
• Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.

There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:

INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?

HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.

So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...

INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.

HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.​

It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.

When you're dealing with the likes of countries in the ME it's more complex, one faction rules, is deposed and a vacuum is created and another steps up to replace it. Been going on for a millennia.

The problem seems to be being able to assimilate, when you go to another country you adopt that nation's laws, you don't bring your own and expect it to be accepted. Many Muslims do just that but an increasing number refuse to. There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in? It's obvious they can't in Europe and the same problem exists here in the US.

"There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in?"

Which is why the Trump Travel Ban is entirely appropriate, logical and sensible. Considering the majority of these people are coming from literally some of the worst places on this planet, which are very hostile to The West in general and you have no idea who any of these people are - I mean they are not exactly going to announce at the Immigration Desk that they plan to commit acts of terrorism and kill your people - the Trump Travel Ban should not only be for 90 days it should be permanent. Period.

These Activist Groups which include the SPLC and the ACLU are basically Traitors, they do not care about the safety of either the American people or the safety of the American nation, they are using and perverting the American Constitution to go to Leftist Activist Judges to block the Trump Travel Ban and allow in potentially very dangerous individuals under the motto of them being "poor refugees", it's a Trojan Horse.

There is NOTHING in the American Constitution that says you HAVE to allow UNLIMITED amounts of hordes into your nation.

I have no problem with legal immigration if US law is followed, I do however have a problem with this "refugee" crap going on. We have no idea who these people are, their intentions, etc. Hell some of them claim to be teenagers and one look and you know they are late 20's early 30's...no way in hell they should be allowed in, they are lying from the get go

This is identical to what we have faced, where these Activist Groups are saying "poor refugee children" and 90% of them are in their 20s, 30s and some have been in their early 40s. They must think we are stupid.

Also with regard to us, this crowd have left the Middle East into Turkey on the Greek Islands and travelled across ten to twelve SAFE nations to deliberately go to the wealthier European nations where upon they DEMAND to be allowed to stay.

This is completely against the UN 1951 law on what constitutes an actual refugee. A refugee is someone who flees and the first safe nation they arrive in that isn't in a war, they ask to be considered for asylum there.

So in the case of the Kebabs that first safe nation would be Turkey.

They are not refugees, they are Economic Migrants and they've been couched by these NGOs on the ground what to say, where to head for, what to demand and also if ANYONE opposes they've been couched to say "Racist" "Nazi's"

We do need to get over this shit and say fuck Political Correctness and NO you CANNOT stay so GTFO already.

I think there is a lot of conflation between refugee, asylum seeker and migrant. A lot of them aren't refugees.

These people have no business being in the West. It's not their countries. They don't belong here. Their religion and ideology isn't compatible with freedom - they don't fit. The reason they were brought in was to destroy the host culture and pave the way for a more Leftist government controlled system.

 

[Brynmr]

That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....

What's the alternative?

What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?

I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:

• making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
• expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
• better funding for police over all
• better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
• continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
  
• monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
  
• working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda

In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:

• the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
• the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
  
• human trafficking
• the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
  
• Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
  
• deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
• Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.

There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:

INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?

HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.

So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...

INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.

HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.​

It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.

I totally agree - but keep in mind, it's the government's job to also protect the rights of it's citizens as well, isn't it? Start infringing on too many rights and - civil unrest.

The government has to listen to the people, but it can not allow a "tyranny of the majority" to take effect either.

When you're dealing with the likes of countries in the ME it's more complex, one faction rules, is deposed and a vacuum is created and another steps up to replace it. Been going on for a millennia.

Agree.

The problem seems to be being able to assimilate, when you go to another country you adopt that nation's laws, you don't bring your own and expect it to be accepted. Many Muslims do just that but an increasing number refuse to. There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in? It's obvious they can't in Europe and the same problem exists here in the US.

Those are good points...and assimilation is a tricky question. You shouldn't have to give up your entire cultural identity in order to do so, and that shouldn't be demanded. You must however, adopt the laws and should learn the language and some of the cultural norms. But there is also an expectation on the other side - that the host country should also accept them as members of that country. I thought it was a sad commentary that even people living for several generations in Britain might still not be accepted as "British" no matter what they did.

We have seven children...I don't want them growing up in an environment like what is going on in Europe at the moment. Our children (with the exception of one but she's been here since she was eight months old) are born Americans, until there is some way to properly vet these people coming in then it needs to stop. A nation HAS to take care of it's own before attempting to take care of others.

I agree. Europe has had no vetting. They have let in all of them. What fools they are.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Any dolt can post nice smiling pictures of girls from any society
I don't make the mistake of holding any poster to real high regard but that's a real JV manner of trying to make a "point"

It's supposed to counter all the Muslims who are loyal to countries like Pakistan rather than the country in which they live

A friend of mine who lives in Richmond-upon-Thames, England emailed me the below article.

Yet more British Police wasting British peoples' tax money because of Political Correctness. A complete example again of not having your priorities right, the British Police should be hunting down the Hostile Kebabs and not hunting down Native British people who post on Facebook or who paint comments on a door, the below comment that was painted is of course factually correct "Terrorize your own country"

The British police are now investigating the NEWSPAPER for REPORTING on the story of someone painting on a door and this is ONLY because it was a Mosque door and the British Police have been told to treat Muslims as Special and protect them, whilst at the same time not protecting Native British who are being slaughtered on the streets by Killer Kebabs.

The Editor himself of the Richmond and Twickenham Times felt compelled to directly respond himself, and ALL rational people should agree with what he writes, ONLY those who support the Destruction of Western Civilisation via the importing of Hostile Islam would disagree.

Here is the rest of the article.

COMMENT: Why are police probing posts on a web article about vandalism of a mosque?

 

[Dalia]

Coyote If They Really Want To Be Integrated Being British Why they don't Take Off Their veil ?

They aren't wearing veils....

Wearing the veil on the head or the Burqa is not part of English fashion !

They aren't wearing a burka or veil though are they? A hijab is no different then a kippah, shouldn't bother anyone.

It disturbs especially the Arab men ( the dominator) if they do not wear the veil or sometime the burqa who treat the women like shit ... those one that the leftists defend with their beaks and nails each time.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote If They Really Want To Be Integrated Being British Why they don't Take Off Their veil ?

They aren't wearing veils....

Wearing the veil on the head or the Burqa is not part of English fashion !

They aren't wearing a burka or veil though are they? A hijab is no different then a kippah, shouldn't bother anyone.

It disturbs especially the Arab men ( the dominator) if they do not wear the veil or sometime the burqa who treat the women like shit ... those one that the leftists defend with their beaks and nails each time.

I can see reasons for banning burka's and full face coverings in western societies not the least for public safety - plus, there is nothing in Islam that actually requires it, it's cultural.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Any dolt can post nice smiling pictures of girls from any society
I don't make the mistake of holding any poster to real high regard but that's a real JV manner of trying to make a "point"

It's supposed to counter all the Muslims who are loyal to countries like Pakistan rather than the country in which they live

A friend of mine who lives in Richmond-upon-Thames, England emailed me the below article.

Yet more British Police wasting British peoples' tax money because of Political Correctness. A complete example again of not having your priorities right, the British Police should be hunting down the Hostile Kebabs and not hunting down Native British people who post on Facebook or who paint comments on a door, the below comment that was painted is of course factually correct "Terrorize your own country"

The British police are now investigating the NEWSPAPER for REPORTING on the story of someone painting on a door and this is ONLY because it was a Mosque door and the British Police have been told to treat Muslims as Special and protect them, whilst at the same time not protecting Native British who are being slaughtered on the streets by Killer Kebabs.

The Editor himself of the Richmond and Twickenham Times felt compelled to directly respond himself, and ALL rational people should agree with what he writes, ONLY those who support the Destruction of Western Civilisation via the importing of Hostile Islam would disagree.

View attachment 134794
View attachment 134795
View attachment 134796
View attachment 134797
View attachment 134798

Here is the rest of the article.

COMMENT: Why are police probing posts on a web article about vandalism of a mosque?

And look the previous Richmond and Twickenham Police Borough Commander is suspended, due to "gross misconduct" He's probably been set up deliberately so he can be removed....you'll see why I say this when you read WHAT has replaced him.

Lol and the two other High Placed police officers behind him were also suspended for their actions when the Borough Commander was suspended and now ALL of them are suspended and under investigation. Which meant that they had to Import a new Borough Commander from outside Richmond and Twickenham....and well yes, you'll see WHAT they imported if you keep reading.

Here's the full article.

Two top rank officers probed over response to claims against borough commander

More.

Two senior Met Police officers facing probe - BBC News

AND GUESS WHAT, GUESS WHO IS THE NEW RICHMOND AND TWICKENHAM POLICE BOROUGH COMMANDER, the one who has launched an investigation into the newspaper for reporting on the painting of "Terrorize your own country" on a Mosque door, the one who is wasting British peoples' tax money protecting Muslims?

YES you guessed it, SHE'S A MUSLIM! I mean she has a DIRECT conflict of interest doesn't she? NO MUSLIMS SHOULD BE IN THE POLICE OR ARMED SERVICES OF ANY WESTERN NATION. THEY ARE THE ENEMY.

Parm Sandhu, now there's a good old fashioned traditional British name

Colin Kennedy below, White Ethic Native British Men do not belong in the police anymore, GTFO the Muslims are having your jobs now.

The Police still haven't publicly said what the "gross misconduct" of Colin Kennedy is, lol yes this is probably because he didn't do anything, has been set up to make way for a Muslim woman who is now going to terrorise the Native British in Richmond and Twickenham every time they say ANYTHING about Muslims terrorising the Native British.

And the Interim Police Commander Glenn Tunstall, well he couldn't be appointed to the role permanently, he too is White Ethnic Native British.

Oh look the Muslim previously worked at a Hate Crime Unit, lol she is originally from Birmingham ie. she's from Pakistan and her parents moved from that shit hole in the 1960s to Birmingham to assist in the Muslim Colonisation of Birmingham.

Colin Kennedy who was suspended over something the police won't even tell anyone what he was suspended for:

"Mr Kennedy has enjoyed an illustrious 30-year career with the force, including stints specialising in covert policing, counter-terrorism, anti-corruption and organised crime, but it is understood that the allegations are linked to his current borough role."

Yes in this time of Islamic Terrorism it's good thinking by the British Police to remove a man with 30 years experience in covert policing and COUNTER-TERRORISM and replace him with a Kebab woman who's only experience is in a Hate Crime Unit and Community Relations.

Before the Sand Apes were brought from Sand Ape nations by Leftist Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s, Birmingham was 98% Christian and European.

This below is 6 years ago, it's obviously got to be even worse now with more imported Kebabs.

Here's the full article.

Richmond's new borough commander is one of UK's highest ranking Asian women in policing

 

[Dalia]

Coyote If They Really Want To Be Integrated Being British Why they don't Take Off Their veil ?

They aren't wearing veils....

Wearing the veil on the head or the Burqa is not part of English fashion !

They aren't wearing a burka or veil though are they? A hijab is no different then a kippah, shouldn't bother anyone.

It disturbs especially the Arab men ( the dominator) if they do not wear the veil or sometime the burqa who treat the women like shit ... those one that the leftists defend with their beaks and nails each time.

I can see reasons for banning burka's and full face coverings in western societies not the least for public safety - plus, there is nothing in Islam that actually requires it, it's cultural.

And what about this:
Excision is, in its most general sense, the removal of a part of biological tissue. But the term excision is more commonly used to denote the ablation of the clitoral cap or even the entire outer clitoris.
Excision of the clitoris, which is female genital mutilation (FGM), involves removal of the predominant external part of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and its cap. It is sometimes accompanied by the removal of the labia minora and the suture of the labia majora. This mutilation is illegal in most countries of the world1. Many organizations are campaigning for its worldwide abolition. Excision has several variants that differ in the extent of ablation and related practices.
A friend of mine to meet an Arab woman who underwent this monstrosity and the males of the family face him when he confessed he was disgust
Female genital mutilation - Wikipedia