Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We could always just use Guam. It's Guam. What else are we using it for?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its only morally contemptible when you have excess after helping your constituents. If you have to take away from your people to help others is when you have no moral issues by not helping others.

I think opening up your people to potential terrorist attacks to help people, who may not properly integrate to begin with, is a bad thing.

I do think these refugees should be helped, but never at the expense of our own citizens. And every step should be taken to protect ourselves from the potential threats.

I said it before. Its going to cause more problems trying to integrate people who are under the presumption that they are Jihadists. Some most likely are, but some just want to be left alone. Its a situation altogether

 LordofHats wrote:
We could always just use Guam. It's Guam. What else are we using it for?

We could use some of our empty islands that are just territories for permanent resettlement. They could eventually join the union and be a real Islamic State full of good ol' 'Merican Freedom!

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.

"Closed Borders?" yes

Refuse to help them? no

Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck

I fully agree. The only way we can stop these attacks is by isolating them all in camps. Only problem left then is to decide what the hell we should do with those camps full of muslims. Can't put them in there for ever. We need to think of some kind of final solution for the problem.



Oh... wait...

Radical Buddhism FOR everyone. That's the only solution.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.

"Closed Borders?" yes

Refuse to help them? no

Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck

I fully agree. The only way we can stop these attacks is by isolating them all in camps. Only problem left then is to decide what the hell we should do with those camps full of muslims. Can't put them in there for ever. We need to think of some kind of final solution for the problem.



Oh... wait...

Ship them back after someone wins the Syria conflict...

Been reading some interesting stuff over at the centre for war and terrorism studies.

Key points about terrorism in general:

1) It's cheap, but highly effective at making countries go to war. The 9/11 attacks are a prime example. The Afghan/Iraq invasions ended costing the USA 500-600 billion dollars, and of course, thousands of dead servicemen and women, and countless other civilian lives were lost. World War 1 is another infamous example of a terrorist attack that started off a mega chain reaction.

2) Understandably, victims want to lash out as hard and as fast as possible, but this does irreversible damage to civilians in the affected areas, and the victims often end up being seen as the bad guys.

3) Terrorists, in this case, ISIS, are banking on retaliation, as it only boosts their cause, through new recruits or for the propaganda effects.

Ominously, it finishes with the point that very few terrorist campaigns of this scale are ever defeated...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.

"Closed Borders?" yes

Refuse to help them? no

Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck

I fully agree. The only way we can stop these attacks is by isolating them all in camps. Only problem left then is to decide what the hell we should do with those camps full of muslims. Can't put them in there for ever. We need to think of some kind of final solution for the problem.



Oh... wait...

I'm not sure what prompted that reference to the holocaust. I don't think anyone here advocated genocide.

The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!

Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"

The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.

Experiment 626 wrote:
The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!

Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"

The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.

Calm down bro, most muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter, only the Radicals do

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.

"Closed Borders?" yes

Refuse to help them? no

Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck

I fully agree. The only way we can stop these attacks is by isolating them all in camps. Only problem left then is to decide what the hell we should do with those camps full of muslims. Can't put them in there for ever. We need to think of some kind of final solution for the problem.



Oh... wait...

I'm not sure what prompted that reference to the holocaust. I don't think anyone here advocated genocide.

It was a joke, ridiculing the impossibility of detaining so many people for a long period of time that no one knows of how long it will be. The Nazis also did not start with advocating genocide. At first they planned to ship the jews to Palestine or some other place. It is a slippery slope once you put them in camps like that. Even though we probably won't let it come to genocide, it is still not a good thing. The vast majority of those refugees are running from the same terrorists, it is our duty to help them, not detain them and treat them like potential terrorists.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.

"Closed Borders?" yes

Refuse to help them? no

Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck

I fully agree. The only way we can stop these attacks is by isolating them all in camps. Only problem left then is to decide what the hell we should do with those camps full of muslims. Can't put them in there for ever. We need to think of some kind of final solution for the problem.



Oh... wait...

I'm not sure what prompted that reference to the holocaust. I don't think anyone here advocated genocide.

It was a joke, ridiculing the impossibility of detaining so many people for a long period of time that no one knows of how long it will be. The Nazis also did not start with advocating genocide. At first they planned to ship the jews to Palestine or some other place. It is a slippery slope once you put them in camps like that. Even it probably won't end in genocide, it is still not a good thing. The vast majority of those refugees are running from the same terrorists, it is our duty to help them, not detain them and treat them like potential terrorists.

Actually the nazis wanted to ship them all to Madagascar. Then the holocaust happened.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!

Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"

The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.

Calm down bro, most muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter, only the Radicals do

Even the radicals don't. Like a good old Westboro Baptist, they follow the parts they like to the letter and ignore the parts reading "Don't be an donkey-cave, not cool bro"

 welshhoppo wrote:

Actually the nazis wanted to ship them all to Madagascar. Then the holocaust happened.

Madagascar closed their borders.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!

Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"

The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.

Calm down bro, most muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter, only the Radicals do

Even the radicals don't. Like a good old Westboro Baptist, they follow the parts they like to the letter and ignore the parts reading "Don't be an donkey-cave, not cool bro"

Agreed, plenty of the parts of the Quran basically say "Wheatens Law apples to real life."

 LordofHats wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!

Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"

The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.

Calm down bro, most muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter, only the Radicals do

Even the radicals don't. Like a good old Westboro Baptist, they follow the parts they like to the letter and ignore the parts reading "Don't be an donkey-cave, not cool bro"

I dont even think Westboro read the bible...

I'm pretty sure they've read some sections of Leviticus but I think they might have missed everything else

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!

Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"

The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.

Calm down bro, most muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter, only the Radicals do

Even the radicals don't. Like a good old Westboro Baptist, they follow the parts they like to the letter and ignore the parts reading "Don't be an donkey-cave, not cool bro"

I dont even think Westboro read the bible...

I don't even think Westboro can read at all...

 d-usa wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
We could always just use Guam. It's Guam. What else are we using it for?

We could use some of our empty islands that are just territories for permanent resettlement. They could eventually join the union and be a real Islamic State full of good ol' 'Merican Freedom!

Just noticed this and I love it

"Hey terrorists. We hear you. We get you. How bout you come over to this island here and join the Union!"




It's just crazy enough to work

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!

Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"

The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.

Calm down bro, most muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter, only the Radicals do

Even the radicals don't. Like a good old Westboro Baptist, they follow the parts they like to the letter and ignore the parts reading "Don't be an donkey-cave, not cool bro"

I dont even think Westboro read the bible...

I don't even think Westboro can read at all...

Unbeknownst to most, WBC hires monkeys to write their protest signs for them.

Why read when some nutball will read it to you!

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm pretty sure they've read some sections of Leviticus but I think they might have missed everything else

k

Leviticus is such a misunderstood part of the bible.

Don't disagree. Just saying. What part of the Bible does everyone cite then they want to go gay bashing? Leviticus. What part do they ignore when they want to go gay bashing? Pretty much everything else

 LordofHats wrote:
"They're not my constituents" is a rather gakky excuse for not giving a damn bout human suffering in the first place.

It's a classical rationalism vs. emotionalism. A Green Card'ish, selective system is more of a rationalist system as it carefully selects people who can contribute to the society. Opening your borders to everyone is a bland emotionalist method as it appeals to the leftist and lower-end votership which makes up for a huge part in Europe. There is no "right" or "wrong" on this matter, it's two heavily different points of view that cannot be compromised with.

What, on the other hand, is the sad truth is by having an extremely open and leisure border attitude such as the EU has, you heavily increase the risk of terrorist attacks and are directly responsible for an increased number / higher vulnerability to terrorist assaults.

 LordofHats wrote:
Don't disagree. Just saying. What part of the Bible does everyone cite then they want to go gay bashing? Leviticus. What part do they ignore when they want to go gay bashing? Pretty much everything else

This is why you need to use passages about repentence folks. Nobody wants to listen to you if all you do is harbinge.

I find it frustrating when everyone pulls a quote out of the bible willy nilly and without context... It grinds my gears

 LordofHats wrote:
Don't disagree. Just saying. What part of the Bible does everyone cite then they want to go gay bashing? Leviticus. What part do they ignore when they want to go gay bashing? Pretty much everything else

I know. As an atheist I enjoy critically reading religious textbooks.

For example, the word abomination means "not something this culture does." So when it says "Homosexuality is an abomination." It actually means "homosexuality isn't a part of this culture."

 Sigvatr wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
"They're not my constituents" is a rather gakky excuse for not giving a damn bout human suffering in the first place.

It's a classical rationalism vs. emotionalism.

No. It's classical "I'm going to give this careful consideration because I'm a human being and just automatically dismissing you and the potential for your eminent demise would be kind of heartless" vs "the feth are you doing here? Go back! Go back to your side of the line right now! See look right there. There's some nice men with assault rifles waiting for you. Get the feth out!"

You can deny people a right to enter your country. I mean seriously throw open door invite everyone in isn't really a solution to the issue. My issue is that too often I see people respond to the question of refugees with utter heartlessness and inhumane comments about how the potential for X person to be killed if we deny them access just isn't our fething problem. It's totally our problem, because the least we can do is actually put some thought into a decision that could result in not living anymore.

 LordofHats wrote:

No.

Yes, it is. It's a fundamental difference. Considering a human being extremely worthwhile just because he is a human is highly irrational. Being human being an extraordinary feature on its own makes no sense. It's an emotional, left image of humanity. Like it or not, that's how it is. That isn't a judgement, it's an objective view, although some people certainly take offense on being called out as behaving irrationally. Welp.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Don't disagree. Just saying. What part of the Bible does everyone cite then they want to go gay bashing? Leviticus. What part do they ignore when they want to go gay bashing? Pretty much everything else

I know. As an atheist I enjoy critically reading religious textbooks.

For example, the word abomination means "not something this culture does." So when it says "Homosexuality is an abomination." It actually means "homosexuality isn't a part of this culture."

"Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inheret the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin or worship idols or commit adultery or are male prostitutes or practice homosexuality or are thieves or greedy people or drunkards or are abusive or cheat people- none of these will inheret the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God"

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NLT

Reason why its better to read the bible and not textbooks.

 Knockagh wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
I'm sorry but you are quite wrong. ISIS are not nihilists they have a clear goal the establishment of their twisted version of an Islamic state. The IRAs stated goal was the removal of the British presence in Ireland and the creation of a socialist republic not a united Ireland that meant removing anyone who held unionism as a political belief which they interpreted as the Protestant people. ISIS will remove or bully anyone from the state they want to create who won't agree with them just as the IRA tried to remove or destroy those who disagreed with them from Ireland. The conflict with ISIS is in its infancy their will be many talks battles and trade offs with them in the years to come.

My point in drawing the comparisons was to show how we as civilised humans want to respond to inhumanity and barbarism but the complexity of effective response is generally beyond us and will take generations to come to any form of, imperfect, conclusion.

As someone born in Northern Ireland and who lived there for almost 30 years before emigrating I am sorry to say that your IRA and ISIS comparison is wholly disingenuous. The IRA wanted to have Ireland returned to the Irish and to remove the British presence from the island. It was a political struggle which used religion as a convenient designation for each side based on historic events (Reformation, Plantation, English Civil War, etc.). It was not a religiously motivated conflict. The fact that the primary motivation for the IRA was a political solution meant that eventually they could be negotiated with. The IRA was almost exclusively comprised of those born in Ireland.

ISIS on the other land want to establish a religious territory that they control which is not an established country that they are trying to free from a foreign presence. ISIS is motivated primarily by their religious interpretations of religious doctrine that other read without recourse to violence. ISIS has also has their ranks swollen from those sympathetic to their beliefs across the Middle East and beyond.

The comparison is not there for those who don't want to see it but I will rest easy that history will prove me right. I didn't say the NI conflict was about religion. It was political with religious roots. Just as the establishment of an Islamic state is political with religious roots. The religious element is much much more pronounced in IS at present but when wars lull and statesmen are needed in the new Islamic state politics will come to the fore. I doubt IS have even fully worked out their proposals for government but they will given time. History is long and I think this will be a long conflict it is really afterall the worlds oldest conflict given new energy.

I'm off out into Belfast tonight I will be sitting in a bar like many innocent Frenchmen and women were last night, I hope and pray for peace across all conflicts tonight and that men of violence and their apologists are frustrated at every turn.

@ Dreadclaw - The IRA do not want to restore Northern Ireland 'to the Irish', the Irish protestants are Irish. Threy deny Irishness to their enemies on a point of dogma.
The IRA could actually be dealt with not because they were inherently more reasonable. Thy aren't they are at least as brutal as Islamic State. They are however less committed to die for their cause and also corruptible with wealth. The IRA is a de facto crime ring as well as a political movement,they handle the drugs trade, prostitution and protection. They are heavily cash and power focused and thus could be bought onto the negotiating table.

@ Knockagh - Religious roots, yes,but more accurately a religious excuse. Both sects concerned are fully aware that their sectarian views are contrary to their own religious teaching, unlike ISIS who are taught to believe in bloody jihad. Religious sectarianism in Northern Ireland is about cultural ties than actual religious dogma.