mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
The European Migration Crisis
It’s Time for “Farewell Culture,” German Politicians Say after Terror Attacks
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Pete

    Arabs don’t belong in the West.

    • Nevis07

      When I was in grad school in the UK several years ago, a number of my classmates were Muslim, from Nigeria, UAE, Pakistan. They were nice enough and we got along fine, but that doesn’t mean that I thought they fit in well in a Western society…

    • Tom

      They can belong in the West.
      If they want to be Western.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Which, we should come to suggest, ought to include renouncing Islam—because Islam is not a “Western” thing. We really ought to be leading with making “apostasy” completely accepted and celebrated. How else do we oppose an ideology?

  • Nevis07

    “… the Würzburg or Ansbach attacks—the first appears to be personal and the latter appears not to have professed any loyalties—but that may not matter in the mind of the public, which at a minimum will likely connect them with what leftists in other situations now call “a culture of violence.”

    I’m stupefied by the inability of the leftists to acknowledge the real problem and underlying common denominator – Islam. The West needs to finally accept the fact that Middle Eastern, North African and South Asian cultures which are rooted in and derive their cultures from Islam and is fundamentally not compatible with Western beliefs. I’m not saying Muslims in the US and elsewhere in the Western world can’t live in our countries in a peaceful manner, but the reality is that their beliefs are largely (statically) out of step with native populations. This debate shouldn’t be belittled into shouts about bigotry and xenophobia and it needs to be addressed.

    The more the leftists/progressives double-down on their refusal to even acknowledge the problem, let alone do anything about it will only give more fuel to the rise of actual bigotry and extremist politicians. In other words, it’s having an opposite effect of what they want.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Count me as one leftist who understands now and has understood for a long time that the entirety of Islam is a troublemaking falsehood—-from first word to last word. It’s not just terror groups which are the problem, although those ARE a huge problem
      THE PROBLEM is that Islam itself is incompatible with free speech, with freedom of other religion, and with democracy—-period.

      Wherever Muslims are in the minority, they carp us to death about their minority rights. Wherever it becomes a majority, there simply are no real rights of any of the kind which count.

      So, here’s what we need to do with our other leftists who call themselves “liberal”. 1) We need to tell them to can the “one of the world’s great religions” malarkey with respect to Islam. 2) We need to tell them to get their heads on straight and recognize that Islam is “not liberal” and CANNOT be made tolerant of liberalism EVER, IN ANY PLACE, because of its own source material.
      3) We need them (and conservatives, for that matter) to understand that, although we can and will kill some Muslims here and there, we cannot kill them all and we cannot wall them out of all free places. The only answer for the earth long term is to get massive numbers of people to stop believing the Islamic nonsense. This is a messaging war for the rest of your lifves and those of your offspring as well.

      • Nevis07

        Glad to see there’s at least one liberal that recognizes the problem. Seems to me that if there is a common stance that both the left and the right can possibly come together on, in regards to Islam, is the promotion and defense (with actual enforced policies and laws) of CLASSICAL liberalism.

        • FriendlyGoat

          I don’t want to get off in the weeds with CLASSICAL liberalism—–which I often understand is the conservatives’ argument for conservatism, not modern liberalism. What all Americans could easily agree on are these kinds of simple matters.

          1) If you don’t believe the sayings of Mohammad supersede everything else in human thought, then oppose Islam, because Muslims believe nothing else and are permitted to believe nothing else, even if they are so-called moderates.

          2) If you like secular democracy in government—-even in the American “constitutional republic” definition, then oppose Islam, because it does not and cannot coexist with anything which allows humans to exclude Allah from the determination of public affairs.

          3) If you believe men and women are to be permitted “the pursuit of happiness”, oppose Islam because it believes men and women are to be submitted to the will of Allah, as expressed EXCLUSIVELY by Mohammad—–period.

          • Nevis07

            Fair enough, but I think you’re going to find that it’s hard to hold to the principles you’ve listed without actually following it up with action (laws) that conservatives have suggested like limiting the number of immigrants from Islamic nations, bans on facial masks for women, and banning or at least forcing Islamic Sharia councils to maintain public meetings and sessions so the public is aware of their Sharia teachings.

            Just acknowledging that Islam is a problem while you let vast numbers into the country is meaningless if they continue to go on terror sprees or even fail to do even the most basic thing an immigrant is (should be) expected to do, which is to integrate and assimilate.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’m not against banning facial masks, certainly not against speaking and legislating against Sharia in any and every iteration, and not against limiting immigration from all source locations and beliefs. (We know we cannot take all comers anyway.)
            The point is that we need to emphasize that we would like to dampen the enthusiasm for the sayings of Mohammad in the USA, in Europe and in every country on earth. A messaging war (the only war that is going to really “work”) needs to be comprehensive.

          • Nevis07

            haha, well I’m not sure what to tell ya, cause you say you’re not advocating for a conservative approach, but those policies are the ones conservatives put forward. At any rate, glad to see some liberals are at least willing to have the debate. Have a good rest of your day Goat.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, I do happen to believe one can oppose Islam and reject the entire domestic GOP platform at the same time. You have a good day too.

          • BillClintonsShorts17

            Yes! Perpetual mockery would do wonders. Always ask them for evidence for their beliefs. Has a ‘martyr ever returned from Paradise to recount his experiences with his 72 virgins? Point out that it’s high irony for them to be so uptight about sex when they believe Heaven is really a very VERY nice whorehouse. Mock, Mock, Mock!!!

          • FriendlyGoat

            Mocking is not how you do it effectively. Mocking inspires the crazies who believe you (we) are evil for mocking and that they will be in Heaven for killing infidels indiscriminately. We’re there now.

          • BillClintonsShorts17

            Well then, at least demand explanations and evidence.

            How is it, for instance, that a jihadi ‘martyr’ can expect a reward in Paradise, since his own theology says that Allah is arbitrary power and is NOT bound by his promises.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, asking for explanations and evidence is the start of the right way to do it.

          • BillClintonsShorts17

            You be careful out there. I understand that many of them LIKE friendly goats.

          • FriendlyGoat

            My wife and I and our friendly pet goats (in the western United States) are always careful, but thanks for expressing your concern.

      • sacip

        As a center-left Dem., I couldn’t agree more. Obama certainly doesn’t help with his refusal to even utter language appropriate to/commensurate with the problem. I think there are many other moderate Dems. who also have serious reservations re.Islam, but they get drowned out by the more vocal Lefty elements in the party. Since many/most folks aren’t single-issue voters, we end up unable to pull the lever for W, or Palin/McCain or the Trumpster and cast our votes accordingly. Fortunately, HRC is no Obama or Kerry, especially as regards taking a tougher stance re. Islamic terrorism (a low bar, I know). I suspect she’ll adopt a “the less said, the better” approach during the campaign so as not to piss off the extremely liberal base

        • FriendlyGoat

          1) I’m glad you are a center-left Dem. Me too.

          2) I believe we should be excusing Obama, Kerry, and Clinton for speaking in diplomatic tones which uphold the constitutional principle of freedom of religion—-including Islam—-in the USA. They are in positions of responsibility and really have no choice.

          3) It is up to thoughtful liberal and conservative INDIVIDUALS, not our government, to lead the messaging war on Islam. WE are the ones with the freedom of speech to do it. The leaders are actually constrained by the constitution as representatives of the government from “prohibiting the free exercise of religion”—-yes, including Islam.

      • Jim__L

        “Wherever [60’s-style radicals] are in the minority, they carp us to death about their
        minority rights. Wherever they become a majority, there simply are no
        real rights remaining of any of the kind which actually count.”

    • Andrew Allison

      I think it’s more nuanced than that. Muslims, like Jews and sundry other religionists have lived peaceably in the Christen West for a very long time, accepting that their beliefs are different but to each their own. Radical Islam is a political rather than a religious movement which is taking advantage of disaffection for its own ends. The Crusade should be against extremism, not Islam.

      • Nevis07

        Andrew, I will simply say that generally I agree with you, but note what I said – that Islam informs the cultures of those dominant Islamic societies. I did not say that religiosity itself should be targeted.

        Let me give an example, my cousin a few year ago married a Lebanese man from a Christian Orthodox family. At the church ceremony however, I think most Americans would have been shocked at what the priest said – something to effect that the women in such an institution was effectively a baby machine and that she was effectively subordinate and that if there were any marital disputes, he was the one they had an obligation to go to. (Note that her Lebanese husband has something like 50 first and second cousins). To say my side of the family was shocked at the priest’s statement is something of an understatement.

        Lebanese CULTURE, is informed and derived from Christian culture of course as well as Druze but also most importantly Islamic culture. It is that Islamic value set that seems to dominate many basic cultural ideas in the Islamic world. That is why I argue that it is fair (and legal) to vastly limit people from Islamic dominant countries but not discriminate on religion alone. Perhaps in a hundred years Muslims will hold their own reformation, but until that times, it is not the duty of the Western world to dilute their values to make ourselves more compatible with Islam, even if it is only to keep the ‘peace’ with radical Islam.

        • Andrew Allison

          We are largely in agreement. But I must point out that your example illustrates that Orthodox Christianity has (unsurprisingly, since both religions are Abrahamic) very similar totemic traditions to Islam. Isn’t the issue were discussing the issue is how seriously your cousin’s husband takes them (and how intent he is on imposing them on his neighbors). My guess, since your cousin is presumably American and wouldn’t put up with it, is not literally. The are two very different issues here: the extent to which a religion attempts to impose its mores on other cultures, and the abomination that is Radical Islam (which I’m all in favor of treating with extreme prejudice).

    • ljgude

      Yes, Nevis07, I think you understand the dynamic better than the author of the article. The problem as I see it is Islamist supremacism – which is totally against and incompatible with multiculturalism. I grew up in a well educated Roman Catholic family in the 50s and at that time the priests were still teaching us little kiddies that our protestant friends were all going to burn in Hell for ever and ever and ever – something my parents let it be known I was not to take too seriously. That was about 450 years after Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to church door. Islam has never had a reformation and it still seriously claiming that Islam is the final and perfect revelation from The Deity and that Islam’s work will not be done until the entire world is Muslim. Because of my experience with the Church of Rome I understand this mindset – it works like a vaccine, giving its victims a mild case of religious supremacism. Any time I doubt it all I have to do is remember the looks of pity on the faces of the Roman Catholic girls who were my classmates when I announced that I was leaving The Church at the age of 16. 450 years after the Reformation I was not in danger of being stoned to death by them, but I could see, even then, that they had swallowed the supremacist lie whole.

      • Nevis07

        Well said. Yes, Islam itself may one day be viable in the Western world, but as it currently exists, it is completely at odds with our values set. For now, the best thing we can do is argue against their emigration – a true Islamic reformation is needed. Unfortunately, if you try to make this comment at a liberal media site, you’re dismissed as a bigot. Try suggesting Islam needs a reformation over at The Guardian, and count how long it takes for your freedom of speech to be “moderated” – I find it takes under 5 minutes these days…

        • ljgude

          Exactly, it is the wilful blindness of the left that is killing them. There is a social problem and they wont admit it exists which means it just gets worse. And worse. It isn’t just the Western left either. In V.S. Naipauls’s Among the Believers written around the time of the ’79 Iranian revolution the young, idealist leftists he meets have no idea that the Islamists will kill them once they gain power. I think it is the Modern mindset that is blind to religious zealotry, in part because it simply dismisses religion as completely unreal, so it has no feel for it and can’t see when it is truly dangerous. The only place the modern mindset recognizes danger from religion is from Christianity which they understand, in part correctly, as opposed to Modernism. They all know Galileo’s struggle with the Church and see the more fundamentalist strains of Christianity as fundamentally opposed to Modernism, but tend to see Muslims s victims of colonialism and completely miss that their religious beliefs are far more extreme than even the most reactionary Christian groups. After all Gorgeous George Galloway the Marxist Lord Mayor of London said somewhere around 2006 “The Islamists are the last, best hope of the Revolution.” That’s a pretty good indication of how serious the blindness is.

    • Victor Cachat

      They would have absolutely NO problem zeroing in on the common denominator if the terrorists professed alliegance to right wing causes.

  • Fat_Man

    I don’t suppose that the Germans would ever consider keeping these human time bombs is a safe place from which they are not allowed out until their bona fides are proved. After WWII, they had no problems with putting holocaust survivors into “DP camps”.

  • Proud Skeptic

    The Muslim immigration problem makes me think of the late 50’s and early 60’s when people used to build bomb shelters in their back yards and stock them with things needed to survive after a nuclear strike. What people didn’t think about as much as they might have is the horror of other survivors who have no bomb shelters of their own banging on the door, pleading to be let in or to at least take their children.

    The problem is that once you open the door then the people outside will rush in and fill the shelter beyond its capacity. Food and water will be looted. Maybe the original owners will be thrown out into the radioactive world while a new family slams and locks the door.

    The Mid East is too full of too many people who want to get into our shelter. To make matters worse, they are unable to occupy the shelter in harmony with any of the Western occupants.

    No…the door must remain closed and the screams and pleas must be ignored. It is painful but that is the reality of it.

    • Jeff77450

      An excellent analogy very well said.

  • gabrielsyme

    The correct number of Sunni migrants Germany (or any western country) should accept is zero. It is unjust to the existing population to permit a population that includes a certain proportion of people who endorse violence against infidels, and some who will act on those convictions. And that’s leaving out the economic problems, the vicious misogyny, the run-of-the-mill crime and the fact that Sunni populations have been singularly recalcitrant at assimilating into Western civilisation.

    How many must die to salve the consciences of our twisted elites?

    • Jeff77450

      Agreed. If I offered you a package of M&Ms and told you that “just” one or two contained cyanide would you waste time & money subjecting each one to chemical analysis or would you just throw the whole package out?

      • Proud Skeptic

        Similar to my friend’s analogy…I have a jar with a thousand jellybeans in it. Five are poison and if you eat them it means instant death. How many do you want?

  • Andrew Allison

    Here’s a thought: instead of sending a refugee who did not qualify for residency a deportation order, pick him (or her) up and actually deport them. Did it occur to these nitwits that a suicide bomb might be preferable to deportation?

  • Beauceron

    Merkel was just very explicit today: the transformation will continue apace.

    Just like what you elites did here in America. Flood the country with third worlders, destroy the country and the culture. Makes your one world government that much easier.

  • Peter George Stewart

    This presumes good intentions on the part of the “do gooders”.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service