(December 30, 2016 at 9:50 am)TaraJo Wrote:

(December 30, 2016 at 9:33 am)Tonus Wrote: As Sam Harris has pointed out, if the number of dangerous radicalized followers of Islam is only 1% of the whole, that would still be around 15,000,000 people.

They may have numbers, but if you watched what happened when radicalized Muslims tried to take violent action against non-Muslim nations (aka September 11), the end result was heavily against them.  We pretty much overthrew the government they had in Afghanistan because of that attack and their leadership are pretty much gone.  I don't see them being an especially big threat, in all honesty.  I think the only real worry is fanatics picking us to death, piece by piece, with small scale attacks; the kind we really aren't paying too much attention to (but we'll pay a lot of attention to them when/if they hurt or even threaten wealthy or powerful people).  

In reality, I think a "takeover" by moderate Muslims is possible and it wouldn't be entirely a bad thing.  A stable democracy, with freedom of religion and freedom of speech, with a largely secular government, valuing education (especially scientific and/or business education) over dogma, where the majority of the population just happens to be Muslim.... other than having difficulty finding bacon in grocery stores, I don't see how this would be all that different for me from what we have now.

The Taliban weren't pally with al-qaeda by Sept 11 (in fact neither group were ever that close, often fighting each other during the civil war after the soviet invasion. Al-qaeda were closely aligned with the warlords who lost power when the Taliban won, and who regained it after the US invasion). In fact they were in the process of shutting down training camps in the country and hunting bin-Laden for deportation, as a matter of fact the taliban's response to the Twin Tower attacks was to offer to capture bin Laden and deport him to either Turkey or Kazakhstan where the US could extradite him. The Shrub administration wanted a war to bolster their numbers.

Quote:Islam is only 1% of the whole, that would still be around 15,000,000 people.

Yup and there is another 99% who are against them along with the 99% of us so there 15,000,000 amounts to jack  shit hell they can't even organize properly there as libel to kill each as they are us so sam's being  an alarmist tool

(January 1, 2017 at 11:27 pm)Orochi Wrote:

Quote:Islam is only 1% of the whole, that would still be around 15,000,000 people.

Yup and there is another 99% who are against them along with the 99% of us so there 15,000,000 amounts to jack  shit hell they can't even organize properly there as libel to kill each as they are us so sam's being  an alarmist tool

15,000,000 is a medium-sized country, not a small fringe cult of a few thousand in the deserts of Northern Arabia.

Sam Harris is not an "alarmist", he's someone who (finally) isn't trying to ignore, whitewash and downplay Islamism. I'd also argue that radicalism and extremist views are not exclusive to terrorists or ISIS. Simply not being violent is not enough for me to call you "moderate", if you're still a Wahhabist who "non-violently" believes apostasy and homosexuality should be criminalised and the niqab should be pushed to "protect" women, you are not "moderate". Yes it's still a minority of Muslims who believe that, but it's not a small "fringe" minority, it's a pretty big minority that you don't have to look very far to encounter, even in Europe.

I repeat because it's necessary after saying that, no I don't think an Islamist take-over is about to happen in Europe, not imminently anyway.

We don't help however by trying to ignore that Wahhabism exists within our societies, and refusing to talk about it so as not to look "bigoted". We'd do well, as a start, to actually get a better diversity of opinions from "the Muslim community" instead of just giving authority to Islamic "scholars" and Imams. Where's the platform for Ex-Muslims and practicing reformers? Those are the voices we need to hear right now.

(January 2, 2017 at 5:11 am)Regina Wrote: 15,000,000 is a medium-sized country, not a small fringe cult of a few thousand in the deserts of Northern Arabia.

Do you believe them to be a block of 15 millions? Disregarding, of course, all the different denominations of Islam, all the cultural, national and ethnic differences?

Yes, Harris is pretty much an alarmist. In everything he picks up. He should stick to his field of expertise since everything else he utters comes pretty much out of the lower orifice and is not an expert opinion. He played the same shtick with AI recently, weaving the alarmist tale of AI taking over somewhere in the future. Disregarding pretty much everything the relevant branches of science and technology tell us about AI and it's possible capabilities. Possible because we haven't even invented it yet.

(January 2, 2017 at 5:11 am)Regina Wrote:

(January 1, 2017 at 11:27 pm)Orochi Wrote: Yup and there is another 99% who are against them along with the 99% of us so there 15,000,000 amounts to jack  shit hell they can't even organize properly there as libel to kill each as they are us so sam's being  an alarmist tool

15,000,000 is a medium-sized country, not a small fringe cult of a few thousand in the deserts of Northern Arabia.

Sam Harris is not an "alarmist", he's someone who (finally) isn't trying to ignore, whitewash and downplay Islamism. I'd also argue that radicalism and extremist views are not exclusive to terrorists or ISIS. Simply not being violent is not enough for me to call you "moderate", if you're still a Wahhabist who "non-violently" believes apostasy and homosexuality should be criminalised and the niqab should be pushed to "protect" women, you are not "moderate". Yes it's still a minority of Muslims who believe that, but it's not a small "fringe" minority, it's a pretty big minority that you don't have to look very far to encounter, even in Europe.

I repeat because it's necessary after saying that, no I don't think an Islamist take-over is about to happen in Europe, not imminently anyway.

We don't help however by trying to ignore that Wahhabism exists within our societies, and refusing to talk about it so as not to look "bigoted". We'd do well, as a start, to actually get a better diversity of opinions from "the Muslim community" instead of just giving authority to Islamic "scholars" and Imams. Where's the platform for Ex-Muslims and practicing reformers? Those are the voices we need to hear right now.

Yup spread here there and everywhere with little leadership as for how many are for the following policies. I have lived in Europe I have meet many Muslims and at best I have meet two who support ether polices.  And there view was gay therapy and the head covers are for Muslim woman only .

As for Harris yes he is an alarmist he sees Muslim plots in his soup. One loon says something in media an Harris makes an hour long podcast essentially screaming the sky is falling the sky is falling and I said nothing about ignoring extremism.

As for ex Muslims and reformers throw a fucking rock and you'll hit one. Get them to actually talk about anything of substance or shock talk to imams and scholars with any consistency is like drawing blood from rocks. There criticism tend to skin deep and there solutions and like a first time Christian apologist. If they want a place a big kids table they need put on there big boy pants.

---

(January 2, 2017 at 6:13 am)abaris Wrote:

(January 2, 2017 at 5:11 am)Regina Wrote: 15,000,000 is a medium-sized country, not a small fringe cult of a few thousand in the deserts of Northern Arabia.

Do you believe them to be a block of 15 millions? Disregarding, of course, all the different denominations of Islam, all the cultural, national and ethnic differences?

Yes, Harris is pretty much an alarmist. In everything he picks up. He should stick to his field of expertise since everything else he utters comes pretty much out of the lower orifice and is not an expert opinion. He played the same shtick with AI recently, weaving the alarmist tale of AI taking over somewhere in the future. Disregarding pretty much everything the relevant branches of science and technology tell us about AI and it's possible capabilities. Possible because we haven't even invented it yet.

Indeed harris needs to learn to stick to his own field a stop trying to being William Lane Craig

I think many leaders in the West are in denial about the threats posed by massive immigration from Islamic countries. They are so petrified of being called racist, and so attracted by the idea of being viewed as noble and virtuous in the press (they ought to call this the Merkel Syndrome) that they feel compelled to open the flood gates and let everyone in. At this point in time there are too many risks to have such massive immigration from the Islamic world, the religion is that dangerous.

The costs outweigh the benefits. One of the costs is that even letting in a relatively small number of migrants (in the tens of thousands) results in a massive growth in the security and surveillance apparatus, which in turn cracks down on civil liberties for everyone and costs the taxpayers millions. What are the people getting out of this? Nothing.

It's not about skin color, it's about ideology. As a white person, I would have called Ming China absolutely insane if they were planning to allow mass immigration from Europe in the 16th or early 17th century. Not that Ming China was perfect, but if you allowed comparable levels of immigration to today, you'd be importing the horrors of Europe's religious strife and all that came with it: slaughter, looting, pillaging, raping, total political chaos.

(January 2, 2017 at 10:50 am)Redoubtable Wrote: I think many leaders in the West are in denial about the threats posed by massive immigration from Islamic countries.

Define mass. Are you even aware that in any given western country the percentage of muslims is between 3 to 5 percent tops? And here's another newsflash for you: Taking in refugees is not the same as immigration. One is controlled by international legislation, which also sets standards as to who's deserving of refugee status, the other one is entirely up to the particular state.

Quote:I think many leaders in the West are in denial about the threats posed by massive immigration from Islamic countries. They are so petrified of being called racist, and so attracted by the idea of being viewed as noble and virtuous in the press (they ought to call this the Merkel Syndrome) that they feel compelled to open the flood gates and let everyone in. At this point in time there are too many risks to have such massive immigration from the Islamic world, the religion is that dangerous.

Western leaders aren't in denial. They're just not paranoid idiots who listen to uneducated conservatives. (Except for the Norwegian immigration minister, Sylvi Listhaug, who is basically a fascist and a shame to our country.) They're not petrified of being called racist (in fact, being racist hasn't been this popular since the 1950´s) - they're intelligent, rational human beings who act on statistics and expert advice instead of random frightened morons who "thinks" this and "thinks" that. No flood gates have been opened, and no place is everyone let in. Just more right wing propaganda. Finally, the risks of immigration (there is no "mass immigration" into western countries, this is another lie from the hysterical right side) are minimal, and Islam as a religion is no more dangerous than any other religions. But congrats on being one of the people who dance after Daesh's music. You people sure make their goals easier to obtain. 

Quote:The costs outweigh the benefits. One of the costs is that even letting in a relatively small number of migrants (in the tens of thousands) results in a massive growth in the security and surveillance apparatus, which in turn cracks down on civil liberties for everyone and costs the taxpayers millions. What are the people getting out of this? Nothing. 

Holy crap, where are you getting these delusional theories from? "Massive growth" in security and surveillance is absolutely not necessary, and thus not at all a cost associated with taking in migrants. (And btw, the countries who have recently been taking in larger numbers (in the tens of thousands) have taken in refugees, not just migrants. In case you hadn't noticed, an entire country is still being bombed to shreds while we're sitting comfortably and safely on our asses, whining behind our computer screens about our first world problems.) 

And what are the people (I assume by "people" you mean those born in the countries taking in refugees, because naturally refugees (or migrants) aren't people) getting out of this? Absolutely not nothing. We get workers who are willing to do the crap jobs that nobody else wants, even though they're qualified for so much more. We get a more colourful, open and tolerant society (or we would, if the hysterical would calm down and be a little more accepting). We get people who are grateful. We get to sleep a little better at night, knowing that we're not complete assholes who turn our backs to those weaker than us, but instead are able and willing to help and support fellow human beings. You might call this "nothing." I don't. I guess we just have different values and virtues (something you appear to think of as something negative, for some insane reason). 

(January 2, 2017 at 10:50 am)Redoubtable Wrote: I think many leaders in the West are in denial about the threats posed by massive immigration from Islamic countries. They are so petrified of being called racist, and so attracted by the idea of being viewed as noble and virtuous in the press (they ought to call this the Merkel Syndrome) that they feel compelled to open the flood gates and let everyone in. At this point in time there are too many risks to have such massive immigration from the Islamic world, the religion is that dangerous.

The costs outweigh the benefits. One of the costs is that even letting in a relatively small number of migrants (in the tens of thousands) results in a massive growth in the security and surveillance apparatus, which in turn cracks down on civil liberties for everyone and costs the taxpayers millions. What are the people getting out of this? Nothing.

It's not about skin color, it's about ideology. As a white person, I would have called Ming China absolutely insane if they were planning to allow mass immigration from Europe in the 16th or early 17th century. Not that Ming China was perfect, but if you allowed comparable levels of immigration to today, you'd be importing the horrors of Europe's religious strife and all that came with it: slaughter, looting, pillaging, raping, total political chaos.

Lol

1. no

2.no

3. no

Not a fucking chance.