Should the civilized world unite against Barbarians?

[dr_mabeuse]

I wonder if it might be time to raise the idea of generally limiting immigration from third-world countries as was done in the past.

This might be a heretical position and very un-PC, but the West has made immigration so easy that almost anyone can come in, and unlike in earlier migrations, these immigrants come for primarily economic reasons and show little willingness to adopt the values of their new cultures. They refuse assimilation and live in entrenched communities that breed feelings of alienation and downrate antipathy towards their host nations.

We in the west pride ourselves on our committment to individual freedom, and in America we like to tell ourselves that we're a vast melting pot where we all can get along, but when you have these people who positively are opposed to the core values of the culture and want to remake it in their own image, you have to wonder what the point is.

Not all invasions are military.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I wonder if it might be time to raise the idea of generally limiting immigration from third-world countries as was done in the past.

This might be a heretical position and very un-PC, but the West has made immigration so easy that almost anyone can come in, and unlike in earlier migrations, these immigrants come for primarily economic reasons and show little willingness to adopt the values of their new cultures. They refuse assimilation and live in entrenched communities that breed feelings of alienation and downrate antipathy towards their host nations.

We in the west pride ourselves on our committment to individual freedom, and in America we like to tell ourselves that we're a vast melting pot where we all can get along, but when you have these people who positively are opposed to the core values of the culture, you're going to get trouble.

I don't know doc. It has merit.

I think though, we would be better off making people who come in take a class and explaining something in no uncertain terms. Western countires OFFER you a chance to better yourself, but the country dosen't OWE you a damned thing. You aren't coming to a promise of something better, you are coming to an opportunity to make a better life for yourself. If you take advantage of that opportunity, the sky is your limit. If you refuse to, you will find it no better here in many respects than where you are coming from. If you refuse to change, refuse to adopt our customs and norms, continue to try and live exactly as you did where you came from, you are likely to find yourself in no better situation than you had there, this isn't our fault, it's your own and you have no one to blame but yourself.

It seems to me the promise of a chance has been warped into a pormise of success in the minds of many. And I think that warped idea breeds a lot of resentment when things aren't just handed to immigrants on a platter. Industrious people who come here with the will to succeed, more often than not do. People who come expecting it to be easy more often than not, don't.

No country can give you a better life if you aren't willing to put in the work neccessary to reap the benefits you want.

 

[Pure]

but doc,

who said, I wonder if it might be time to raise the idea of generally limiting immigration from third-world countries as was done in the past.

This might be a heretical position and very un-PC, but the West has made immigration so easy that almost anyone can come in, and unlike in earlier migrations, these immigrants come for primarily economic reasons and show little willingness to adopt the values of their new cultures. They refuse assimilation and live in entrenched communities that breed feelings of alienation and downrate antipathy towards their host nations.

Read the bios I posted here. All three families were assimilating. After you read the bios tell me of any known immigration policy that would have 'worked.'

Myself, I wonder about sudden signs of 'old time religion', as the Christian hymn says (gimme that old time religion...).

 

[Lauren Hynde]

http://www.powertayo.com/up/1116936382.jpg
Text by the towers: 2 863 dead
Text by the child: 824 million undernourished people in the world
The world united against terrorism; it should do the same against hunger


http://www.powertayo.com/up/1116936479.jpg
Text by the towers: 2 863 dead
Text by the man: 40 million infected worldwide
The world united against terrorism; it should do the same against AIDS


http://www.powertayo.com/up/1116936567.jpg
Text by the towers: 2 863 dead
Text by the man: 630 million poverty-stricken people in the world
The world united against terrorism; it should do the same against poverty

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I cannot speak for anyone else on this board, but those ads do not engender any sympathy in me. If anything, they make me angry and the message is lost in the rage.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I cannot speak for anyone else on this board, but those ads do not engender any sympathy in me. If anything, they make me angry and the message is lost in the rage.

And that answers the question that Amicus makes on the title of the thread...

If the civilized world were to unite against those three (far more real) enemies, there would be no terrorism.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

And that answers the question that Amicus makes on the title of the thread...

If the civilized world were to unite against those three (far more real) enemies, there would be no terrorism.

I don't know. Terrorists aren't terrorzing on behalf of poverty and AIDS. Like Pure said, the London bombers were all middle class. Osama himself is richer than hell. It's not like Al Qaida is trying to extort money for poor people or have more hospitals built.

I can't agree with Colly's assertion that these people migrate to the west in order to become economic parasites either. They want to work. In fact, if anything, it seems like they're so busy working that there's no one around to raise the kids.

You look at other immigrant groups that have come to the west. (Well, I look at the immigrants who came to America, since that's the history I know best.) The Chinese, the east European Jews, the Mexicans--each came with their own culture and language, each wanted to maintain their traditions, and yet all managed to assimilate. What is it about these Muslims that makes them turn back to their roots so strongly and reject western values?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't know. Terrorists aren't terrorzing on behalf of poverty and AIDS. Like Pure said, the London bombers were all middle class. Osama himself is richer than hell. It's not like Al Qaida is trying to extort money for poor people or have more hospitals built.

I can't agree with Colly's assertion that these people migrate to the west in order to become economic parasites either. They want to work. In fact, if anything, it seems like they're so busy working that there's no one around to raise the kids.

You look at other immigrant groups that have come to the west. (Well, I look at the immigrants who came to America, since that's the history I know best.) The Chinese, the east European Jews, the Mexicans--each came with their own culture and language, each wanted to maintain their traditions, and yet all managed to assimilate. What is it about these Muslims that makes them turn back to their roots so strongly and reject western values?

I'm not saying they migrate to become parasites Doc. I'm saying just arriving here isn't enough, you have to be willing to roll your sleeves up and go to work. Not just go to work as in get a job, but learn the language, learn the customs, become an active member of the society. If you refuse to put in the kind of effort that is needed to be considered one of the community, you are unlikely to land a better job, get a promotion, move up the scocio-economic ladder.

The Irish had a rough time, but they made a go of it. The old time image of the Irish "bull" or police man in NYC is there beacuse the job wasn't that great and a lot of irish immigrants became policemen. or joined themilitary, Like Martin Maher.

The chinese were very insular when they first began ariving in numbers, it's why you have a china town in most every major port city of the day. The same with little Italy in NYC, or German towns all over the country.

None of these groups had instant success and most didn't really start gaining until they left chinatown or little italy or german town and started to try and fit in with the population that was "american" rather than the small enclaves that were more like home.

My point was not that they are parasites, it was that you have to give something to get something. You can't just show up and it's all better. And you can't show up and expect to keep all your old traditions, adapt nothing new and still prosper in another society.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I don't know. Terrorists aren't terrorzing on behalf of poverty and AIDS. Like Pure said, the London bombers were all middle class. Osama himself is richer than hell. It's not like Al Qaida is trying to extort money for poor people or have more hospitals built.

No, but if the civilised world were actually civilised, there would be no reason for terrorism, no breeding grounds, and no support for the very few truly madmen that would do this no matter what.

 

[Somme]

By Jove....

And that answers the question that Amicus makes on the title of the thread...

If the civilized world were to unite against those three (far more real) enemies, there would be no terrorism.

I think you've got it!

 

[Pure]

mab said, //I don't know. Terrorists aren't terrorzing on behalf of poverty and AIDS. Like Pure said, the London bombers were all middle class. Osama himself is richer than hell. It's not like Al Qaida is trying to extort money for poor people or have more hospitals built. //


Lauren said, No, but if the civilised world were actually civilised, there would be no reason for terrorism, no breeding grounds, and no support for the very few truly madmen that would do this no matter what.

Agreed that the civilized ('first')world does not take seriously enough povery, hunger, and disease *elsewhere* ('third world').

If all three were zealously worked on, there would surely be improvment. But that leads to rising expectations. Several 9-11 and London terrorists are Saudis, and that is scarcely the poorest country.

The poorest AIDS-ridden countries are not sending or instigating suicide bombing of the metropolitan countries.

As other posters have mentioned, there are issues of pride, self rule, and control. A western presence in the mideast involves troups and ownership or co-ownership of oil resources. Arguably, increasing the middle class in these countries, and decreasing the poorest group might lead to MORE recruits for the struggle to 'free' one's country and Islamic peoples from foreign dominance. Iran was gaining a vibrant middle class when Khomeini returned and set up Islamic state.

While I favor massive humanitarian efforts against AIDS, I don't expect it will make London any safer. Or New York.

 

[gauchecritic]

I don't know. Terrorists aren't terrorzing on behalf of poverty and AIDS.

Are you sure about that?

Western values, western ideologies, western globalism all contain as a matter of course poverty to someone.

Aids is a concommitant of an unreligious, hedonistic lifestyle.

Everyone seems to be asking that immigrants adopt their chosen country's values and mores, in that case is it not a requirement of that philosophy that we stop exporting them?

This is the base of AQ's demands isn't it?

So where's the beef?

 

[scheherazade_79]

One has to ask what concilliatory approach you would lke to take?

Hammas & Islamic Jihad are easy, we just need to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and they'll quit blowing themselves and innocent bystanders up.

I hate to be blunt, but if the Israelis hadn’t been such shits to the Arabs around them there’d be far less cause for all the aggro in that part of the world. I’ve seen the flyers that get pushed into American mailboxes - the claims by renowned Jewish scholars that the Israelis were never anything but kind to the Palistinians around them, and even went so far as to offer them jobs and healthcare and social security. I never cease to be shocked at the downright lies some people tell, and the way that others swallow them.

Whenever Israel is targeted, it strikes back. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If that’s the ideal solution to the problem, then why are suicide bombers still claiming Israeli lives each week?

There’s no such thing as a sterile war, where only the insurgents are killed. Whenever there’s a war, there’ll always be civilian casualties – mothers, sons, grandfathers, aunts, uncles – and for each civilian killed by troops from either Israel, the US, Britain, or any other member of the coalition, several more ‘terrorists’ are going to be created as that many more people will have cause to hate the West.

Gonna be a cold winter for those of us who depend on heating oil, but hey, AQ won't be blowing shit up for funsies.

Do you really, honestly think that it’s just something Islamic militants are doing for fun? There’s a reason behind everything. Admittedly, the reasons don’t always justify the actions, and this case is a prime example. However, it would be extremely short-sighted to assume that ‘they’ just don’t like ‘us’.

History teaches a very good lesson about this, although it has often been misinterpreted. It happened in Munich, when a very rational, peace loving and concilliatory British PM met with a madman on a power trip. He gave him practically everything he was asking for. And declared he had secured peace in our time. Funny thing is, the madman invaded Poland not long afterward and peace in our time became World War II. Appeasement got a very bad name from that and for a long time Presidents and Pm's the world over were afraid to compromise, as they feared it would appear they were appeaseing their enemies.

Who said anything about appeasement? By the time Neville Chamberlain had met with Hitler, things were already beyond the point of redemption. The German people turned to Hitler as a figure of salvation after years of economic hardship, introduced as post-war punishment by the rest of the world. Poverty and hardship are breeding grounds for extremism. The target recruits are people who don’t have much else to lose. The seeds of World War Two had been sown long before Hitler had a sniff of power.

At the moment, Muslim extremists are very much a minority in the Islamic world. They’re crackpots that most Muslims scorn. But if we keep lashing out at the Middle East, their ranks are going to swell.

What we need to do is find a way of improving their lives so that they have less reason to destroy ours. It isn’t appeasement. It’s treating the cause, rather than the symptoms.

what you are advocating is we pull out all troops from the mideast, that is all troops from Iraq, from Kuwait, From Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, etc.

Not really. It’s far too late for that without leaving an almighty mess behind. Turning the Middle East into a zone of stability would have been preferable to turning it into a military zone, but unfortunately that’s already been done. You need to ask yourself – would you feel happy if New York were suddenly patrolled 24/7 by Japanese or Russian troops? Probably not. In fact, you might feel a little narked at the intrusion.

I don’t know enough about politics or economics to know what the exact solution should be. But I do know the one that we’re trying at the moment isn’t working. If anything, it’s making the situation one hell of a lot worse.

Going back to the WW2 analogy – the Versailles Treaty has been in place for a couple of years, and there’s this crazy dictator in the making, who’s just beginning to capture the imagination of his countrymen. In our case the villain and his henchmen are so well-hidden that it’s unlikely we’ll ever be able to find them. So that leaves us with two solutions:

a) We pound the shit out of countries who are likely to support him, replace their governments and keep a large military presence as a deterrent.
b)We give the people of those countries less reason to join the campaign of hatred. We share some of our wealth, we make investments in their economies, we start trading with them fairly, we stop ripping them off at every given opportunity and we act with a little more humanity and humility towards others.

 

[Pure]

The plan

Sheher://a) We pound the shit out of countries who are likely to support him [villain/terrorist], replace their governments and keep a large military presence as a deterrent.//

I guess we start with Saudi Arabia. (actually a fantasy of some neocons).

Do you see any problems in this plan?

 

[OZ 73]

Yeah but......

Most Moslem countries are governed by dictators and those governments are doing a much better job of ripping off the people and causing inequality than the west could ever do. Even the jihadists seem to be killing more moslems than others. Last time I looked Israel was a country about 100 k long by 35 wide, if you ignore the desert. Why in the hell cant the jews have that little bit of earth? Every nation on the planet displaced someone else to come into being....why be so precious about that spot?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I hate to be blunt, but if the Israelis hadn’t been such shits to the Arabs around them there’d be far less cause for all the aggro in that part of the world. I’ve seen the flyers that get pushed into American mailboxes - the claims by renowned Jewish scholars that the Israelis were never anything but kind to the Palistinians around them, and even went so far as to offer them jobs and healthcare and social security. I never cease to be shocked at the downright lies some people tell, and the way that others swallow them.

Whenever Israel is targeted, it strikes back. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If that’s the ideal solution to the problem, then why are suicide bombers still claiming Israeli lives each week?

There’s no such thing as a sterile war, where only the insurgents are killed. Whenever there’s a war, there’ll always be civilian casualties – mothers, sons, grandfathers, aunts, uncles – and for each civilian killed by troops from either Israel, the US, Britain, or any other member of the coalition, several more ‘terrorists’ are going to be created as that many more people will have cause to hate the West.



Do you really, honestly think that it’s just something Islamic militants are doing for fun? There’s a reason behind everything. Admittedly, the reasons don’t always justify the actions, and this case is a prime example. However, it would be extremely short-sighted to assume that ‘they’ just don’t like ‘us’.



Who said anything about appeasement? By the time Neville Chamberlain had met with Hitler, things were already beyond the point of redemption. The German people turned to Hitler as a figure of salvation after years of economic hardship, introduced as post-war punishment by the rest of the world. Poverty and hardship are breeding grounds for extremism. The target recruits are people who don’t have much else to lose. The seeds of World War Two had been sown long before Hitler had a sniff of power.

At the moment, Muslim extremists are very much a minority in the Islamic world. They’re crackpots that most Muslims scorn. But if we keep lashing out at the Middle East, their ranks are going to swell.

What we need to do is find a way of improving their lives so that they have less reason to destroy ours. It isn’t appeasement. It’s treating the cause, rather than the symptoms.





Not really. It’s far too late for that without leaving an almighty mess behind. Turning the Middle East into a zone of stability would have been preferable to turning it into a military zone, but unfortunately that’s already been done. You need to ask yourself – would you feel happy if New York were suddenly patrolled 24/7 by Japanese or Russian troops? Probably not. In fact, you might feel a little narked at the intrusion.

I don’t know enough about politics or economics to know what the exact solution should be. But I do know the one that we’re trying at the moment isn’t working. If anything, it’s making the situation one hell of a lot worse.

Going back to the WW2 analogy – the Versailles Treaty has been in place for a couple of years, and there’s this crazy dictator in the making, who’s just beginning to capture the imagination of his countrymen. In our case the villain and his henchmen are so well-hidden that it’s unlikely we’ll ever be able to find them. So that leaves us with two solutions:

a) We pound the shit out of countries who are likely to support him, replace their governments and keep a large military presence as a deterrent.
b)We give the people of those countries less reason to join the campaign of hatred. We share some of our wealth, we make investments in their economies, we start trading with them fairly, we stop ripping them off at every given opportunity and we act with a little more humanity and humility towards others.

I could point out that five arab nations attacked the state of Israel before the ink was even dry on the papers declaring them a country and long before they had a chance to opress anyone.

I could point out Hitler couldn't have taken Checoslovakia by force and could ahve easily been defeated by concerted action among the allies of the time had he tried.

I could also point out that slaughtering innocent people, with no stake in your fucking jihad and no power to make changes you want is about the most pointless thing man has ever undertaken.

But what's the point?

The Isreali's are evil. The western democracies are oppressing the down trodden of the world.Terrorists have a point. yadda yada yadda.

I'm tired of being the villian. I'm tired of every fucking problem in the world being our fault. I'm tired of it being a crime to have. I'm sick and tired of people looking for reasons terrorists are right. If this is what it means to be a liberal, I'm going back to voting rrepublican. They don't make much sense, but hell, nobody here does either.

 

[elsol]

The Isreali's are evil. The western democracies are oppressing the down trodden of the world.Terrorists have a point. yadda yada yadda.

I'm tired of being the villian. I'm tired of every fucking problem in the world being our fault. I'm tired of it being a crime to have. I'm sick and tired of people looking for reasons terrorists are right. If this is what it means to be a liberal, I'm going back to voting rrepublican. They don't make much sense, but hell, nobody here does either.

I'm sure the German population thought we were the villains in WWII.

The alternative though was... well, the extinction of Jews, Gypsies, or anyone without the proper Aryan bloodlines.

Hmm... given the alternative, being the bad guy seems the only reasonable thing to be.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[scheherazade_79]

I'm tired of being the villian. I'm tired of every fucking problem in the world being our fault. I'm tired of it being a crime to have. I'm sick and tired of people looking for reasons terrorists are right. If this is what it means to be a liberal, I'm going back to voting rrepublican. They don't make much sense, but hell, nobody here does either.

http://www.trustnoone.org.uk/images/FlagCover.jpg

I'm holding up the white flag, because I wasn't saying that the terrorists were right - honest. All I'm saying is that it isn't such a black and white picture as most people like to point out - of us being the good guys and them being the bad guys. Nobody smells of roses in this particular situation.

As for voting republican... Colly, I don't think it'll make that much difference seeing as they have a tendency to win elections, whether people vote for them or not


... Running quickly for cover

 

[scheherazade_79]

Most Moslem countries are governed by dictators and those governments are doing a much better job of ripping off the people and causing inequality than the west could ever do. Even the jihadists seem to be killing more moslems than others. Last time I looked Israel was a country about 100 k long by 35 wide, if you ignore the desert. Why in the hell cant the jews have that little bit of earth? Every nation on the planet displaced someone else to come into being....why be so precious about that spot?

Because it was a place of religious importance to the people living there beforehand. I guess it's the equivalent of banning aborigines from Uluru, or the Italians from the Vatican, or even Londoners from Westminster Abbey. It's bound to make people a little pissed off.

 

[elsol]

Because it was a place of religious importance to the people living there beforehand. I guess it's the equivalent of banning aborigines from Uluru, or the Italians from the Vatican, or even Londoners from Westminster Abbey. It's bound to make people a little pissed off.

God's home is my soul, not the building I call my church.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Because it was a place of religious importance to the people living there beforehand. I guess it's the equivalent of banning aborigines from Uluru, or the Italians from the Vatican, or even Londoners from Westminster Abbey. It's bound to make people a little pissed off.

It would probably be more like taking all the Londoners and dropping them off on the 2e arrondissement of Paris...

 

[oggbashan]

It would probably be more like taking all the Londoners and dropping them off on the 2e arrondissement of Paris...

And why not? One of my titles was King of France. My daughter lost the last part of it, silly cow.

Og

 

[raphy]

Y'know. I'm really starting to actively hate the terms 'liberal' and 'republican'

They are meaningless. A political left or right leaning has zero bearing on whether or not you have an economic left or right leaning, which itself has exactly the same amount of bearing on whether you have a left or right leaning on social issues.

Or maybe that's because I tend to advocate moderacy and think all extremists, left, right, what-the-fuck-ever should be pushed off the end of a high building.

p.s. Hi 'flicka =)

*hugs*

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . I tend to advocate moderacy and think all extremists, left, right, what-the-fuck-ever should be pushed off the end of a high building . . .

Aha! Hear the call of the wild moderate.

 

[raphy]

Aha! Hear the call of the wild moderate.

Har. You better believe it.

And people wonder why I don't tend to talk politics.

Usually all I see is a bunch of grandstanding and you're right, I'm wrong-ness.

Opinions suck. Even mine.