Europe's Problem With Islam

[North Calaveras]

It was more of a call for Muslim Fundamentalism (excluding Egypt).

Where was it a call for Muslim fundamentalism? In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood took over for a while, but ask Mursi how he's doing now. It really was a call for democracy, instigated by youths on social media. Syrian resistance fighters are still fighting Assad AND IS at this very time. It was a call for liberation from dictators.

no it wasn't

just cause there fighting dictators doesn't mean they really believe in freedom

in fact their idea of freedom seems to be "Freedom to express islamic tendecys"

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Where was it a call for Muslim fundamentalism? In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood took over for a while, but ask Mursi how he's doing now. It really was a call for democracy, instigated by youths on social media. Syrian resistance fighters are still fighting Assad AND IS at this very time. It was a call for liberation from dictators.

no it wasn't

just cause there fighting dictators doesn't mean they really believe in freedom

in fact their idea of freedom seems to be "Freedom to express islamic tendecys"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

Take a good read. Wisdom will suit you. What you're exclaiming, again, seems merely based on your personal feelings of Islam, not actual events.

EDIT: Notably, the 'Goals' section on the right.

[New Werpland]

I disagree, there is a very clear definition of the west. Wikipedia has an article if that helps make things more clear.

First paragraph: "...is a term referring to different nations depending on the context."

Yes, so very clear. I mean, it's downright scientific.

omg lets cut the shit

the west as an idea is generally about freedom, stable democratic/republic government and technological advancement through enlightened era-style ideals

that is more or less "the west" in a nutshell

Not a really clear definition, is it? Was Spain part of The West before 1977? Is Japan part of The West? South Korea? The West is an undefined set of countries of which we have a vague understanding but no clear outline. Like Islam, really.

Of course those aren't the only definitions of the West, it's much more complicated than that. Franco's conservatism was Western in some senses, and in others it wasn't. I think that we can all agree that Franco was trying to mimic pre-world war 1 European Monarchism. Japan and South Korea can be considered Westernized countries, both have adopted Western beliefs so it isn't unreasonable to call them relatively Western.

[Dukats]

Muslims come to Europe desperately seeking jobs then they protest and call for an Islamic Europe.
They go to jihads and Europeans are supposed to let them back in?
They destroy European culture little by little.I don't bet an European would be allowed to do that in a muslim country.

My idea,limit immigration to Europe.

They come to Europe without any money,so they are forced to do crime.Governments lose millions of dollars to help them with out much luck.
They should spend that money on countries they fucked up,and which people are coming to that country as immigrants.

[North Calaveras]

no it wasn't

just cause there fighting dictators doesn't mean they really believe in freedom

in fact their idea of freedom seems to be "Freedom to express islamic tendecys"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

Take a good read. Wisdom will suit you. What you're exclaiming, again, seems merely based on your personal feelings of Islam, not actual events.

EDIT: Notably, the 'Goals' section on the right.

Democracy
Free elections
Human rights
Employment
Regime change
Islamization

those are the goals

islamization is in there buddy...

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

First paragraph: "...is a term referring to different nations depending on the context."

Yes, so very clear. I mean, it's downright scientific.


Not a really clear definition, is it? Was Spain part of The West before 1977? Is Japan part of The West? South Korea? The West is an undefined set of countries of which we have a vague understanding but no clear outline. Like Islam, really.

Of course those aren't the only definitions of the West, it's much more complicated than that. Franco's conservatism was Western in some senses, and in others it wasn't. I think that we can all agree that Franco was trying to mimic pre-world war 1 European Monarchism. Japan and South Korea can be considered Westernized countries, both have adopted Western beliefs so it isn't unreasonable to call them relatively Western.

Yeah, relatively western. But, part of 'The West'? It is because we use words like 'reasonably' and 'some senses' that I say that 'The West' is too diverse to draw conclusions about. You can't make a single statement that holds true for the entire 'West', because we don't know exactly what it is. We can make broad generalisations, but those are nearly always false.

[New Werpland]

no it wasn't

just cause there fighting dictators doesn't mean they really believe in freedom

in fact their idea of freedom seems to be "Freedom to express islamic tendecys"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

Take a good read. Wisdom will suit you. What you're exclaiming, again, seems merely based on your personal feelings of Islam, not actual events.

EDIT: Notably, the 'Goals' section on the right.

Just because someone on Wikipedia says something doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

Take in mind that the Arab Spring mostly occurred in nations with Secular leadership, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria. Why hasn't it happened in UAE? Or Iran?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

Take a good read. Wisdom will suit you. What you're exclaiming, again, seems merely based on your personal feelings of Islam, not actual events.

EDIT: Notably, the 'Goals' section on the right.

Democracy
Free elections
Human rights
Employment
Regime change
Islamization

those are the goals

islamization is in there buddy...

Certainly. But also democracy, free elections, human rights, employment and regime changes. It's not just islamization. Some groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, were in favour. Others, like the Egyptian army, were against, as are the Syrian Free Armies. I will not deny that the Arab spring was partially religiously inspired. But certainly not for the majority. You seem to be getting my positions wrong.

[New Werpland]

Of course those aren't the only definitions of the West, it's much more complicated than that. Franco's conservatism was Western in some senses, and in others it wasn't. I think that we can all agree that Franco was trying to mimic pre-world war 1 European Monarchism. Japan and South Korea can be considered Westernized countries, both have adopted Western beliefs so it isn't unreasonable to call them relatively Western.

Yeah, relatively western. But, part of 'The West'? It is because we use words like 'reasonably' and 'some senses' that I say that 'The West' is too diverse to draw conclusions about. You can't make a single statement that holds true for the entire 'West', because we don't know exactly what it is. We can make broad generalisations, but those are nearly always false.

Of course ancient Greece and present day France don't share the same values or ideas, but they belong to the same tradition.

[North Calaveras]

Democracy
Free elections
Human rights
Employment
Regime change
Islamization

those are the goals

islamization is in there buddy...

Certainly. But also democracy, free elections, human rights, employment and regime changes. It's not just islamization. Some groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, were in favour. Others, like the Egyptian army, were against, as are the Syrian Free Armies. I will not deny that the Arab spring was partially religiously inspired. But certainly not for the majority. You seem to be getting my positions wrong.

i'm not painting your position, you are, you gave me a link to the wiki about their goals and i pointed out islamization and regime change

democracy-for islam
human rights-only if it applies to muslims
free elections-buahaha okay
employment- idk, if your christian id tread carefully here, well actually, id tread carefully anywhere in egypt if i was a christian.
regime change-for islam
islamization- enough said

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

Take a good read. Wisdom will suit you. What you're exclaiming, again, seems merely based on your personal feelings of Islam, not actual events.

EDIT: Notably, the 'Goals' section on the right.

Just because someone on Wikipedia says something doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

Take in mind that the Arab Spring mostly occurred in nations with Secular leadership, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria. Why hasn't it happened in UAE? Or Iran?

Not necessarily, but I think we can all remember the news footage from the Arab spring, yes? All those people calling for free elections? Yes, many were secular, but many were dictators as well. Secular dictators. Why it didn't happen in Iran? Iran is relatively wealthy, and so are the UAE. Bahrain, far from secular, saw some heavy protests, and so did Yemen. Secularism yes or no seems no big deciding factor in these protests.

[North Calaveras]

Just because someone on Wikipedia says something doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

Take in mind that the Arab Spring mostly occurred in nations with Secular leadership, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria. Why hasn't it happened in UAE? Or Iran?

Not necessarily, but I think we can all remember the news footage from the Arab spring, yes? All those people calling for free elections? Yes, many were secular, but many were dictators as well. Secular dictators. Why it didn't happen in Iran? Iran is relatively wealthy, and so are the UAE. Bahrain, far from secular, saw some heavy protests, and so did Yemen. Secularism yes or no seems no big deciding factor in these protests.

keep in mind the arab spring has been a disaster in the middle east

but i guess it's just "the west's fault" even though the arab spring was largley well....arab.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Certainly. But also democracy, free elections, human rights, employment and regime changes. It's not just islamization. Some groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, were in favour. Others, like the Egyptian army, were against, as are the Syrian Free Armies. I will not deny that the Arab spring was partially religiously inspired. But certainly not for the majority. You seem to be getting my positions wrong.

i'm not painting your position, you are, you gave me a link to the wiki about their goals and i pointed out islamization and regime change

democracy-for islam
human rights-only if it applies to muslims
free elections-buahaha okay
employment- idk, if your christian id tread carefully here, well actually, id tread carefully anywhere in egypt if i was a christian.
regime change-for islam
islamization- enough said

Again, your position is based on your own beliefs, with no backing at all by facts. Those are your feelings on the matter, not actually supported claims. Really, make an effort. Show me some articles that support your position. What I saw was a movement just for democracy, without religious motive for most people.

[North Calaveras]

i'm not painting your position, you are, you gave me a link to the wiki about their goals and i pointed out islamization and regime change

democracy-for islam
human rights-only if it applies to muslims
free elections-buahaha okay
employment- idk, if your christian id tread carefully here, well actually, id tread carefully anywhere in egypt if i was a christian.
regime change-for islam
islamization- enough said

Again, your position is based on your own beliefs, with no backing at all by facts. Those are your feelings on the matter, not actually supported claims. Really, make an effort. Show me some articles that support your position. What I saw was a movement just for democracy, without religious motive for most people.

the movement failed miserably though...it was the perfect time for the so called "vast majority of moderate muslims" to rise up but instead it sputtered and burnt out as fast as it came.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Not necessarily, but I think we can all remember the news footage from the Arab spring, yes? All those people calling for free elections? Yes, many were secular, but many were dictators as well. Secular dictators. Why it didn't happen in Iran? Iran is relatively wealthy, and so are the UAE. Bahrain, far from secular, saw some heavy protests, and so did Yemen. Secularism yes or no seems no big deciding factor in these protests.

keep in mind the arab spring has been a disaster in the middle east

but i guess it's just "the west's fault" even though the arab spring was largley well....arab.

Well, it has. Mostly because of involvement of Al Queda and IS in many places. Warlordism as well. It has been a disaster in many nations. Not so much in Egypt, where it has been a success. For a large part. Revolutions are never pretty. That's not the fault of the west, thank you for presuming my position.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Again, your position is based on your own beliefs, with no backing at all by facts. Those are your feelings on the matter, not actually supported claims. Really, make an effort. Show me some articles that support your position. What I saw was a movement just for democracy, without religious motive for most people.

the movement failed miserably though...it was the perfect time for the so called "vast majority of moderate muslims" to rise up but instead it sputtered and burnt out as fast as it came.

Muslim extremists, funded from abroad, had better weapons. My pen is powerful, but an AK to my head is more powerful still. Which hasn't taken away that it has been tried. That's why there still is a Free Syrian Army in Syria.

[North Calaveras]

keep in mind the arab spring has been a disaster in the middle east

but i guess it's just "the west's fault" even though the arab spring was largley well....arab.

Well, it has. Mostly because of involvement of Al Queda and IS in many places. Warlordism as well. It has been a disaster in many nations. Not so much in Egypt, where it has been a success. For a large part. Revolutions are never pretty. That's not the fault of the west, thank you for presuming my position.

Egypt is not a sucess story it has serious issues still

and it dosn't matter because if the moderates vastly outnumber the assholes this would have been the perfect time for them to overrun the "bad guys"

but they didn't...because they don't give a shit.

[North Calaveras]

the movement failed miserably though...it was the perfect time for the so called "vast majority of moderate muslims" to rise up but instead it sputtered and burnt out as fast as it came.

Muslim extremists, funded from abroad, had better weapons. My pen is powerful, but an AK to my head is more powerful still. Which hasn't taken away that it has been tried. That's why there still is a Free Syrian Army in Syria.

no they did NOT

better weapons? the west supported the "freedom fighters"

everyone has an AK there, it's not like their equipment was vastly superior.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Well, it has. Mostly because of involvement of Al Queda and IS in many places. Warlordism as well. It has been a disaster in many nations. Not so much in Egypt, where it has been a success. For a large part. Revolutions are never pretty. That's not the fault of the west, thank you for presuming my position.

Egypt is not a sucess story it has serious issues still

and it dosn't matter because if the moderates vastly outnumber the assholes this would have been the perfect time for them to overrun the "bad guys"

but they didn't...because they don't give a shit.

In Egypt, the moderates have overrun the bastards. But fixing problems takes time. In what shape do you think the US was after her rebellion? Or France after the revolution? Fixing the issues takes a while. But it will be worth it. In those nations, the good guys are fighting still. But this isn't a fairy tale, there are no good and bad, and the good guys don't always win due to plot induced stupidity.

[North Calaveras]

Egypt is not a sucess story it has serious issues still

and it dosn't matter because if the moderates vastly outnumber the assholes this would have been the perfect time for them to overrun the "bad guys"

but they didn't...because they don't give a shit.

In Egypt, the moderates have overrun the bastards. But fixing problems takes time. In what shape do you think the US was after her rebellion? Or France after the revolution? Fixing the issues takes a while. But it will be worth it. In those nations, the good guys are fighting still. But this isn't a fairy tale, there are no good and bad, and the good guys don't always win due to plot induced stupidity.

im with you on good and bad in reality

and the reality is, the "good people" sit back while the "bad people" do their worst

which leads me to believe the so called "Good guys" are really just supporters of the enemy who don't feel like getting their hands bloody.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Muslim extremists, funded from abroad, had better weapons. My pen is powerful, but an AK to my head is more powerful still. Which hasn't taken away that it has been tried. That's why there still is a Free Syrian Army in Syria.

no they did NOT

better weapons? the west supported the "freedom fighters"

everyone has an AK there, it's not like their equipment was vastly superior.

No, another preconceived notion. Not everyone has an AK. And one AK isn't the same as the other. Anyway, the West supported the freedom fighters mostly in words, not in actual deeds. And the west left after the dictators had fallen. Really, those people don't want IS or Al Quada rule either. They are fighting, and they do give a shit. It's their country for crying out loud.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

In Egypt, the moderates have overrun the bastards. But fixing problems takes time. In what shape do you think the US was after her rebellion? Or France after the revolution? Fixing the issues takes a while. But it will be worth it. In those nations, the good guys are fighting still. But this isn't a fairy tale, there are no good and bad, and the good guys don't always win due to plot induced stupidity.

im with you on good and bad in reality

and the reality is, the "good people" sit back while the "bad people" do their worst

which leads me to believe the so called "Good guys" are really just supporters of the enemy who don't feel like getting their hands bloody.

Which would be a wrong belief. Would you have said the same of George Washington, had he not received the necessary funding from the Netherlands and the troops from France? I doubt it. There is only so much you can do against better weapons and funding.

[North Calaveras]

no they did NOT

better weapons? the west supported the "freedom fighters"

everyone has an AK there, it's not like their equipment was vastly superior.

No, another preconceived notion. Not everyone has an AK. And one AK isn't the same as the other. Anyway, the West supported the freedom fighters mostly in words, not in actual deeds. And the west left after the dictators had fallen. Really, those people don't want IS or Al Quada rule either. They are fighting, and they do give a shit. It's their country for crying out loud.

It dosn't matter because if the vast majority were not islamist then we wouldn't have this problem because the radicals would have been easily overrun, even with better weaponary, the popular support would still be on the "moderates" side

so in final, the "moderates" are full of shit.

[North Calaveras]

im with you on good and bad in reality

and the reality is, the "good people" sit back while the "bad people" do their worst

which leads me to believe the so called "Good guys" are really just supporters of the enemy who don't feel like getting their hands bloody.

Which would be a wrong belief. Would you have said the same of George Washington, had he not received the necessary funding from the Netherlands and the troops from France? I doubt it. There is only so much you can do against better weapons and funding.

george washington was a rebel, not a religous extremist...

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

No, another preconceived notion. Not everyone has an AK. And one AK isn't the same as the other. Anyway, the West supported the freedom fighters mostly in words, not in actual deeds. And the west left after the dictators had fallen. Really, those people don't want IS or Al Quada rule either. They are fighting, and they do give a shit. It's their country for crying out loud.

It dosn't matter because if the vast majority were not islamist then we wouldn't have this problem because the radicals would have been easily overrun, even with better weaponary, the popular support would still be on the "moderates" side

so in final, the "moderates" are full of shit.

This is not at all how things like this work. Not at all. Popular support means jack shit when your opponent has better weapons. Tianamen square, for example. How's that for popular support. That the people support something doesn't make it a winning idea.