There are videos going around showing American Journalist James Foley being beheaded, and ISIS has even identified which journalist is next in case the US stops interfering with their juggernaut spreading their medieval brand of Islam.

The subject line asks, what do we do? Do we just walk away from this challenge or answer it?

Surely, a major part of the response needs to come from Europe which, in the interest of encouraging tolerance and diversity, has virtually encouraged immigration from Islamic countries. Now it seems they've allowed the seeds of ISIS in, Trojan horse fashion.

Brits hear the voice of Foley's executioner and think they hear a South London accent. This is concerning in many ways in the UK. Remember that in May of 2013, two British Islamic converts chose to murder an apparently randomly-selected British off-duty soldier with a meat cleaver and knives, and then made their identities known on video, giving up to police without much of a fight. They were proud of their grisly crime.

England, like just about all of the countries in Western Europe, has a large and growing Islamic minority. In fact, unless the immigration and birth rate are reversed, some of these countries will go Muslim within a few decades. So, the ISIS-ization of Europe, while perhaps unlikely, is far from impossible.

Who ever thought that World War 3 would end up being a multinational mission to stamp out a religious sect?

Views: 2214

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Don't blame English. There was an unambiguous way to express the thought, using English.

Talking to older retired US military veterans recently they chuckled at the Idea of "could" ISIS do something that would start a world war.  They all agreed that THIS IS already a world war already and unlike any ever known. 

Fighters for ISIS have been are from every western nation and every western nation has a population of sympathizers and financial supporters.  They also concurred there was no way to win this world war by conventional means and rules of war which the Islamic nations and their fanatics have never subscribed to or respected.  They layed out good arguments that before the new wave of fanatics in the middle east are engaged there should be a worldwide recognition of the threats to nations outside the middle east where fundamentalist Muslims are protected by western concepts of tolerance and freedom of speech and religion.  Eliminate the very real potential threats and financial support throughout Europe, North America and Australia before even focusing on ISIS in the middle east.

When I pointed out the recent news that one in six people in France support ISIS they chuckled again and pointed out that at least that many supported the Nazis during WWII. 

They also blamed politicians in Europe and the US for not being more proactive and aggressive to eliminate a threat they've known to exist for thirty years.

"They all agreed that THIS IS already a world war already and unlike any ever known."
"Participants from many countries" would be a novel definition for a "world war".

"They layed out good arguments that before the new wave of fanatics in the middle east are engaged there should be a worldwide recognition of the threats to nations outside the middle east where fundamentalist Muslims are protected by western concepts of tolerance and freedom of speech and religion."
That is quite right, but what would they suggest that we do? Abolish freedom of speech and religion? Kill or punish people before they commit their crimes? Turning the good guys into the bad guys does not seem to be a satisfactory solution to me.

No they definitely weren't against the freedom of speech.  They made a clear distinction about those who abuse it and how abusing it should hold consequences.  

Follow this logic and see where it leads.

Politicians, any religious people, any advertisers, anyone dealing with the US public who lies to the public in order to profit, further their career or spread ignorance should be executed and buried at sea.  We should be expecting more honesty from leaders of nations than we should expect from six year old kids.  They should be held to higher standards for honesty rather than be given total freedom to tell any friggin lie they wish to tell.

Instead of calling this a "War" what is so wrong about calling this an international confrontation with criminals? After all these people and those who represent them are not governments and this nation has not been attacked except through attacks on individuals. ISIS  are fighters from many different countries including this one. If they are funded through another government then this nation has an obligation to sanction and remove ALL American involvement from that nation. If American companies refuse to stop doing business with that nation then they should be held to be complicit and treated accordingly. Islam like all other religions are criminal in and of themselves but unfortunately for the sake of sanity that concept would be rejected by the American people. The only thing that matters for the present is the obvious criminal acts of murder and the destruction of property regardless of the reasons. 

If this problem cannot be resolved then It can and will continue indefinitely. 

OK so you wanna fight over semantics first?   Please re-assess your priorities

Interesting words from a liberal Christian pacifist:

Iraqi Genocide: Our Violence Got Us Here

Basically, he tells the story of the first and second George Bush, and the first and second gulf war. In the first, we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait but did not continue on into Baghdad and remove him from power. In the second war, we did knocked down Baghdad, toppled the regime, executed Saddam and declared "Mission accomplished." We didn't take into account that Saddam was keeping his thumb on the more radical groups who might like to take power in Iraq, like ISIS. 

It was OUR use of violence that set the stage for this to all play out.

If the use of violence is how we got here, why would we think MORE violence would actually make things better? If history is a reliable witness, more violence will just lead to… you guessed it, more violence.

We need to reach a point where we throw up our hands and simply admit that this cycle DOES NOT WORK. We need to think more creatively, and give other solutions a fair hearing.

Thanks for the link Physeter.  On the sidebar of the article I read this self description of the author,

"Benjamin L. Corey is a Missiologist, which means he studies the best ways to communicate & live out the message of Jesus within various cultures." 

Do you want to bet on the substance of the "creativity" and "new solutions" he  wants to be given a "fair hearing?"  As a missiologist who studies/promotes christian missionary work in foreign lands I'm guessing his ideas of creative new solutions won't focus on the issues at hand but on proselytizing to people who intend to convert the world to their religion by force.

And no matter how you define a pacifist by being one they forfeit any participation in the decision making process when dealing with people who have no respect for human lives or "western/christian values."  The solution to curing religious fanaticism isn't more religion but less.

Could you give me your source or your calculations for some western-european countries going muslim in a few decades? 

Well, let's take Great Britain, for example. The situation is much the same in several major European countries.

Britain is in denial. There is no real public debate on a historic event that is transforming the country. Mention of it occasionally surfaces in the media, but the mainstream political class never openly discuss it.

What is that historic event? By the year 2050, in a mere 37 years, Britain will be a majority Muslim nation.

This projection is based on reasonably good data. Between 2004 and 2008, the Muslim population of the UK grew at an annual rate of 6.7 percent, making Muslims 4 percent of the population in 2008. Extrapolating from those figures would mean that the Muslim population in 2020 would be 8 percent, 15 percent in 2030, 28 percent in 2040 and finally, in 2050, the Muslim population of the UK would exceed 50 percent of the total population.

Contrast those Muslim birth rates with the non-replacement birth rates of native Europeans, the so called deathbed demography of Europe. For a society to remain the same size, the average female has to have 2.1 children (total fertility rate). For some time now, all European countries, including Britain, have been well below that rate. The exception is Muslim Albania. For native Europeans, it seems, the consumer culture has replaced having children as life’s main goal.


Okay. That sounds reasonable for the UK and the same applies to France and Belgium and to a more limited extent in Germany and Holland. But you did admit that it is "maybe". There are so many variables that would have to stay the same and many European countries are obsessed with what to do about the "muslim immigrant" situation. 

Some things to think about: France and Belgium have introduced incentives for non-immigrant people to have more children and have created several laws making the most extreme open expressions of muslim identity illegal (face veils are illegal and girls cannot wear headscarves in school and public servants may not show any religious symbols or specific clothing while working). Switzerland has banned any new minarets. Three quarters of European countries have negligible to near zero muslim population. The UK has introduced very powerful anti-terrorist laws.

Since when is the future NOT a maybe? So, some of the countries in question have introduced measures. MAYBE they will work. What if they don't? BTW, how good idea is it for people to be having children just to gain a tax benefit?


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service