Deport sucide bombers' families?
- Thread starter Passepartout
- Start date
Passepartout said:
Shit Idea what next thought crime!
Pickman's model said:
Virtually ever since 9/11 it occurred to me that if such events happened with sufficient frequency, then even the most tolerant in the West, AT SOME POINT, would say "enough!" and call for expulsion of all Muslims and the banning of Islam. I am not sure at exactly what point that would be, but let's say for the sake of argument that it was about once a Week.(i.e. much, much worse than at present).
I know that goes again the principles of freedom in a democracy, but if things got bad enough, then really there would be little alternative.
When I opened this thread I expected the originator to just be yet another kneejerk revengemonger, however on reading his post, it actually makes a lot of sense. It actually provides an intermediate action which might just work. Although it does not seem fair (as he says himself) it actually would be fairer for both Western muslims and non-muslims if it halted an escalation to the levels where mass expulsion became the alternative.
However, I would again say, that we are still nowhere near such action being necessary. And again I don't know what that level would be (once a month?). But the suggestion does, if things do worsen, provide a less drastic resolution than that which I originally feared may be forced upon Western society.
As for precedent, yes there is, and in Western Europe.
And this is where I am kicking myself for not thinking of it because I do know something about it.
When most of Northern Europe was pan-culturally Celtic, there was no police force. So the way the law was structured was based on extended families. There were set fines for most offences and if the offender did not pay, then his extended family was liable. This lead to a society where family effectively policed their own miscreants.
It worked very well apparently.
Of course, we have police nowadays to deal with normal miscreants, however it could be argued that in the case of terrorists, effectively their action is not controllable by the police.
Having said the above it is, I hope, a very pessimistic view of what MIGHT happen if things get a lot, lot worse.
By far the better option would be if the muslim community took it on themselves to do what they can to rid the West of the problem themselves.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
Right ho. And at what point does mass expulsion become the 'acceptable' alternative to just shooting the lot!Chicmac said:
Various degrees of repression/expulsion/genocide are not the alternative, at least not for anyone to the left of Blair. The alternative is quite simple, solve the political issues that are feeding Islamism. Meaning first and foremost get the troops out of Iraq and stop our governments writing a blank cheque for Israel.
bolshiebhoy said:
I'm afraid you have misunderstood my position.
I do not advocate expulsion at all.
Furthermore I consider myself to be far more tolerant than the average person.
I would be one of the very last to agree with expulsion.
What I described is what I believe WOULD happen IF things got bad enough, NOT that I would agree with it.
I am pretty certain that if there were complete disruption of society and people became very afraid to go about their lives, then AT SOME POINT there would be a general call for expulsion.
I do not think that WILL happen. As I clearly stated I think that is a very PESSIMISTIC view.
However to simply be in denial and say it CAN'T happen is wrong.
All I am saying is IF there was a very great worsening of the situation AND partial expulsion (i.e. terrorists families) worked to halt that, THEN that would be better than complete expulsion.
I don't want to see ANY expulsions, but what the original poster has done, is to provide an intermediate measure which IF IT BECAME NECESSARY (i.e in most people's opinion) would be less unfair to the muslim community than would total expulsion.
As a pacifist and non supporter of capital punishment, under no circumstances would I ever consider shooting someone appropriate except perhaps in immediate self-defence or in immediate defence of my family and see no relevance of this to the current thread.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
Oh I get it alright. Do you speak the way you write, with every seventh word capitalised?Chicmac said:
Seriously though, I don't doubt it could happen. What I was saying was that under no circumstances would any of these measures be justifiable. There is no military/police solution to this problem as even the more clued up members of the security aparatus understand. This is a political problem with a political solution.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
There is one huge difference between Islamism and genuine fascism of the BNP variety. Islamism expresses outrage at real and massive injustices (in Iraq, Palestine etc ...oops did it again sorry) against people who's only crime is to be Arab/Muslim. The BNP don't, unless you believe whites really are an oppressed majority in this country.tbaldwin said:
bolshiebhoy said:
"BNP genuine fascists" ARE YOU SURE?
The Islamic fascists just use so called grieviances when it suits them.
They must have been really encouraged by the medias obsession with Iraq and how many people marched against the War etc.
But there is no justification for what they did in London,Kenya,New York etc.
Like the Nazis in the 30s they have a very strong ideology, which makes them a far more genuine threat than the BNP could ever hope to be.
badnewswade
freak-out wierdo
Goldang You-Row-Peon, blah blah blah, commie socialist scum, blah blah blah, two world wars, blah blah blah, obligatory reference to homosexuality for some reason, blah blah blah, death to the indfidel mooslims (whoops worra givaway) blah blah blah blah, blah blah.
I love the way these bigoted freaks inevitably confabulate muslims with the jihadoids. The jihadoids are a wierd culty sect, spiritual descendants of the medieval Hassan I Sabbah and cousins of the Western mind control cults. Basically they are no relation to normal religious practice, any more than, say, the Bhagwan is related to Bhuddism, or that Waco guy was related to Christianity.
What makes them stand out is the violence, basically these people are cockroaches feeding off the many bad descisions our own leaders have made over the years.
Notice for example how when we invaded Afghanistan the terrorism stopped, because their bases had been blown away and there was tremendous pressure on Pakistan (which is next door) not to tolerate these fuckers. There was a coalition, concensus around the world, and the various contries that support terrorism on the sly (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for instance) began to toe the line. Then we tried to take Iraq, which simply wasn't involved, and failed. This handed the jihadoids a new base, took rescources from the Afghan theatre and took the pressure off of Pakistan and other countries that support terror. To nobody's surprise, the attacks resumed.
Very very stupid thing to do, invade Iraq. Before the war Iraq wasn't involved in jihadism, afterwards the mujahadeen swarmed all over the place and, crucially, another injustice was created for them to parasitise.
Our leaders have such a crap strategy they have virtually guaranteed that terrorist violence will continue for years to come. Retrenchement will invitably come eventually, possibly at huge economic cost since hydrocarbons are such a huge part of our economy.
Kill lots of people, get blown up in revenge, be subjected to random searches and ID cards for 10-20 years, then when that doesn't work get ready to spend a lot of time looking for a new job. Nice effective foreign policy we've got there.
Similar threads
