What Do Righties Want to DO About Islam?

KONE said:
From "DRUMPF HATES MEXICANS" to "MUH STORMFRONT"

You are an excruciatingly bad poster
Click to expand...
You see, when I argue that there's a group of people who do nothing but bitch and moan, you come in to... bitch and moan? Are you trying to prove my point or fight it? This is confusing.
 
luckyshot said:
Everytime there is an Islamic terrorist attack right wingers line up.

Fist they bash Islam with all the "Religion of peace" stuff and Koran verses about violence, etc.

Then they bash liberals for being soft, or feeble-minded or Islamic apologists, or whatever.

But beyond the groupthink and the conservative virtue signaling that bashing your "enemies" affords, what do you actually propose should be done about Islam??

Here are some policy options:
1) Forced deportation of all Muslims living in western countries to... I dunno, where?
2) Forced conversion of all Muslims via an Inquisition.
3) Islamic genocide within western countries.
4) World War 3: The West vs. The Caliphate (kill or covert to native population)
5) Other

Besides bashing liberals, what do you all actually propose is DONE about Muslims?
Click to expand...




It's more about what the left did.

Obama created an environment where people were afraid to criticize Islam, or point out suspicious activity by a Muslim for fear of being labeled racist.

So to start, we need to have an environment where someone can openly criticize Islam.

By doing this we force a conversation to take place within the Muslim community itself. They are they only ones who can cure the cancer inside their own religion.



As for Europe, they need to start deportations yesterday.
 
I'm a bit hawkish on Islam, so I think I can throw out a few broad, agreeable things here-

1. A significant long-term goal of many Islamists is to build or acquire a nuclear weapon and use it, likely in Europe. We absolutely cannot allow that to happen. Whatever our policies are, they have to account for the strategy of preventing terrorists or theocratic states from getting nuclear weapons. We are already in a bad position considering Pakistan and North Korea. That slope can't slide. This means isolationism is not an option. We can never take our eyes off Iran or Nigeria, especially.

2. The human rights abuses by Saudi Arabia are completely unacceptable given their regional influence, the long leash they give to religious psychopaths must be tightened as hard as possible, and we need to do whatever we can to reduce their leverage with oil so we can accomplish this, even if we have to throw our diplomatic and corporate weight around like an "empire" to do it. They have no excuse for their behavior, and they owe us fucking huge for 9/11.

3. All secular or moderate movements in Islam should receive praise on the international stage, and all religious violence should be internationally condemned, at each instance.

4. ISIS' ability to hold territory, write and enforce laws, levy taxes, and confiscate oil must be whack-a-mole'd with no exceptions. They cannot be allowed to become a de facto state anywhere, not even in Africa. We should act unilaterally here if necessary and spare no cost.

5. No fighting age males with able bodies should be allowed into the United States from any middle eastern country, with certain obvious exceptions (education, work specialty, political asylum, etc). Increase the female refugees, giving preference to female children over male children.

6. We must deliberate before attacking a state, and seek congressional approval. Attacking a country is not the same as attacking a terrorist camp.
 
When you guys say "ban Muslim immigration," what exactly does that mean? From predominately Muslim countries? Does it matter what branch of Islam? What about Muslims coming over from non-Muslim countries? Do you just ask if they are Muslim and ban them if they say yes? What if they say no but are wearing hihab or some other religious garment? What if they're wearing Western clothes? Do we do "extreme vetting" for people coming on tourist visa?
 
MiniCraque said:
What "ideas"? All I see are blanket statements with no realistic viability. It's the same gullible attitude that Trump took advantage of: say you're going to do shit when you and everyone with half a brain knows why A) it doesn't work or B) it can't be done.

Trump already tried what you propose and it didn't stick. So either offer actual sugestions for policy (I'm talking specifics, let's expand beyond "MAGA") or continue to be called out.

This is why the rightwing has absolutely no clue on how to deal with social conflicts: when you're faced with an antagonistic demographic that can't just be wiped off the map like the natives were, just antagonizing them further won't do anything. It's the same boneheaded thinking that continues to create conflict with blacks, hispanics, the LGBT movement and now Muslims. Fuckers like you refuse to believe that you're forced to coexist with other groups and taking the high road sounds weak to you (mostly because weak people have no idea what actual strenght is).
Click to expand...

I get that you're highly emotional and don't like me but fortunately that's completely irrelevant.

Immigration restriction and distancing ourselves from middle eastern proxy wars is the answer and the domestic left is the obstacle for implementation. I didn't type "MAGA" anywhere that I can see.

I am not white. I am middle eastern. Just to save you another 10 pages of racial guilt trip spam nobody ever reads anyway and start conveniently kissing my ass instead. Find an actual white guy to do it to you human mosquito. Should I just put this in my signature so teenagers stop wasting their energy "stormfronting" me?
 
Last edited:


People should be informed that firstly Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God.

How we worship can be starkly different.
 
Makani said:
As far as official policy, I'd say the most viable solution would be:
Extensive vetting for immigration and refugees from those countries. We're talking doctors and engineers get in, everyone else no.
Deportation of violent mullahs, observation of suspect mosques, monitoring of online activities on certain forums and sites.
Declare Islam a political movement, not a religion, and therefore not subject to religious protections. If you want to work in a supermarket but not handle pork, then fuggoff.
Ideally, stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. This is the one the right claims to want, but then their boy Bush blasted Iraq to pieces. Do you know how many IEDs probably came from Iraqi Army depots? This is the trickiest one, because there are situations when a country with the military power and geopolitical will of the US could help effect positive change. This is, however, entirely hypothetical at this point.

Mind you, these measure mostly don't jive with the Constitution. So there's that.
Click to expand...
You were one of the only people here to offer some actua policy ideas so let's delve into that.

You mentioned the Constitution, so I assume we're focusing primarily on the US. Unlike Europe, the US hasn't really had a massive influx of refugees who settled in guettos and whose failed integration into society has caused crime to go up. So really the only "Islam problem" that troubles the US right now is terrorism. I mean sure, every once in a while you hear some crazy shit like a honor killing or some Muslim doing an interview and defending Sharia law. But that's not really the kind of thing that warrants the government putting it's foot down and implementing widespread policies.

Focusing on terrorism... I don't see much that can be done and isn't already. Vetting immigrants and refugees doesn't solve much when you consider that most terrorists are neither fresh "off-the-boat" 1st generation immigrants or refugees. They're people who simply have a passport (and you can't realistically block every single traveler from danger zones, not indefinitely anyway), are descendant from immigrants or, in the case of those that actually were immigrants, were in the US for a real long while. So even the most extreme vetting process would mostly protect the country from attacks perpetrated decades from now (which is fine I guess, but too focused on the long run).

As for deportation, monitoring mosques and so on... the NSA and the FBI already do that. It's almost impossible to discuss what should be done in that regard when the general public doesn't even know what is in place right now. Do we just assume that it isn't enough and strongarm people like Comey into doing more?
 
Fawlty said:
I'm a bit hawkish on Islam, so I think I can throw out a few broad, agreeable things here-

1. A significant long-term goal of many Islamists is to build or acquire a nuclear weapon and use it, likely in Europe. We absolutely cannot allow that to happen. Whatever our policies are, they have to account for the strategy of preventing terrorists or theocratic states from getting nuclear weapons. We are already in a bad position considering Pakistan and North Korea. That slope can't slide. This means isolationism is not an option. We can never take our eyes off Iran or Nigeria, especially.

2. The human rights abuses by Saudi Arabia are completely unacceptable given their regional influence, the long leash they give to religious psychopaths must be tightened as hard as possible, and we need to do whatever we can to reduce their leverage with oil so we can accomplish this, even if we have to throw our diplomatic and corporate weight around like an "empire" to do it. They have no excuse for their behavior, and they owe us fucking huge for 9/11.

3. All secular or moderate movements in Islam should receive praise on the international stage, and all religious violence should be internationally condemned, at each instance.

4. ISIS' ability to hold territory, write and enforce laws, levy taxes, and confiscate oil must be whack-a-mole'd with no exceptions. They cannot be allowed to become a de facto state anywhere, not even in Africa. We should act unilaterally here if necessary and spare no cost.

5. No fighting age males with able bodies should be allowed into the United States from any middle eastern country, with certain obvious exceptions (education, work specialty, political asylum, etc). Increase the female refugees, giving preference to female children over male children.

6. We must deliberate before attacking a state, and seek congressional approval. Attacking a country is not the same as attacking a terrorist camp.
Click to expand...

10/10 post. Well played, that man:)

leonardo-dicaprio-toast-fireworks-gif.gif
 
Leagon said:
When you guys say "ban Muslim immigration," what exactly does that mean? From predominately Muslim countries? Does it matter what branch of Islam? What about Muslims coming over from non-Muslim countries? Do you just ask if they are Muslim and ban them if they say yes? What if they say no but are wearing hihab or some other religious garment? What if they're wearing Western clothes? Do we do "extreme vetting" for people coming on tourist visa?
Click to expand...
The logistics of it would have to be rationally sorted out, but the overall goal is the same...to not allow a massive influx of people into your country, who subscribe to cultures so fundamentally different than yours(and in this case, a mostly negative way), that assimilation on a mass scale is virtually impossible, without jeopardizing the values and freedom upon which the host society was built. Also, just for the record, I'm not a "rightie".
 
AviatorShades said:
I get that you're highly emotional and don't like me but fortunately that's completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You lost me here. I'm about as emotionally detached from this subject as one can possibly be while still commenting on it. I like articulating my points though, so if that make me appear emotional to simpletons, so be it.

Immigration restriction and distancing ourselves from middle eastern proxy wars is the answer and the domestic left is the obstacle for implementation. I didn't type "MAGA" anywhere that I can see.
Click to expand...
I agree that foreign policy is a major factor, but blaming it on left/right paradigms is absolutely stupid and does nothing. GOP politicians were the ones who got the ball rolling, then some hawkish Dems kept it going and now Trump has shown no signs of backing away from it (quite the opposite actually).

MAGA is a reference, not a direct quote. Do you want me to explain the difference?

I am not white. I am middle eastern. Just to save you another 10 pages of racial guilt trip spam nobody ever reads anyway and start conveniently kissing my ass instead. Find an actual white guy to do it to you human mosquito. Should I just put this in my signature so teenagers stop wasting their energy "stormfronting" me?
Click to expand...

You see, I mentioned Stormfront before you ever appeared ITT. So it's funny that take offense to that while simultaneously claming immunity due to heritage (the middle eastern equivalent to TCK?). I never even mentioned race when it comes to the Islam problem. Stormfronters dislike people for reasons that aren't just race, you know.
 
MiniCraque said:
You were one of the only people here to offer some actua policy ideas so let's delve into that.

You mentioned the Constitution, so I assume we're focusing primarily on the US. Unlike Europe, the US hasn't really had a massive influx of refugees who settled in guettos and whose failed integration into society has caused crime to go up. So really the only "Islam problem" that troubles the US right now is terrorism. I mean sure, every once in a while you hear some crazy shit like a honor killing or some Muslim doing an interview and defending Sharia law. But that's not really the kind of thing that warrants the government putting it's foot down and implementing widespread policies.

Focusing on terrorism... I don't see much that can be done and isn't already. Vetting immigrants and refugees doesn't solve much when you consider that most terrorists are neither fresh "off-the-boat" 1st generation immigrants or refugees. They're people who simply have a passport (and you can't realistically block every single traveler from danger zones, not indefinitely anyway), are descendant from immigrants or, in the case of those that actually were immigrants, were in the US for a real long while. So even the most extreme vetting process would mostly protect the country from attacks perpetrated decades from now (which is fine I guess, but too focused on the long run).

As for deportation, monitoring mosques and so on... the NSA and the FBI already do that. It's almost impossible to discuss what should be done in that regard when the general public doesn't even know what is in place right now. Do we just assume that it isn't enough and strongarm people like Comey into doing more?
Click to expand...

You are right that America doesn't have the same issue as Europe, generally because of our isolated geography, but I think the logic could be applied to any batch of immigrants from a country with spotty documentation. It only takes a couple bad apples, as we've seen. Now, I was speaking as a right-winger, but I myself am pretty neutral. I think taking isolated incidents and making sweeping policy based on them detracts from a country's strengths. You are right in that the NSA and FBI are actively watching many mosques and web traffic, though you will find a spirited argument on the legitimacy of this.

In Europe, I think the problem you have is that there are pockets of Muslim population that are remarkably resistant to assimilation. They are impoverished, highly religious, and many probably have a negative view of "the West" for crimes both real and perceived. Even those with a neutral or positive view of the West are reluctant to go to the authorities about worrisome activities, which I think anyone ho has been put in a situation of loyalty to home or country can understand. This is where it gets tricky, because state actions against the root causes of terrorism (zealotry, indoctrination, lack of education) can easily be seen as attacks on Islam itself. It's why Obama, and Bush before him, are often so reluctant to call it a "war against Islam" or say "Islamic terrorism". As I noted, I view Islamic extremists as political actors. The higher ups are well educated, and they aren't the ones blasting churches or driving semis into markets. Online indoctrination is a huge issue right now, internet access is so easy, and filtering out false messages is much harder.
 
MiniCraque said:
Stormfronters dislike people for reasons that aren't just race, you know.
Click to expand...

So you're trying to use the Stormfront label to shame folks into silence, whether their objections are valid or not. Criticism of an ideology isn't in the same ballpark as racism, so don't try to associate the two with disingenuous word games.
 
luckyshot said:
Everytime there is an Islamic terrorist attack right wingers line up.

Fist they bash Islam with all the "Religion of peace" stuff and Koran verses about violence, etc.

Then they bash liberals for being soft, or feeble-minded or Islamic apologists, or whatever.

But beyond the groupthink and the conservative virtue signaling that bashing your "enemies" affords, what do you actually propose should be done about Islam??

Here are some policy options:
1) Forced deportation of all Muslims living in western countries to... I dunno, where?
2) Forced conversion of all Muslims via an Inquisition.
3) Islamic genocide within western countries.
4) World War 3: The West vs. The Caliphate (kill or covert to native population)
5) Other

Besides bashing liberals, what do you all actually propose is DONE about Muslims?
Click to expand...
Ban immigration of Muslims into the USA.
 
MiniCraque said:
?

You see, I mentioned Stormfront before you ever appeared ITT. So it's funny that take offense to that while simultaneously claming immunity due to heritage (the middle eastern equivalent to TCK?). I never even mentioned race when it comes to the Islam problem. Stormfronters dislike people for reasons that aren't just race, you know.
Click to expand...

Lol. Other people are right. You are a shit poster. Most people here including myself never even heard of Stormfront until leftists nutjobs like yourself started to throw it around because you want to silence people knowing that you don't know how to argue like an adult.

It just proves my point that modern day lefists are nothing but a bunch of whiny pussies. You can't argue anymore so you throw the labels around to try to get an upper hand in the argument. It hurts your little feelings that someone disagrees with you so the only option for you is to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "racists, bigots, Stormfront"!

Don't waste mine or anyone elses time with your bullshit "Stormfront" posts again. You're very immature and your a pussy. There should be an age limit to post on this site.
 
gspieler said:
The logistics of it would have to be rationally sorted out, but the overall goal is the same...to not allow a massive influx of people into your country, who subscribe to cultures so fundamentally different than yours(and in this case, a mostly negative way), that assimilation on a mass scale is virtually impossible, without jeopardizing the values and freedom upon which the host society was built. Also, just for the record, I'm not a "rightie".
Click to expand...

But the logistics is what I was asking about. Because it sounds as if people are saying it and not at all concerned that their statements may be logistically impossible.
 
the answer certainly isn't 'be so inclusive so as to invite others that are exclusive and diametrically opposed to every single Western value' to show off how virtuos you are, i'll tell you that much

short of the ME and Africa not becoming Shit-tier any time soon (poverty and lack of education are either direct causations or high correlations with religious fanaticism and violence) i'm not sure we can do much to actually solve this

keep it out of our area as much as possible, sure, but it would take a massive, multinational undergoing to change this on any level and the deposing of numerous rulers (saudi arabia firstly) to try and establish some form of A) not exclusive oil based economies (see venezuela) or tourism for say Dubai and such, and B) a more even distribution of wealth. simply changing who rules does nothing to change the average quality of life for the citizens (or imported workers) in those areas...that focus on religion has to be diverted elsewhere, i.e. social and economic mobility and education
 
1-Stop all muslim immigration
2-Send as many muslims back to their countries of origin back as possible
3-Stop supporting muslims in wars, like the Free Syrian Army or Saudi Arabia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,049
Messages
55,463,619
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top