Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Nut of the Matter: How Should the West Deal with Islam?

I get a laugh out of the "scholarly" dopes on a local site that are trying to figure out what to do with Muslims. They want to study, teach, form committees, etc. to figure out what to do.

They just don't get that this is not a new problem. The World has been dealing with Muslim hordes in some form or fashion for the last 1500 years or so. If there was an peaceful, amicable solution to living with Muslims, somebody would have figured it out long ago. As no amicable solution exists, the only workable solution is decreasing the Muslim population in question thru whatever means necessary.

Pikes seemed to work well at one time, I imagine Pike'ry technology hasn't changed much thru the years and can probably be grasped by all parties involved.

The Paris Attack is the opening salvo of WWIII. Islam will be dealt with as the conflict widens and becomes more frequent.

Exactly what I was referring to with my comment about interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written.

Exile was a valid answer to anti-American activity, including plotting against the country or its interests.

Before the f'ing bleeding hearts felt that all felons should be rehabilitated, if you committed a felony, you completely lost your citizenship and ALL of your Contitutional rights, and Constitutional Rights ONLY applied to citizens.

Ed

Bataclan dance floor.

That, unedited, photo should be on the front page of every news source around the world to show everyone what we are dealing with.

Ed

I'm talking about how we fight them on our home turfs seeing as so many are already here..In your case, how do you do that without targeting American born muslims?

How do you target one section of "we the people" without impinging the rights and freedoms of the rest?


If the Government says it wants to monitor all internet activity and mobile communications to combat terrorism, would you be ok with that? What about restricting firearm sales “to prevent terrorists acquiring weapons so easily”…

I am all for fighting this war in the ME ect, but when we fight it here at our respective homes, we need to be careful not to compromise our own vales, freedoms and way of life when we do so…

We had no problems killing native born folks 150 years ago.

Not letting more in and kicking out the non-citizens is the best approach.

Just like a school shooter, you can't stop them all without giving up every freedom, so when they show their ass you kill them.

Sorry, Pete, but you're dead-ass wrong on this one.

If our leaders would implement the 3-prong program I outlined a couple minutes ago, they could effectively shut down radicalism without so much as a speed-bump in the Constitutional road.

If they face the realities I described in the OP, they again would not have to change or "tear up" the Constitution. They simply need to enact legislation that defines what constitutes a religious organization (which we will leave alone) versus a sociopolitical organization (which we will destroy). The First Amendment would not need to be touched; in fact, it could be strengthened.

Now, if a short-sighted person were to write that definition, it would be exclusionary and wouldn't hold up in the courts. Worse, it could be misused to persecute all religions, or perhaps only the religions the current regime dislikes (hey, we could finally shut down them pesky Baptists!). However, if the definition was to say, for example, that a religious organization's purpose is none of the government's business except if the practice of any part of that religion violates the laws of the United States (such as advocating murder, political overthrow, undermining of US law by sectarian [Sharia] law, etc) then the United States will no longer recognize that organization as a religion, and the organization and its members will be subject to prosecution, imprisonment, and/or deportation according to US laws.



Indeed.

And this has historical pertinence vis a vis your first comment. In WW2, Americans' rights and freedoms were curtailed significantly in many regards, and the Constitution was not "thrown out".

That's an "Alinskyite" restraint. That's like someone saying that broccoli is good for you. Therefore, it would be irrational to resist being force-fed 100 lbs of it.

We know who and what Muslims are. There's no mistaking others for them.

AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM) – Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday informed President Barack Obama that, in the wake of the terror attacks in Paris, the State of Texas would not by accepting any refugees from Syria.

“Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen,” Abbott said, “Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees — any one of whom could be connected to terrorism — being resettled in Texas.”

The Texas Health & Human Services refugee resettlement program has already been notified to not accept Syrian refugees.

Abbott also implored the President to stop plans for the United States to accept more refugees from Syria, explaining that our federal government is unable to properly conduct the necessary security checks.

“Neither you nor any federal official can guarantee that Syrian refugees will not be part of any terroristic activity,” Abbott said in his letter. “Opening our door to them irresponsibly exposes our fellow Americans to unacceptable peril.”

Oh come on, you KNOW California is on her back, legs spread WIDE open, ready for thousands of refugees.

Even more recently at the beginning of WW2 you guys interned Japanese Americans as potential threats...A few years later you had McCarthyism in the fight against communisum. Question is, would similar actions be considered acceptable today?



Would agree with that...enough is enough and the genuine refugees can blame their fellow Muslims for that..

Well, you don't worry about that. Use the law to deport the Islamists that actively promote Jihad and shut down their mosques using existing Hate Speech and conspiracy laws. Hell, invoke the RICO statutes and seize their war-chests, even. Then, if an American-born Muslim gets upset and does anything to support those Islamists we are getting rid of, we arrest them for sedition and offer them a choice between prison or emigration to an Islamic nation of their choice. Due process and all that can easily be satisfied, the nation can be protected, and the Constitution preserved.



The short answer is, you find a way. Like we did in WW2.

The longer answer I would venture is that you do what I advised previously this morning: you use existing laws to monitor speech and written communication (and if NSA is spying on my internet use already, I have no problem with them spying on Islamists while they're at it!).

You don't have to shut down Islam specifically, and you don't have to shut down all religious organizations. You only have to shut down with extreme prejudice any so-called religious organizations that support violent sociopolitical change such as jihad.




This is a non-starter. We already have ample evidence showing that gun control laws have never worked. And the Paris attacks illustrate how Gun Free Zones accomplish nothing good and enhance opportunity for terrorists.

Damn, dude, you're cutting Gordian Knots in fine style this morning!!

No denying that but someone is getting it right. Lines are being drawn.

Terrorists and Jihadists want bloody war. War also brings tragic loss to innocent lives and that brings anger and motivation to fight back and recruits help. Yesterday's bombings in Syria may have just helped their cause more than hurt them.

We have to outflank them. Fight the war in the minds of people that are susceptible to being recruited by ISIS. Make it absolutely clear to all muslims that they must denounce terrorism for Islam and not against it.

Until that happens, a war on islam will be about as successful as a war on guns.

This.

This bears repeating.

Uncensored...(right click, view)

Thank you, but I hope Pete doesn't think I'm picking on him because he's certainly not alone. That thought process seems to be predominate these days. It's straight out of Rules For Radicals.

That black/white thinking is a tool of destruction and has been propagandized until nearly everyone has been brainwashed by it. People can't see where a social good reaches the point where it's destructive and in fact suicidal. It's libertinism to the extreme, it's freedom twisted into slavery.

We either deal with the problem in an adult manner or we become an amoral, repressive police state in order to keep the various minorities from attempting to destroy each other.