Malkuthian said:

So, basically you say what I explained in the last post is your game:

What I said doesn't change anything, because...
...Muslims are bad.

And who they are is a bit more complicated then your making it.
Again the same problem: simplifications...

And btw. countries actually has the power to choose where to buy oil from...
It might need some work, but considering how the money is spent buy Saudi and the influence they have, it would be worth it on every scale but the short-term-economic-scale.
But yea, I'm sorry for the stupid suggestion, the correct answer in this "discussion" would have been: "There is but one easy-as-fuck solution: kick out the fucking Muslims so we can live happily ever after".

I think the fastest way to change a culture is to increase it's interaction with other cultures. Kinda like how apparent change has occurred historically :O Far out stuff...

---

airclay said:

So in essence you could care less about the known historical and theoretical threats and consequences that arise from the actions you're puttying forward?

I'm sorry but none of our national security guys have ever supported deporting legal citizens based on a shared religions. Well except you know hitler, trump and others running on nationalistic identity based platforms. You say you hate identity politics but fight steadfast to preserve them as long as they're in the interest of your brand of cultural hegemony

---

Enlil said:

Deporting people for their thoughts is way beyond fascism.  That's straight-up Orwellian.

---

qman said:

"consequences that arise from the actions you're putting forward"

I believe homeland security takes precedent over these "consequences" that you speak of.

"none of our national security guys have ever supported deporting legal citizens"

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/09/08/437579834/mass-deportation-may-sound-unlikely-but-its-happened-before

---

Enlil said:

Those actions are already illegal.

---

Enlil said:

Pretty well, it seems, considering that there are millions of muslims there and only a few have been involved in shenanigans.

---

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/31/hungary-anti-migrant-site-900-no-go-areas-eu

Are you that naive?  "Only a few".  A native can't even go freely into cities and towns in their own homelands.

airclay said:

So let's add something constructive here. You've got a large portion of "native" citizens that are in their minds reacting to a just fear. You've got another potion of a largely isolated population that could be argued are more apt to violent radicalization. The best option I see for moving forward is to start a two way diversity educational program. One that goes into the new migrants populations and educates them on western sexual values, etc, while also teaching tolerance and acceptance of other cultures to the "natives".  We live on a shifting globe and folks everywhere will have to realize that cultures aren't concrete but ever changing organisms.

Using natives here as per your definitions, qman, I still don't agrree to those binaries.

---

"(native citizens) reacting to just fear"

If you want to have a constructive conversation the first thing you have to acknowledge is that many of their "fears" are rational and not baseless. They all have experiences that have led them to those sentiments, no being about to go into a "no go zone" city isn't because they are fearful, it's because it's not safe for them.

"start two way diversity educational programs"

What makes you think this hasn't already been happening for decade after decade?

"goes into new migrants populations and educates them on Western sexual values"

What about the Muslim communities that have been living there the past 60 years, you don't think it's just the new migrants that are the problem, do you? Guess what?  Their religious beliefs don't allow for Western values when it comes to sex and many other different issues, there's no educating the religion out of them.

"teaching tolerance and acceptance of other cultures to the natives"

The vast majority of Europeans have already tolerant of other cultures, but you're not suggesting they become tolerate of no go cities, Muslim sexism, Muslim homophobia, high levels of sexual assaults and rapes, low levels of assimilation, and terrorist acts?  There are some things which are simply intolerable for a free nation.

Enlil said:

That still doesn't justify punishing people for their thoughts.

---

airclay said:

qman said:

"consequences that arise from the actions you're putting forward"

I believe homeland security takes precedent over these "consequences" that you speak of.

"none of our national security guys have ever supported deporting legal citizens"

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/09/08/437579834/mass-deportation-may-sound-unlikely-but-its-happened-before

---

Like I said before we can talk about past un-american acts later. I was obviously talking about the current situation, but I guess I need to start putting baby bumpers on my posts to keep you from only quoting half of sentences and shit.

The consequences I'm talking about are more threats to homeland security.The verifiable history of the last 20 yrs would show that true. So you're doing a shit job at working towards better homeland security.

and thanks Enlil, that's the meat of what I meant.

---

airclay said:

So if I want to have a constructive conversation I can't agree to disagree but I have to meet you on your terms 100%?

Yeah ok I don't think that's how that works

---