The Muslim Problem

tsuke

New member
moderate_muslims.jpg

http://www.trumplican.xyz/2016/06/17/the-muslim-problem-2/

When I first began writing this article I intended it to be about the ban on Muslim immigration as proposed by Trump. While writing it I realized that it is more than that. It morphed into what I think are fundamental questions about our methods of dealing with Islamic terrorism.

Like all good stories though let us start from the beginning. Due to all the terror attacks happening in the US and around the globe perpetrated by Islamics who are either inspired by ISIS or outright members Trump has called for a total ban on all non-citizen muslims entering the United States. The main criticism of the policy is enforcement. How exactly is one going to find out the religion of every traveler?

Enforceability

There really is no argument here. It is not enforceable. As most people have mentioned there is no effective way to tell if a person is a muslim or not. Trump's latest call however, to ban immigration from countries who have a track record of producing terrorists and are known terrorist havens, is definitely enforceable and is something we have most likely done in the past in other situations. That is a topic for another day though as I don't predict much opposition to it.

If something is not enforceable does that mean there is no value in bringing it up for discussion? In letting other people know that yes we are so pissed of at this that this is what we are considering doing. That we view your religion so negatively because of all these terrorist attacks that a third to half of the population is willing to say that they are fine with this. Even though like I mentioned there is no practical way of doing it. I say Yes. There is a value in the discussion and the optics and other discussions it encourages.
Carrot and Stick

There is a military solution to dealing with Isis and we have discussed that in Trumplican in another article. The ideology of terrorism requires a different solution as well. At the end of the day the extremists of the religion of peace must be divided from the moderates (if they exist) of Islam. The moderates must hate the extremists so much that they would be willing to give them up immediately if they set up shop in one of their neighborhoods. Hatred from the moderates to the extremists would also make radicalization less likely.

There are two ways of doing this. The carrot and the stick. The carrot has been the main approach since the start and we are now realizing that it is not working.

The Carrot

Both Obama and Bush have tried this approach. They both go out of their way to make sure that everyone knows that there is nothing wrong with Islam and it is still the religion of peace. This was the strategy since the start of the war on terror and was implemented to divide the "moderate" muslims from the extremist.

Has it worked? Well 15 years into the war on terror the organizations just seem to be getting stronger and stronger. The US military claims it has killed 20000 ISIS fighters and Russia claims are more nebulous but some say they claim 60000. If that is true then Islamics are getting radicalized to fight for ISIS by the truckload as ISIS is still a going concern.

Terrorist attacks have not abated and seem to be getting worse. You would think that if the strategy is working then we would see a lot less of them or none as the "moderates" would report suspicious activity on the part of the extremists which would lead to more plots getting discovered. Yet as we say in Brussels this is rarely the case as none of their neighbors in the majority muslim area they were staying in reported them. In fact Brussels shows that the attacks are getting worse. Multiple reports indicate that the actual target was the Tihange nuclear reactor plant. Let me repeat that again. The target was a nuclear power plant. I don't need to tell you the kind of long-term damage that causes much worse than 9/11 or any other attack since.

Clearly the carrot has failed. Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Should the carrot have been tried first? Yes. Should we have waited 15 years to confirm its abject failure before moving to the stick? No we should have done it a long time ago. What proponents of the carrot fail to do is pose any sort of time frame where this will be over. World War 2 was won in 5 years and we are still fighting this very same war on terror for 15 years running. Must we wait for 30 or 50 years? Do we need for the next generations to endure a terror attack every year?

The Stick

The stick is very simple. It must be made plain to the moderates that the actions of the extremists have a very negative impact to them. They must be made aware that the world views the religion of peace and them by extension in increasingly negative terms because of the actions of the terrorists. The carrot relies on the better nature of man, which history has proven is a fickle thing to rely on while the stick relies on self-interest. They must be shown that extremism damages the very brand of Islam.

The hope is that since it is to their self-interest to do this it will lead to an actual division between the "moderates" and the extremists. Since they hate them for giving them a bad image worldwide the hope is that radicalization decreases as well. Most important and damaging to the extremist is the hope that some moderates leave the religion altogether so they are not associated with the terrorists anymore. If anything can galvanize religious leaders to action it is this.

The muslim ban has merit just being proposed and discussed openly. It is a step in the direction of the stick and "moderate" muslims should pick up on it. The counter argument is that well this would drive more muslims to join the terrorists.

What people don't understand is by using the carrot we are already in that situation. We have plenty of examples of ISIS and other groups like it continuing on with new recruits despite any casualties. When this started the terrorists had their own country in Afghanistan after 15 years the terrorists still have their own country in Syria. No real expert says this war after 15 years is even close to being won.

Would it have been better to solve the problem just employing the carrot? Yes. But to keep employing it when it has so obviously failed is insanity.
 
When I first began writing this article I intended it to be about the ban on Muslim immigration as proposed by Trump. While writing it I realized that it is more than that.

You're certainly trying to sell it as ' more than that '- but it's obvious that that's all it is.

Tip; If you want it to be ' more than that ' then figure out what you're going to write before you start. Having ' realizations ' come upon you suggests that you started out with very little- as proves to be the case. Fail.



There are two ways of doing this. The carrot and the stick.

Yep- it's an article about donkeys.

Tip 2; Remove the definite article from your title. There's nothing definite about Trump.
 
Last edited:
You're certainly trying to sell it as ' more than that '- but it's obvious that that's all it is.

Tip; If you want it to be ' more than that ' then figure out what you're going to write before you start. Having ' realizations ' come upon you suggests that you started out with very little- as proves to be the case. Fail.





Yep- it's an article about donkeys.

Tip 2; Remove the definite article from your title. There's nothing definite about Trump.

At the end of the day we have to admit our current response has failed regarding islamic terrorism and failed miserably at that. 15 years and there is no end in sight.
 
At the end of the day we have to admit our current response has failed regarding islamic terrorism and failed miserably at that. 15 years and there is no end in sight.

You have to starve it of recruits. Unfortunately, Western financial, diplomatic and military support for Israeli immorality, illegalities and terrorism is the very best recruiting sergeant that Islamism has.

Presdent Truman recognised the homeland for Jews- for votes. That was the WRONG reason and it exists to this day. When US politicians realize the harm they are doing and end this mindless charge for Israeli supremacy over the Middle East then the appeal of radical Islamism will decline. It won't have a focus.
 
The OP proposal plays right into the left's hands, politically. They would use it as an Islamophobe bludgeon on whoever would propose it. For that reason it's not politically workable.

The good idea, both politically and in terms of national security, is a temporary ban all *individuals* trying to immigrate from certain parts of the world. Which as it happens, are probably 90% Muslim. See, that way you get the objective without giving the left anything to work with.

And that's EXACTLY the way Trump should have worded his initial proposal. But as soon as he said the word 'Muslim' the left goes bonkers and the rest is history.

That's what's so frustrating about Trump. There's finally someone who doesn't cower to the PC enforcers and is willing to take political risks in order to protect innocent Americans, gays included, and he doesn't think before he talks.

At any rate, it would take a large scale act of ______ terrorism, that would kill a few hundred thousand, to occur before banning all Muslims would be politically workable.

What's disturbing is that such an event is entirely possible.
 
Last edited:
You have to starve it of recruits. Unfortunately, Western financial, diplomatic and military support for Israeli immorality, illegalities and terrorism is the very best recruiting sergeant that Islamism has.

Presdent Truman recognised the homeland for Jews- for votes. That was the WRONG reason and it exists to this day. When US politicians realize the harm they are doing and end this mindless charge for Israeli supremacy over the Middle East then the appeal of radical Islamism will decline. It won't have a focus.

So are you resigning from Hamas then?
 
You have to starve it of recruits. Unfortunately, Western financial, diplomatic and military support for Israeli immorality, illegalities and terrorism is the very best recruiting sergeant that Islamism has.

Presdent Truman recognised the homeland for Jews- for votes. That was the WRONG reason and it exists to this day. When US politicians realize the harm they are doing and end this mindless charge for Israeli supremacy over the Middle East then the appeal of radical Islamism will decline. It won't have a focus.


what we are is not working. About the same number of muslims are joining the kings army as in ISIS and there is an alarming number of second generation terrorists too. We have to try a new tactic. Trying something that is failing for 15 years for another 30 is not an option.

It would be different if anyone can point to an end in the horizon but no one can. We have to admit the strategy is a failure.
 
The OP proposal plays right into the left's hands, politically. They would use it as an Islamophobe bludgeon on whoever would propose it. For that reason it's not politically workable.

The good idea, both politically and in terms of national security, is a temporary ban all *individuals* trying to immigrate from certain parts of the world. Which as it happens, are probably 90% Muslim. See, that way you get the objective without giving the left anything to work with.

And that's EXACTLY the way Trump should have worded his initial proposal. But as soon as he said the word 'Muslim' the left goes bonkers and the rest is history.

That's what's so frustrating about Trump. There's finally someone who doesn't cower to the PC enforcers and is willing to take political risks in order to protect innocent Americans, gays included, and he doesn't think before he talks.

At any rate, it would take a large scale act of ______ terrorism, that would kill a few hundred thousand, to occur before banning all Muslims would be politically workable.

What's disturbing is that such an event is entirely possible.

actually its important to word it this way. More than anything democrats must realize that the people that they put on top of their hierarchy of victimization are the very ones that want to kill the rest of the ones underneath. Hopefully the lgbt community will realize this.
 
At the end of the day we have to admit our current response has failed regarding islamic terrorism and failed miserably at that. 15 years and there is no end in sight.

I don't think you are seeing the full scope. Some of what you have wrote makes sense logically and I get the argument. If we seem to shut out Muslims, they'll want to get back into bed with us and want to clean up the acts of the few. Though I don't believe that to be true, that is where we can have a rational National Debate. We can't say all Muslims are evil and are terrorists, though, because it isn't close to the truth.

If you look at the bigger picture, what we did in Iraq to overthrow Saddam, and the powers we put into place afterwards, has created a lot of the tension that has been a huge recruiting tool for ISIS. Dig a bit into that and you'll see that 'The Carrot' approach should not be ruled out simply because 'it hasn't worked'. The Carrot approach wasn't the only thing going on, and honestly I still don't think we really have tried it. We've fallen short on the execution of that approach, and merely given it lip service.

What we really need, is to understand the minds of these folks joining ISIS. Understand our enemy so that we are better prepared to fight them. It's hard to do that by simply following media stories filled with BS. But the number one goal should be to stop the flow of terrorists from being recruited. Then remove those that are left.
 
I don't think you are seeing the full scope. Some of what you have wrote makes sense logically and I get the argument. If we seem to shut out Muslims, they'll want to get back into bed with us and want to clean up the acts of the few. Though I don't believe that to be true, that is where we can have a rational National Debate. We can't say all Muslims are evil and are terrorists, though, because it isn't close to the truth.

If you look at the bigger picture, what we did in Iraq to overthrow Saddam, and the powers we put into place afterwards, has created a lot of the tension that has been a huge recruiting tool for ISIS. Dig a bit into that and you'll see that 'The Carrot' approach should not be ruled out simply because 'it hasn't worked'. The Carrot approach wasn't the only thing going on, and honestly I still don't think we really have tried it. We've fallen short on the execution of that approach, and merely given it lip service.

What we really need, is to understand the minds of these folks joining ISIS. Understand our enemy so that we are better prepared to fight them. It's hard to do that by simply following media stories filled with BS. But the number one goal should be to stop the flow of terrorists from being recruited. Then remove those that are left.

I get that there were other stuff done but the carrot has been overwhelmingly tried in society. Any mention of Islam having any defect is immediately met with cries of islamophobia. In fact if you look at the rape cases in Europe where the victims were blamed for not understanding the culture of the rapists. We also have rape victims covering up gang rapes done on them so as not to sully the image of Islam. I think we have bent over backward to offer them the carrot and have gotten nothing in return. Second generation terorrists are still very common and almost as much brit muslims join isis as the royal army.

We have to admit it has failed and try somtehing else. More than the terrorists themselves we must also find out the mindset of the moderates who continue to be radicalized which we enable. How can we honestly tell them that terrorists are the wrong ones and Islam did nothing wrong when the terrorists use Islam itself to recruit them.

We need to stop whitewashing Islam and be honest about it. How did Christianity accept gays? By being shamed into doing so. If you said Christianity was always correct and defended it it would have no incentive to change.
 
Here is the deal, there are about a billion Muslims on the planet. That is one in every 5. Let that sink in. The way you guys are framing the problem, we would have to go to war with a fifth of the planet because according to you that's whos against us. Its simply not true!

If the rhetoric coming out of the West suggests that we believe that the 90% or so of non-terrorist Muslims are our enemy they will feel threatened by us. If we make friends with the 90% of non-terrorists they will more likely join us and strike out at the terrorists among them. Its already happening, there are several Muslim states that absolutely refuse to support terrorism, there is an entire civil war going on in Syria going on between terrorist supporters and non-terrorist supporters. Do you realize ISIS kills many more Muslims than they do Westerners?
 
Here is the deal, there are about a billion Muslims on the planet. That is one in every 5. Let that sink in. The way you guys are framing the problem, we would have to go to war with a fifth of the planet because according to you that's whos against us. Its simply not true!

If the rhetoric coming out of the West suggests that we believe that the 90% or so of non-terrorist Muslims are our enemy they will feel threatened by us. If we make friends with the 90% of non-terrorists they will more likely join us and strike out at the terrorists among them. Its already happening, there are several Muslim states that absolutely refuse to support terrorism, there is an entire civil war going on in Syria going on between terrorist supporters and non-terrorist supporters. Do you realize ISIS kills many more Muslims than they do Westerners?

Who is saying we should go to war with 1 billion of them? I am saying their religion is incompatible with western culture.

You are like a child "let's make friends with them"

Well haul your cookies over there and get to friending them. Just because not every muslime commits terrorism doesn't mean they don't agree with their goals. Islam is about conquest. Not always by the sword. The problem is you have a child like understanding of the problem we face as a country and you only think of things in terms of how it helps your democrat party.
 
Who is saying we should go to war with 1 billion of them? I am saying their religion is incompatible with western culture.

You are like a child "let's make friends with them"

Well haul your cookies over there and get to friending them. Just because not every muslime commits terrorism doesn't mean they don't agree with their goals. Islam is about conquest. Not always by the sword. The problem is you have a child like understanding of the problem we face as a country and you only think of things in terms of how it helps your democrat party.

You have no understanding whatsoever of the nuances of diplomacy & foreign policy. Just like your master Trump.

It always amazes me. You would completely alienate the Muslim allies who we absolutely rely upon for intel in the Middle East. You guys are so unbelievably clueless.
 
Back
Top