|
Nnanji -> RE: 'Allahu Akbar' - Terrorist Attack In Germanistan (12/21/2016 12:47:04 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:
Yes, thank you. Peon is an educated man. He'll know where it's from.
Thank you Nanji.
But I think the roles are reversed in this case. Governments - the State - are the 'they' in the 'they came for ...' The people they're come for are the Muslims - any Muslims, not just Islamists.
A couple of ideas pop up immediately. Perhaps more later.
In the olden days, things like this generally were settled by great armies whacking off the heads of the opposing culture. In fact now, the extremists say their Caliphate should include all of the land "Muslems" (not Arabs, not the Ottoman Empire) used to rule. Which would include a large part of Europe. However, now, one of those cultures has decided it no longer wishes to settle this sort of dispute by whacking heads while the other culture is still bound by its 7th century ideology. What is that 21st century culture to do while the 7th century culture is whacking heads, burning people alive and generally trying to destroy anything that doesn't pertain to a 7th century worldview?
The purpose of a government is to protect its people. If that 21st century government must protect its people against head whacking people, how should it be done? I suspect that moving a large mass of 7th century thinkers to live in the midst of established 21st century culture and assuming that the 7th century thinkers will eventually learn to put away tribal thinking and join the civilization that everything in their culture abhors isn't going to work. I know lefties all think it's our fault for the empire. But, regardless of fault now, is it incombant on the 21st century government to just allow a few head whackings among its population while the lefty learning curve is ongoing? Or is some sort of direct defense reasonable? My first thought is that if assimilation is going to work, assimilating small groups at a time and screening those groups to try and exclude obvious head whackers is reasonable. That is not what is happening and it is entirely reasonable for the 21st century tribe to look askance at the situation.
The second thought is regarding the government-the state- coming for Moslems not just Islamists. Had I been in...let's make up a citation...a Christian church and Dillon Ruff had attended and began to speak about going to...say...a black church and killing people to start a race war, I doubt I'd have taken him seriously and reported him to the police or the FBI. After he did just what he was preaching and I realized he was serious, would I be guilty of not reporting him to the state? Would I have earned guilt by allowing it to happen? No, in each case. No, because that sort of thing is such a one off thing in this 21st culture you couldn't imagine it actually being serious.
Yet, the islamisist phenominom is not a one off thing. It is not a local geographical thing. It is an international redundant phenominom. In other words, when "these" people say they are going to do such a thing, why don't we believe them? Then, if we believe them what is the state's responsibility and what is the responsibility of...let's say...the Imam of the institution in which this Dillon Ruff sort of guy discussed his intent? Or what is the responsibility of the congregation of the institution that had an Imam preaching this sort of thing?
At some point, when that 7th century culture, or portions thereof, is found to be serious about head whacking it become incumbent on people and the state to take some steps to eliminate the head whacking while the lefty assimilation transpires. So, you tell me, what, then, is the responsibility of the state and the fellow members of the congregation in this case. It seems to me that your response is "nothing". That it will all work out in the end. While that is what it seems to me, I'm really asking your solution.
|
|
|
|
