I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

American 'spelling'. Constantly singing the praises of America. Clearly a native English speaker. Uses babble-speak expertly to put even Walker to shame.

That is "genetic fallacy" unless my race, religion, or citizenship are somehow relevant? "Babble speak" is not objective description, it is an interpretation; and I'm sorry, but I don't know who "Walker" is.

I just wrote:

Can you think of a more objective way to say what you're wanting to express than using the word "evil" which is a cognitive distortion called "labeling"? Are you advising the US totally disarm at a national level, or what is your suggestion?

What I'm contending is that in the process of cognitive distortion, the ability to assess objectively is lost.

(1) I'd like for you to agree that some of the accomplishments of America are pretty amazing, like the Panama Canal, the Measles Vaccine, and the lunar landing. That isn't to say that non-Americans weren't also involved in those accomplishments, or that America didn't also do bad things like spending vast amounts on war machines instead of hospitals and orphans.
(2) I would also like you to make your complaint in an objective way because the word "evil" isn't objective, its a label.
(3) I would finally like you to propose a doable alternative to spending funds on "nuclear weapons" which you had criticized below. Are you suggesting all nuclear weapons should be decommissioned, or a reduction, or more economical delivery systems like B-52 bombers instead of the more costly B2 bomber? Can you give some examples of where those funds would be better spent?

Evil as an adjective only means 'really really bad'. It's true, so where's the problem? You said yourself it did 'bad things'. So you are allowed to say it?

[Seleucus]

Evil as an adjective only means 'really really bad'. It's true, so where's the problem? You said yourself it did 'bad things'. So you are allowed to say it?

Yes, I agree, bad, like evil, is a label, it isn't objective. We ought to correctly say, 'when I think of such-and-such I feel angry', or 'when I see such-and-such I feel disappointed'.

Recall that we have digressed from your point:

The US is to blame for the rise of radical islam

To which I replied that Wahhabism began in the early 1700s, but America in 1776, therefore America couldn't be the cause of radical Islam. I added that it would benefit Islamic countries if the West would lead and assist.

To that you replied that Islamic society had been stable if not for the interference of the West.

To which I relied that the Ottomans, and almost all modern Muslim states are being supported by the West. I further suggested that a psychological complex or cognitive distortion is making it impossible to grant that America or the West have amazing merits and much to offer the Islamic world. That lead to this digression on being willing to acknowledge the achievements of America.

Again,

(1) I'd like for you to agree that some of the accomplishments of America are pretty amazing, like the Panama Canal, the Measles Vaccine, and the lunar landing. That isn't to say as you have already pointed out that non-Americans weren't also involved in those accomplishments, or that America didn't also do things you feel upset about like spending vast amounts of money on "nuclear weapons".

(2) I would also like you to make your complaint in an objective way, specifically what things that America did are you upset about, just spending on nuclear weapons? Or are there other specific things that you feel upset about?

(3) I would finally like you to propose a doable alternative to spending funds on "nuclear weapons". Are you suggesting all US nuclear weapons should be decommissioned, or a reduction, or more economical delivery systems like B-52 bombers instead of the more costly B2 bomber? Can you give some examples of where those funds would be better spent?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Evil as an adjective only means 'really really bad'. It's true, so where's the problem? You said yourself it did 'bad things'. So you are allowed to say it?

Yes, I agree, bad, like evil, is a label, it isn't objective. We ought to correctly say, 'when I think of such-and-such I feel angry', or 'when I see such-and-such I feel disappointed'.

Recall that we have digressed from your point:

The US is to blame for the rise of radical islam

To which I replied that Wahhabism began in the early 1700s, but America in 1776, therefore America couldn't be the cause of radical Islam. I added that it would benefit Islamic countries if the West would lead and assist.

To that you replied that Islamic society had been stable if not for the interference of the West.

To which I relied that the Ottomans, and almost all modern Muslim states are being supported by the West. I further suggested that a psychological complex or cognitive distortion is making it impossible to grant that America or the West have amazing merits and much to offer the Islamic world. That lead to this digression on being willing to acknowledge the achievements of America.

Again,

(1) I'd like for you to agree that some of the accomplishments of America are pretty amazing, like the Panama Canal, the Measles Vaccine, and the lunar landing. That isn't to say as you have already pointed out that non-Americans weren't also involved in those accomplishments, or that America didn't also do things you feel upset about like spending vast amounts of money on "nuclear weapons".

(2) I would also like you to make your complaint in an objective way, specifically what things that America did are you upset about, just spending on nuclear weapons? Or are there other specific things that you feel upset about?

(3) I would finally like you to propose a doable alternative to spending funds on "nuclear weapons". Are you suggesting all US nuclear weapons should be decommissioned, or a reduction, or more economical delivery systems like B-52 bombers instead of the more costly B2 bomber? Can you give some examples of where those funds would be better spent?

I said it's had periods of relative stability. I wouldn't know how 'radical' islam was in the 1700s. Could it even be called 'radical'? That's a modern concept. We can't judge them by today's standards. And why are you so keen for me to say something good about the US? If I wrote everything I don't like about it I would have to write a book. Actually that's not a bad idea. 'Why I Hate America'. It might be a bestseller.

[Immanuel Can]

Sure. If there is a crisis in your body, then that a crisis for the whole of you. Islam has problems and, like people with problems, that makes problems for others.

The problem, though, is not the fear that Islam will become additionally corrupt -- relative to its own terms, as described in its books and by its teachers -- but that it would become more faithful to the Koran, the Haddiths, the traditions and the Caliphate. We can only wish, for the sake of Muslims and the rest of us alike, that Islam will continue to "corrupt" through its contact with "infidels." If it does not, we can expect a lot more violence, cruelty, repression and death. Because the whole call in the the body of its teachings is towards that.

I don't see much in the way of answers, though. Whatever, it doesn't strike me that Muslims are doing well. For many Muslims, their living conditions have become steadily worse, often catastrophically so. The evidence is in: regressive religious caliphates do not bring prosperity.

This is true. But the answers are that they need to drop Islam. It's their commitment to impossible economics, repression of women and destructive and backward social practices, hatred of erudition, along with the unfair distribution of wealth that is killing them.

Islamic nations have a bleak future, exacerbated by the effects of more extreme weather events and dwindling food production capacity.

They are, in many cases, resource rich. They control the world's oil supply, for example. They could easily provide for themselves if they wished to do so. But they don't.

Never mind that they oppress over half their population (women) and go largely unchallenged for so doing. Never mind that they hang homosexuals from cranes in the public square. Instead, just look at what they've done to the Palestinians. All the Arab countries cry and bellyache about the plight of the Palestinians, but none of these oil-glutted nations -- some of them with the world's richest rulers -- will actually do anything to take them in. Or look at the debacle of what they've done to forced-labour, migrant construction workers over the World Cup in Qatar. The regard for human life just isn't in them, it would seem. And that's on Islam. It's the common factor in all those horrid countries. Everywhere it appears, that ideology creates misery, oppression and death. Where, on the face of the planet, is the "happy Muslim country"?

The answer for them is to separate religion and governance, to give the Imams no more power than western church leaders. I can't see this happening, though. More likely there's going to be carnage and most victims are going to be those languishing unprotected under the primitive, incompetent and arbitrary governance of Sharia law.

This is the right idea, I think. Religion should not be united with politics. Unfortunately for that hope, Islam is not merely a religious entity, but insists on colonizing the political as well. Mohammed was not a gentle teacher of truth, but a bloodthirsty leader of crusades that swept over southern and eastern Europe, and that nearly destroyed civilization utterly. We can't expect that they'll give up that mandate -- or that example -- easily, I'm afraid. It's at the core of Islam.

But absolutely banning Sharia law is the first step. There should be zero tolerance for Sharia throughout the West. We should welcome those Muslims who want to practice in private, if they are content to come on those terms; but we should utterly and decisively ban Sharia. That would separate the civilized Muslims from the bad lot, and we'd be supporting just the right ones.

[Seleucus]

I said it's had periods of relative stability.

For example?

I suspect you have not even so much as watched a documentary on the History Channel or read a Wikipedia page on the history of Islamic civilization. Tell me, who is your favorite caliph and why?

I wouldn't know how 'radical' islam was in the 1700s. Could it even be called 'radical'? That's a modern concept. We can't judge them by today's standards.

Because?

I suspect you have not even so much as watched a documentary on the History Channel or read a Wikipedia page on the history of Islamic civilization. Tell me, who is your favorite caliph and why?

And why are you so keen for me to say something good about the US? If I wrote everything I don't like about it I would have to write a book. Actually that's not a bad idea. 'Why I Hate America'. It might be a bestseller.

I suggested that a psychological complex called cognitive distortion is making it impossible to grant that America or the West have amazing merits and much to offer the Islamic world. Due to "labeling", "all or nothing thinking", "black and white thinking", "discounting the positive" and so on, any ability to analyze objectively has be lost.

I'd like for you to agree that some of the accomplishments of America are pretty amazing, like the Panama Canal, the Measles Vaccine, and the lunar landing. That isn't to say as you have already pointed out that non-Americans weren't also involved in those accomplishments, or that America didn't also do things you feel upset about like spending vast amounts of money on "nuclear weapons".

[Seleucus]

The problem, though, is not the fear that Islam will become additionally corrupt -- relative to its own terms, as described in its books and by its teachers -- but that it would become more faithful to the Koran, the Haddiths, the traditions and the Caliphate. We can only wish, for the sake of Muslims and the rest of us alike, that Islam will continue to "corrupt" through its contact with "infidels." If it does not, we can expect a lot more violence, cruelty, repression and death. Because the whole call in the the body of its teachings is towards that.

Very well put. The trope that the problem with Islam is that Muslims are not following the true Islam is the most common answer I hear when I bring up the question of the decline of Islamic civilization to Muslims. As I say, my expectation is that due to the failure of the developing world to advance after the anticipated promise of freedom and prosperity at the end of the colonial period, and the depression and resentment that has invoked, while many Muslim people will modernize, very many, whole countries, while dig in and radicalize further. The massive failure to advance in the developing world assures this phenomena will involve millions if not a billion. More worrisome is that even when material well being and affluence improve, it does not necessarily stop radicalism as is evident in the Gulf.

But the answers are that they need to drop Islam. It's their commitment to impossible economics, repression of women and destructive and backward social practices, hatred of erudition, along with the unfair distribution of wealth that is killing them.

My view as I explained some way back is that thousands of years of imperialism and unfreedom have degraded the morale and will of the civilization. Civilizations tend to follow their civilizational trajectories. Even were Islam to be snatched away somehow, the civilization would, without enormous pressure, continue on similarly. This is part of the thesis of Welzel and Inglehart, Communism didn't change the civilizational trajectory of the cultures where it took root, it genrally could only take root in a certain spectrum of cultures, similarly, Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia differs greatly from Arab Islam. Granted, a civilization can endure only so much pressure, when an ideology like Islam or communism takeovers over and dominates for centuries, eventually that culture changes. In this sense, Islamic civilization is centuries from changing, even granted internment camps, reeducation, and the other extreme measures that have historically been applied against peoples.

They are, in many cases, resource rich. They control the world's oil supply, for example. They could easily provide for themselves if they wished to do so. But they don't.

Correct.

The regard for human life just isn't in them, it would seem. And that's on Islam. It's the common factor in all those horrid countries. Everywhere it appears, that ideology creates misery, oppression and death. Where, on the face of the planet, is the "happy Muslim country"?

Yes. Thousands of years of psychology accrued under totalitarian imperialisms is not easily shaken off.

The answer for them is to separate religion and governance, to give the Imams no more power than western church leaders. I can't see this happening, though. More likely there's going to be carnage and most victims are going to be those languishing unprotected under the primitive, incompetent and arbitrary governance of Sharia law.

This is the right idea, I think. Religion should not be united with politics. Unfortunately for that hope, Islam is not merely a religious entity, but insists on colonizing the political as well. Mohammed was not a gentle teacher of truth, but a bloodthirsty leader of crusades that swept over southern and eastern Europe, and that nearly destroyed civilization utterly. We can't expect that they'll give up that mandate -- or that example -- easily, I'm afraid. It's at the core of Islam.

I somewhat disagree here. Evola noted that as Buddhism replaced Hindusim, and the same can be said of the replacement of paganism by Christianity I believe, it left the power structures in place. A spiritual form of Islam separated from Islam already exists, Sufism/Tasawwuf,it has existed for a long time and has, like Buddhism and Christianity, left the power structure in place. My hope is more on repatriating refugees who acquire values, skills and money while in the West and return home and change their societies. I'm also open to the idea of using strong forms of nation building (internment camps, reeducation, transportation, execution, etc) in places militarily liberated such as Iraq, Afghanistan and parts of Syria to accomplish de-Islamification. Had Bush laid down American schools and universities, by now a whole generation of Iraqis and Afghans could have been educated by American teachers, that could have been a building block to a very different outcome than what has been.

But absolutely banning Sharia law is the first step. There should be zero tolerance for Sharia throughout the West. We should welcome those Muslims who want to practice in private, if they are content to come on those terms; but we should utterly and decisively ban Sharia. That would separate the civilized Muslims from the bad lot, and we'd be supporting just the right ones.

No doubt there will be a combination of rejection and reform. There will be those who will also show how Sharia is truly harmonious with democracy and how women's rights, gay rights, and religious tolerance and so on are long overlooked but essential element of Sharia law.

[Immanuel Can]

I must say that you strike me as an extremely reasonable and sane person.

No wonder the powers-in-charge don't want people like you there.

This is the right idea, I think. Religion should not be united with politics. Unfortunately for that hope, Islam is not merely a religious entity, but insists on colonizing the political as well. Mohammed was not a gentle teacher of truth, but a bloodthirsty leader of crusades that swept over southern and eastern Europe, and that nearly destroyed civilization utterly. We can't expect that they'll give up that mandate -- or that example -- easily, I'm afraid. It's at the core of Islam.

I somewhat disagree here. Evola noted that as Buddhism replaced Hindusim, and the same can be said of the replacement of paganism by Christianity I believe, it left the power structures in place.

This is true. But it's kind of a good thing that it's true, in certain cases. Without the reside of Natural Rights as articulated by the very Protestant rationale offered by John Locke, we'd have no basis of human rights left in the West. Even now, we have no secular legitimative grounds by which we articulate this residual commitment cogently to skeptics...we just trust that it will stay in place. And I really hope it does. But if "paganism" as you call it, or "secularism" as I would, ever becomes the whole story, human rights in the West will be just as dead as they are everywhere else.

My hope is more on repatriating refugees who acquire values, skills and money while in the West and return home and change their societies.

I suspect that hope will last about one generation. For if the first wave of "refugees" (i.e. economic migrants, largely) does not turn their affections homeward soon, it will probably never happen. The next generation will be born in France, Germany or Sweden, and will not be native to the original country from which their parents fled. "Home" for them will mean a different place. By the third generation, there will be only a little sentimental attachment to the original land, and it will all be over for that hope.

I have observed that this is how it goes. I live in a high-immigrant area.

I'm also open to the idea of using strong forms of nation building (internment camps, reeducation, transportation, execution, etc) in places militarily liberated such as Iraq, Afghanistan and parts of Syria to accomplish de-Islamification.

I'm not. That's a human rights disaster. But I do like your idea below...

Had Bush laid down American schools and universities, by now a whole generation of Iraqis and Afghans could have been educated by American teachers, that could have been a building block to a very different outcome than what has been.

One would wish so.

There will be those who will also show how Sharia is truly harmonious with democracy and how women's rights, gay rights, and religious tolerance and so on are long overlooked but essential element of Sharia law.

This I cannot see happening. I've read the Koran, and I can see where it leads. I've also observed that the Muslim immigrants become more civilized not by intensifying their commitments to Islam, but by loosening them, by drifting away from the mosque and adopting a more Western lifestyle.

I think we will look in vain for sufficient Islamic resources to counteract Sharia and to establish tolerance. "Submission" -- force, and even by sword if necessary -- is the consummate Islamic value. I can't see them ever backing off that without essentially dropping Islam altogether...if not in name, in fact.

[Greatest I am]

I think everyone is quite aware of Islam's treatment of women so there's no need for me to preach about it.

Nothing quite like not doing unto others.

For evil to grow, all good people need do in this instance is not preach against it.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The American majority status quo is as you say,

They will tend to be opposites, a dual citizenship American right wing voter will be a leftist in Indonesia, and an Indonesian rightist with dual citizenship will vote for the American left. I understand that to be the case because they each ally with the hierarchy attenuating forces in a country on the other side of the civilizational divide from one in which they are the socially dominant in.

Confusing this.

You have liberals becoming conservatives and conservative becoming liberal.

I have seen some who confuse left and right wing but if as you say, they are really confused.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Sure. If there is a crisis in your body, then that a crisis for the whole of you. Islam has problems and, like people with problems, that makes problems for others.

The problem, though, is not the fear that Islam will become additionally corrupt -- relative to its own terms, as described in its books and by its teachers -- but that it would become more faithful to the Koran, the Haddiths, the traditions and the Caliphate. We can only wish, for the sake of Muslims and the rest of us alike, that Islam will continue to "corrupt" through its contact with "infidels." If it does not, we can expect a lot more violence, cruelty, repression and death. Because the whole call in the the body of its teachings is towards that.

I don't see much in the way of answers, though. Whatever, it doesn't strike me that Muslims are doing well. For many Muslims, their living conditions have become steadily worse, often catastrophically so. The evidence is in: regressive religious caliphates do not bring prosperity.

This is true. But the answers are that they need to drop Islam. It's their commitment to impossible economics, repression of women and destructive and backward social practices, hatred of erudition, along with the unfair distribution of wealth that is killing them.

Islamic nations have a bleak future, exacerbated by the effects of more extreme weather events and dwindling food production capacity.

They are, in many cases, resource rich. They control the world's oil supply, for example. They could easily provide for themselves if they wished to do so. But they don't.

Never mind that they oppress over half their population (women) and go largely unchallenged for so doing. Never mind that they hang homosexuals from cranes in the public square. Instead, just look at what they've done to the Palestinians. All the Arab countries cry and bellyache about the plight of the Palestinians, but none of these oil-glutted nations -- some of them with the world's richest rulers -- will actually do anything to take them in. Or look at the debacle of what they've done to forced-labour, migrant construction workers over the World Cup in Qatar. The regard for human life just isn't in them, it would seem. And that's on Islam. It's the common factor in all those horrid countries. Everywhere it appears, that ideology creates misery, oppression and death. Where, on the face of the planet, is the "happy Muslim country"?

The answer for them is to separate religion and governance, to give the Imams no more power than western church leaders. I can't see this happening, though. More likely there's going to be carnage and most victims are going to be those languishing unprotected under the primitive, incompetent and arbitrary governance of Sharia law.

This is the right idea, I think. Religion should not be united with politics. Unfortunately for that hope, Islam is not merely a religious entity, but insists on colonizing the political as well. Mohammed was not a gentle teacher of truth, but a bloodthirsty leader of crusades that swept over southern and eastern Europe, and that nearly destroyed civilization utterly. We can't expect that they'll give up that mandate -- or that example -- easily, I'm afraid. It's at the core of Islam.

But absolutely banning Sharia law is the first step. There should be zero tolerance for Sharia throughout the West. We should welcome those Muslims who want to practice in private, if they are content to come on those terms; but we should utterly and decisively ban Sharia. That would separate the civilized Muslims from the bad lot, and we'd be supporting just the right ones.

+ 1.

Regards
DL

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I said it's had periods of relative stability.

For example?

I suspect you have not even so much as watched a documentary on the History Channel or read a Wikipedia page on the history of Islamic civilization. Tell me, who is your favorite caliph and why?

I wouldn't know how 'radical' islam was in the 1700s. Could it even be called 'radical'? That's a modern concept. We can't judge them by today's standards.

Because?

I suspect you have not even so much as watched a documentary on the History Channel or read a Wikipedia page on the history of Islamic civilization. Tell me, who is your favorite caliph and why?

And why are you so keen for me to say something good about the US? If I wrote everything I don't like about it I would have to write a book. Actually that's not a bad idea. 'Why I Hate America'. It might be a bestseller.

I suggested that a psychological complex called cognitive distortion is making it impossible to grant that America or the West have amazing merits and much to offer the Islamic world. Due to "labeling", "all or nothing thinking", "black and white thinking", "discounting the positive" and so on, any ability to analyze objectively has be lost.

I'd like for you to agree that some of the accomplishments of America are pretty amazing, like the Panama Canal, the Measles Vaccine, and the lunar landing. That isn't to say as you have already pointed out that non-Americans weren't also involved in those accomplishments, or that America didn't also do things you feel upset about like spending vast amounts of money on "nuclear weapons".

If the 'islamic world' doesn't want these 'amazing merits' that the US has to 'offer' then that's its business. Why are you picking out the US? I think that Beethoven's symphonies were an amazing accomplishment. The pyramids of Egypt were an amazing accomplishment. The antikithera machine. Westminster Abbey. Notre Dame cathedral. Bach's 'Well-tempered Clavier'. Darwin's discoveries. Einstein's theory of relativity. Newton's 'Principia'. Shakespeare's works. Civilisation itself (which began, incidentally, in the ME and the US is blowing all of it up. What a hero). Ok. Here's one for you. The Empire State Building. In my opinion the most beautiful iconic building in the world--from a time before the US lost its taste and any hint of finesse or subtlety. Then they had to go and wreck their skyline with the architecturally 'nothing' Twin Towers. Michaelangelo's 'David'. Safe childbirth. Antibiotics. Anaesthesia........................
You must have heard of this man. Ousted by the CIA because of his stance on OIL (I mean, how dare Iranians want control of their own oil) and replaced by the US puppet Shah of Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

[Greta]

Sure. If there is a crisis in your body, then that a crisis for the whole of you. Islam has problems and, like people with problems, that makes problems for others.

The problem, though, is not the fear that Islam will become additionally corrupt -- relative to its own terms, as described in its books and by its teachers -- but that it would become more faithful to the Koran, the Haddiths, the traditions and the Caliphate.

As with the Bible, there are numerous passages about peace, love, kindness and other desirable qualities along with those that promote ideas and primitive mindsets. The former is laudable and the latter understandable as those tomes were written by relatively primitive people.

However, literal interpretation of metaphorical prose and primitive mindsets results in adherents being pulled away from reality into abstracted and fantastical frames of mind. These nations are being hugely out-competed as a result. Due to increased resource squeezes this is a critical time when nations are either setting themselves up for a transformed world or they are distracted by mythology and internal divisions.

I don't see much in the way of answers, though. Whatever, it doesn't strike me that Muslims are doing well. For many Muslims, their living conditions have become steadily worse, often catastrophically so. The evidence is in: regressive religious caliphates do not bring prosperity.

This is true. But the answers are that they need to drop Islam. It's their commitment to impossible economics, repression of women and destructive and backward social practices, hatred of erudition, along with the unfair distribution of wealth that is killing them.

They need to drop extremism and, rather than laud fundamentalists as being especially devoted [sic] they should be seen through as stupid people making a naked opportunistic power grab. The opportunity came because those much smarter than they are became complacent and too unprepared to deal with stupid unreasonableness. Whatever its other qualities, religion can, and does, provide a relatively easy path to power for those without the talent to make it in the real world'.

What needs to be dropped is the dream of human equality and that 'all men should be treated as equals'. No, they should not, because it gives inordinate power to those who would squander it through obliviousness and stubbornly insecure emotionalism. We cannot consider all humans to be the same any more. They are not. I would test people before allowing them to vote. If they don't understand what they are voting for them they have no business voting as they would be just as likely to vote against their own interests as for them.

Humans have become so dominant over the animals that they have forgotten why it's better to be human than another species - the capacity to understand and respond to reason. There has been a global rebellion against reason, which is interesting - the notion that we have become unreasonably reasonable. It seems that the left has adhered too tightly to dogmas that developed over generations of applied reason, becoming now only ostensibly reasonable.

Islamic nations have a bleak future, exacerbated by the effects of more extreme weather events and dwindling food production capacity.

They are, in many cases, resource rich. They control the world's oil supply, for example. They could easily provide for themselves if they wished to do so. But they don't.

Never mind that they oppress over half their population (women) and go largely unchallenged for so doing. Never mind that they hang homosexuals from cranes in the public square. Instead, just look at what they've done to the Palestinians. All the Arab countries cry and bellyache about the plight of the Palestinians, but none of these oil-glutted nations -- some of them with the world's richest rulers -- will actually do anything to take them in. Or look at the debacle of what they've done to forced-labour, migrant construction workers over the World Cup in Qatar. The regard for human life just isn't in them, it would seem. And that's on Islam. It's the common factor in all those horrid countries. Everywhere it appears, that ideology creates misery, oppression and death. Where, on the face of the planet, is the "happy Muslim country"?

Agreed. I think, though, that poor living conditions have been at the root of fundamentalist Islam's rise.

I think it goes like this: miserable people hope that there is "a better life out there somewhere". Along come various religions promising something better. If you are living in painful, squalid conditions, a dying baby hopelessly trying to draw milk from your dried breast, why not retreat into a magical mental world? Starving and sick people are ripe for control. All they need is a little help, and for the helpers to blame someone for their misery and provide a good story - as is provided by Imams.

Their problem is the same as Africa's - primitively corrupt leadership. The kind of leadership the west endured over a century ago, with women disempowered and young children working in perilous coal mines. That's why people worry about Trump - his autocratic style and obvious self-interest moves, eg. immediately approving his own pipeline investment, skirting conflict of interest rules with a lame trust arrangement with his offspring. It would better to have a government that acted ever less like the corrupt shysters who are "leading" (aka leeching on) most developing nations and stymieing the countries' progress.

The answer for them is to separate religion and governance, to give the Imams no more power than western church leaders. I can't see this happening, though. More likely there's going to be carnage and most victims are going to be those languishing unprotected under the primitive, incompetent and arbitrary governance of Sharia law.

This is the right idea, I think. Religion should not be united with politics. Unfortunately for that hope, Islam is not merely a religious entity, but insists on colonizing the political as well. Mohammed was not a gentle teacher of truth, but a bloodthirsty leader of crusades that swept over southern and eastern Europe, and that nearly destroyed civilization utterly. We can't expect that they'll give up that mandate -- or that example -- easily, I'm afraid. It's at the core of Islam.

But absolutely banning Sharia law is the first step. There should be zero tolerance for Sharia throughout the West. We should welcome those Muslims who want to practice in private, if they are content to come on those terms; but we should utterly and decisively ban Sharia. That would separate the civilized Muslims from the bad lot, and we'd be supporting just the right ones.

I agree, but it would be terribly hard to enforce as local Muslims closed ranks. Then the invasiveness needed to flush out secret Sharia Law leaders would result in civil unrest and guaranteed significant rise in terrorist acts. It would seem better to stop importing Muslims, except that the US, UK, Australia and Spain (the Coalition of the Silly) have a moral obligation to take in refugees after their disastrous invasion of Iraq.

However, as you noted, neighbouring wealthy Muslim nations do nothing to help so in general "doing the right thing" does not seem to apply in international politics any more and, increasingly, I think refugees will find it impossible to find new homes. Then again, large enough mobs of sufficiently desperate people could conceivably take over entire towns. Interesting times ahead.

[Greta]

I said it's had periods of relative stability.

For example?

The golden age of Islam was around the thirteenth century, with flourishing commerce and trade, sciences, arts, medicine and architecture. They were of course also brutal and harsh at times, as was seemingly everyone else at that time.

Then again, anecdotally, when I was a young, all I knew of the Middle East was the romance of the Arabian Nights and the people's famous generosity and hospitality towards visitors. It seems the whole thing blew up because of resentment over the establishment of Israel.

Most times in life, when one is harmed by another, there comes a time when it's better for you to cut your losses and move on rather than seek retribution or justice. The Muslims don't seem to have that circuit breaker, being more willing to destroy themselves than give in. They think that a mad dog approach will scare others into leaving them alone but such an approach can ultimately only ever end with their own destruction. In short, martyrdom is not a good survival strategy

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I said it's had periods of relative stability.

For example?

The golden age of Islam was around the thirteenth century, with flourishing commerce and trade, sciences, arts, medicine and architecture. They were of course also brutal and harsh at times, as was seemingly everyone else at that time.

Then again, anecdotally, when I was a young, all I knew of the Middle East was the romance of the Arabian Nights and the people's famous generosity and hospitality towards visitors. It seems the whole thing blew up because of resentment over the establishment of Israel.

Most times in life, when one is harmed by another, there comes a time when it's better for you to cut your losses and move on rather than seek retribution or justice. The Muslims don't seem to have that circuit breaker, being more willing to destroy themselves than give in. They think that a mad dog approach will scare others into leaving them alone but such an approach can ultimately only ever end with their own destruction. In short, martyrdom is not a good survival strategy

What do you mean 'give in'? They've had their countries destroyed for what? They didn't blow up their own countries. And it wasn't because of Israel. In recent history it has always been about oil.

[Seleucus]

My hope is more on repatriating refugees who acquire values, skills and money while in the West and return home and change their societies.

I suspect that hope will last about one generation. For if the first wave of "refugees" (i.e. economic migrants, largely) does not turn their affections homeward soon, it will probably never happen. The next generation will be born in France, Germany or Sweden, and will not be native to the original country from which their parents fled. "Home" for them will mean a different place. By the third generation, there will be only a little sentimental attachment to the original land, and it will all be over for that hope.

I have observed that this is how it goes. I live in a high-immigrant area.

I think it is important to propagate the idea that refugees want to return home. Based on surveys I have read, it is also true that most refugees desire to return to their home countries, even those born abroad. The Jews are an amazing example. Another good example is the return of slaves from the Americas to Liberia after abolition. They truly transformed their country on returning too, unfortunately they began to dabble in communism and lost the support of the US and Britain, resulting in the collapse of their state. I can't imagine anyone else but repatriating refugees being willing to invest the blood, sweat and tears necessary to build their homelands.

I'm also open to the idea of using strong forms of nation building (internment camps, reeducation, transportation, execution, etc) in places militarily liberated such as Iraq, Afghanistan and parts of Syria to accomplish de-Islamification.

I'm not. That's a human rights disaster.

Internment camp systems have been extremely successful in achieving nation building. South Africa, Malaysia, and Kenya for example. I'm not saying it isn't a brutal method, but it is arguably less costly of life than than the current policy which seeks to avoid involvement with the population.

One of the important lessons we should take away from the Obama period is that after the Arab Spring, overthrowing dictatorships didn't result in popular support for freedom and democracy, the majority supported Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists. The default position of the psychology of the masses was Islamist, some active intervention is required to change that inertia.

Had Bush laid down American schools and universities, by now a whole generation of Iraqis and Afghans could have been educated by American teachers, that could have been a building block to a very different outcome than what has been.

One would wish so.

Depending on the level of resistance encountered (Boko Haram of course means against Western education), the education policy might practically be a residential schools system as in Canada or Australia and therefore the sort of strong form of nation building discussed above. The policy was used successfully in the Philippines where 10,000 teachers were imported after the Philippine–American War. I'm of the opinion that low cost schools and universities taught and directed by Americans would probably attract considerable enrollment. Americans will need to be prepared for the violence and kidnapping of teachers and professors that has already been happening. It's easy to forget that teachers are prime targets for murder and kidnapping in every country where there is political instability. It is reported 600 teachers in Nigeria have been killed by Boko Haram and 19,000 forced to flee.

There will be those who will also show how Sharia is truly harmonious with democracy and how women's rights, gay rights, and religious tolerance and so on are long overlooked but essential element of Sharia law.

This I cannot see happening. I've read the Koran, and I can see where it leads. I've also observed that the Muslim immigrants become more civilized not by intensifying their commitments to Islam, but by loosening them, by drifting away from the mosque and adopting a more Western lifestyle.

I think we will look in vain for sufficient Islamic resources to counteract Sharia and to establish tolerance. "Submission" -- force, and even by sword if necessary -- is the consummate Islamic value. I can't see them ever backing off that without essentially dropping Islam altogether...if not in name, in fact.

Already we see mosques with women doing the call to prayer, for example a case in Denmark. Overall I agree that hundreds of millions of Muslims in the 21st Century are likely not going to reform and the civilization will largely continue with the inertia of thousands of yeas behind it.