8 ms·

> Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out o

> Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't. What sets the Arabs apart is their vast oil riches. Without that, they wouldn't have the money or power to do anything to the West. If you want to fight militant Islam, the first thing to do is to limit immigration from those countries and spread the immigrants out to force assimilation. The second thing to do is to invest as much money as possible into developing domestic energy sources, as well as alternatives to crude oil. The minute that crude oil loses its relevance to the Western world, the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power.

killwhitey 14y ago
This would be a good strategy to stop state sponsored attacks, but what about the rest? What about the World Trade Center attacks? The 2002 Bali bombings? The 2005 London bombings?
- tsotha 14y ago
  The WTC attacks were committed by people who were in the country legally, either at the time or they had overstayed a visa. Those attacks would not have happened if the individuals involved weren't granted visas.
  - mansoor-s 14y ago
    Are you telling me I should not be allowed in the USA of which I am a law abiding citizen because of my ethnicity? Its okay, be strait with me. You won't hurt my feelings.
    - mcantelon 14y ago
      Perhaps the user is referring to the allegations that US intelligence agencies, using the State Department as a proxy, let people into the US who otherwise would have been denied. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SPR302A.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SPR302A.html
    - tsotha 14y ago
      The US is under no obligation to accept immigrants from anywhere. We're under no obligation to be "fair". And yes, I'm telling you we should be keeping a list of countries with significant anti-US terrorist movements and not allowing immigration from those countries. If you're from KSA or Yemen or Pakistan I would not have allowed you to immigrate.
chad_oliver 14y ago
It's been 1300 years since Arabs were "a bunch of desert nomads with no real power".
justsee 14y ago
Replace 'Western' and 'Arabs' with Superpower X and Subjugated peoples Y and it's immediately clear how defective your root cause analysis is. It's an intentionally defective 'root cause analysis' from the perspective of Superpower X, where all wars waged by X on Y have no part in discussion of cause and effect. The rules seem to be: 1. Y is always irrational, savage, subhuman. 2. X is always civilised, noble, well-meaning. 3. Aggression by X is always unfortunately necessary for some greater geopolitical good. 4. Aggression by Y must always be explained in terms of 1., and never as a result of 3.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  I'm not looking at this from an impartial point of view, I'm looking at this as an American citizen who greatly enjoys the benefits of having been born in a developed nation with global hegemony. I have no illusions about the various immoral and unethical acts committed by the US government over the last 50-75 (and probably more) years in various 3rd world countries in the name of American interests, nor do I think they are defensible from a moral/ethical perspective. I'm merely stating the simplest and most effective method of ensuring that the US's global hegemony remains as it is now.
  - olalonde 14y ago
    I would use some more empathy and adopt a bit more diplomatic attitude if I were you. There will be suicide bombers well after Arabs go back to being desert nomads. It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      > It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up. 9/11 was estimated to have required ~$400-500k. And I'd say it'd be quite a bit more expensive to repeat that feat these days.
      - natep 14y ago
        More than a few people have blown themselves up since 9/11.
mcantelon 14y ago
>The second thing to do is to invest as much money as possible into developing domestic energy sources, as well as alternatives to crude oil Folks in the West with stakes in maintaining the monopoly on oil as an energy source have a lot of power. They won't give up without a fight. The same Neocons that make a big show of decrying Islam to their base also chum around with Saudi Arabia, sucking up the royals. >Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power Here's a nice summary of arab contributions to mathematics. http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/arab/arab.html http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/arab/arab.html
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > Folks in the West with stakes in maintaining the monopoly on oil as an energy source have a lot of power. There are certainly people at home who have just as much of a vested interest in preserving the status quo, which is precisely why things haven't changed much at all despite the rise of militant Islam. It's upstarts like Elon Musk that are going to force the hand of Big Oil on this matter. But it will be a long & hard battle, one that may not be won for quite a while. > Here's a nice summary of arab contributions to mathematics. I don't see how mathematical contributions hundreds of years ago have any relevance to the modern world. We're talking about a time when the US as a country didn't even exist.
  - mcantelon 14y ago
    >There are certainly people at home who have just as much of a vested interest in preserving the status quo, which is precisely why things haven't changed much at all despite the rise of militant Islam. It's upstarts like Elon Musk that are going to force the hand of Big Oil on this matter. But it will be a long & hard battle, one that may not be won for quite a while. I'm guessing/hoping that Big Oil will be killed by grassroots innovation, open hardware designs that don't have companies behind them that can be bought out and their patented tech buried. If it's simply a matter of spending money or killing a few people to keep the gravy train going, they'll do it. >I don't see how mathematical contributions hundreds of years ago have any relevance to the modern world. We're talking about a time when the US as a country didn't even exist. True.
nodemaker 14y ago
Wow this is a surprisingly hateful and ignorant comment for Hacker News and its not even getting downvoted.
- intended 14y ago
  Well technically it should be getting downvoted for being wrong. Here he is stating that he is taking an extremely America centric stance, and focused on the shortest path solution. Its the obvious answer most people come up with, and its dissection and discovery of weak spots is valuable for those who would usually come up with a similar shortest path answer. At the same time, he has accepted that he doesn't hold the moral high ground. That should be repeated very clearly - this is a solution which doesn't hold to any high moral values. So its NOT a good answer - anyone who wants to eschew morality and discuss pragmatism as the greater morality will do well to see its edge and failure cases. His words should be heard because we can learn from others discussing it. The essence of free speech.
  - nodemaker 14y ago
    Of course his right to say hateful things must be protected. But as a member of a community that values insightful comments, I feel obliged to point out that his opinion is based mostly on his personal hate and ignorance. Asking for a limit on immigration from islamic countries to or developing alternative energy sources still is pretty objective to me. But adding the " the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" makes it obvious where he is coming from.
    - intended 14y ago
      Your missing the point here. Look at the thread, the responses and the clarifications. The least useful answers in terms of education value are the ones which focus on whether he was or isn't a bad person for saying it. As I also point out, your concerns are handled when he gives up the moral ground. you don't have to follow something you know is wrong.
- mylittlepony 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
potatolicious 14y ago
> "If you want to fight militant Islam, the first thing to do is to limit immigration from those countries and spread the immigrants out to force assimilation." It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that it really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a lot of baby for very little bath water. I'm not sure if your comment is meant to be hand-waving theorizing-out-loud or if you're actually serious - if you're serious, I'd hold your post up as one of the reasons why people despise America so much. You paint with a broad brush, advocate irrational fear-based decision making not supported by your own numbers, and demonstrate a tremendous amount of racial and cultural ignorance (desert nomads? seriously?) [edit] I've noticed that all of the posts here pointing out the racism in w1ntermute's post are getting downvoted. Normally I don't point out downvotes, but this in particular seems especially cowardly. Would the responsible party please get out from under that rock and explain why you feel the need to, without justification, silence everyone who has expressed this?
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. There's a big difference in that those white people are already in America, and getting rid of them would be impossible. Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward, not getting rid of people who are already here. > The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that it really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a lot of baby for very little bath water. To be honest, this whole Muslim immigration issue is more applicable to Europe than it is to America. America has (fortunately) maintained much stricter immigration policies than much of Europe, and the latter has consequently suffered from large swathes of Arab/Muslim immigrants failing to properly integrate into mainstream society. I'd say America has done quite well in comparison when it comes to assimilating Arab immigrants (although it has failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic and African Americans).
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    > "(although it has failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic and African Americans)." I wouldn't exactly describe African Americans as immigrants per se... It seems to imply a level of volunteerism that simply wasn't there. Anyways, that's a nitpick. > "Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward, not getting rid of people who are already here." Right, but how do you know there aren't any bad apples in the people who are already here? Also bear in mind that of all Muslim terrorists who have committed an act of terrorism on American soil, many were visitors to the US, not immigrants. Do you believe we should also restrict Muslim visitation of the USA? How many more extremists do you think we will create within the existing Muslim population if we essentially had a big "Muslims go home" sign at every border checkpoint? What would it to do in terms of our desire to assimilate these immigrants? Your idea is fun to think about, but IMO it's not realistic. There are too many moving pieces for "no more Muslims in the US" to be a realistic policy choice. Not to mention the costs would be rather high. Go to any of the top US schools and look at both the grad student and professor rosters, count the people of Middle Eastern decent or of Muslim faith. These are all huge wins for American society - both in talent addition and talent denial to rival regimes. Do you really want all of these people to, say, go work for the Chinese? Or Iran? US hegemony is ensured in large (and put large in big screaming rainbow marquee letters) part by talent acquisition. We took much of Europe's best scientific talent after WW2, and we continued mopping up all the smartest and most talented people from all over the globe - Japan, China, India, the whole Eastern Bloc, and beyond. The US's lead over everyone else is economic and technological - leaving a whole swathe of educated immigrants on the table seems to go very firmly against this model. Slamming the door shut on immigration would be like starving yourself so you don't have to poop - it would work, but why?
paganel 14y ago
> The minute that crude oil loses its relevance to the Western world, the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power. Just as a general rule of thumb: not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs.
JonnieCache 14y ago
The minute that crude oil loses its relevance to the Western world, the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power. You forgot the thousand years when they were inventing mathematics while your ancestors were living in mud huts covered in their own shit. Europe wasn't even capable of syllogism until they stole the knowledge back from the arabs.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  Why respect them for something they did a thousand years ago and then ceased to?
  - Ygg2 14y ago
    Because it never ceased. If you ever used an algorithm or algebra you owe it to "those nomadic" Arabs.
    - guard-of-terra 14y ago
      How long do you think Gagarin will last?
      - Ygg2 14y ago
        I hope longer than this fad with Christ lasts.
      - Evbn 14y ago
        Yuri?
        guard-of-terra 14y ago
        Yes.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
marshallp 14y ago
You would like to limit immigration. What would companies like google like look after that? Would you advocate sending the head of youtube back to Iran? What about much of Detroit or New York? You're conflating some poverty-stricken residents of impoverished parts of the world riled up by political rhetoric with a credible enemy (like a cold war style superpower). You're arguments make as much sense as labeling all white people everywhere as Nazis because Hitler was a white guy. Go to Liberia or the Congo or India. You'll see that people aren't civilized, they will eat each other if out of ritual. That was the case everywhere over a 100 years ago. You miss that it's not some kind of inherent badness, they are simply living in a different time, like 1800s europe for example. If children commit crimes they are not convicted in the same manner as adults, that's the correct analogy to take. As civilized people and members of the global species that is humanity, it's a responsibility to take care of the weak. The problems you've outlined are (global) law enforcement problems. And they are disappearing, as time passes everyone on earth will become modern. Watch some Steven Pinker and see how today is the most peaceful time in human history. Watch Carl Sagan's blue dot and realize it's not Us vs Them. That's the thinking of pre-space age man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo (Charlie Chaplin)
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > You would like to limit immigration. What would companies like google like look after that? Would you advocate sending the head of youtube back to Iran? What about much of Detroit or New York? I'm not talking about educated people, and like I said above, this issue is not particularly applicable to America, it's more relevant to Europe. In Europe, there is a serious issue with Muslim immigrants not integrating into mainstream society, and this is because many European nations accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants in an indiscriminate fashion.
  - marshallp 14y ago
    You've completely missed the point. There are not Us vs Them. There are simply people. If you would like to label people as uneducated or muslims or whatever else, then you have engaged in that fallacy that pre-space age humankind engaged. You should really watch that link I gave as well as the Pale Blue Dot and let it really sink in.
dmorgan 14y ago
>This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't. Put this way, it's even more stupid. It's as if people go about "hating the west" for no reason (or because their "religion tells them so", which is a Glenn Beck level argument). A thing called colonialism did exist. Some hundred million people were killed in invasions and wars and while fighting for their freedom, and some 2 billion people were living under foreign occupation. And then you had a thing called post-colonialism, that does exist. With hundreds of interventions and resource-grubbing all over the world. With so called "banana republics" set up. And with countries thousands of miles away of some areas, have the audacity to believe they have "strategic interests" in those areas, and that it gives them the right to intervene, get their resources for cheap, place puppet governments, etc. You know, like some country in the American continent controlling Philippines or killing people in Vietnam. What sets the Arabs apart is their vast oil riches. Without that, they wouldn't have the money or power to do anything to the West. Arabs, as in "arab states" could not care less about "doing anything to the west". What sets those people apart is indeed their vast oil riches, that had provoked unprecedented resource-grubbing, puppet government establishment and invasions western powers. Does anyone imagine what a foreign power invading the US would mean to the US people, and under some BS pretext at that? But invading Iraq under the BS pretext of WMDs, wrecking the country in the process, killing hundreds of thousands, taking control of the oil and leaving them in a state of civil war by playing into the competing tribal and religious interests, is somehow "normal", because they are "arabs". So, the people there have a lot of reasons to "blame the west". It's not like they have any spectacular resources, either. WWII era guns and ammo, and cheaply made stuff, while the "west" kills them with drones and 21st century military technology. >The minute that crude oil loses its relevance to the Western world, the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power. Actually they had a huge empire, including parts of Europe, even before the crude oil gained relevance. The west managed to turn them to "a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" precisely when it wanted to get ahold of cheap labour and later the crude oil.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > A thing called colonialism did exist.... All that is true, but it doesn't change what America needs to do now to ensure it remains in control in the most efficient manner. Moreover, with domestic and renewable sources of energy, we wouldn't need to get involved in the Middle East, so they would benefit too. > The west managed to turn them to "a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" precisely when it wanted to get ahold of cheap labour and later the crude oil. Great civilizations rise and fill. Regardless of how they got there, that's where they'll be when the US leaves. My point is that their ability to attack the US will be neutralized the minute their cash flow stops.
ucee054 14y ago
The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. The root cause would be the West arming and training militant Islam. Back in the day, there was the Caliphate, which was the government of Turkey and Egypt, and the Salafis, Wahhabis and Saudis, who were the militants. The Caliphate sent a huge army to wipe out the extremists and chase the survivors into the desert. Later, the West thought it would be clever to bring the extremists back to take over Pakistan (google for "Deobandi") and Arabia (which is why it is called Saudi Arabia now). Then, they thought it would be really clever to give them Stinger missiles to piss off the Russians (see "Rambo 3"). Saudis + help from Ronald Reagan = AlQaeda. The West are still arming the extremists (google for "Jundullah"). They think it's a really clever way to piss off the governments in Syria and Iran. Apparently nothing has been learned from 911.

killwhitey 14y ago

This would be a good strategy to stop state sponsored attacks, but what about the rest? What about the World Trade Center attacks? The 2002 Bali bombings? The 2005 London bombings?

tsotha 14y ago
The WTC attacks were committed by people who were in the country legally, either at the time or they had overstayed a visa. Those attacks would not have happened if the individuals involved weren't granted visas.
- mansoor-s 14y ago
  Are you telling me I should not be allowed in the USA of which I am a law abiding citizen because of my ethnicity? Its okay, be strait with me. You won't hurt my feelings.
  - mcantelon 14y ago
    Perhaps the user is referring to the allegations that US intelligence agencies, using the State Department as a proxy, let people into the US who otherwise would have been denied. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SPR302A.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SPR302A.html
  - tsotha 14y ago
    The US is under no obligation to accept immigrants from anywhere. We're under no obligation to be "fair". And yes, I'm telling you we should be keeping a list of countries with significant anti-US terrorist movements and not allowing immigration from those countries. If you're from KSA or Yemen or Pakistan I would not have allowed you to immigrate.

chad_oliver 14y ago

It's been 1300 years since Arabs were "a bunch of desert nomads with no real power".

justsee 14y ago

Replace 'Western' and 'Arabs' with Superpower X and Subjugated peoples Y and it's immediately clear how defective your root cause analysis is. It's an intentionally defective 'root cause analysis' from the perspective of Superpower X, where all wars waged by X on Y have no part in discussion of cause and effect. The rules seem to be: 1. Y is always irrational, savage, subhuman. 2. X is always civilised, noble, well-meaning. 3. Aggression by X is always unfortunately necessary for some greater geopolitical good. 4. Aggression by Y must always be explained in terms of 1., and never as a result of 3.

w1ntermute 14y ago
I'm not looking at this from an impartial point of view, I'm looking at this as an American citizen who greatly enjoys the benefits of having been born in a developed nation with global hegemony. I have no illusions about the various immoral and unethical acts committed by the US government over the last 50-75 (and probably more) years in various 3rd world countries in the name of American interests, nor do I think they are defensible from a moral/ethical perspective. I'm merely stating the simplest and most effective method of ensuring that the US's global hegemony remains as it is now.
- olalonde 14y ago
  I would use some more empathy and adopt a bit more diplomatic attitude if I were you. There will be suicide bombers well after Arabs go back to being desert nomads. It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    > It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up. 9/11 was estimated to have required ~$400-500k. And I'd say it'd be quite a bit more expensive to repeat that feat these days.
    - natep 14y ago
      More than a few people have blown themselves up since 9/11.

mcantelon 14y ago

>The second thing to do is to invest as much money as possible into developing domestic energy sources, as well as alternatives to crude oil Folks in the West with stakes in maintaining the monopoly on oil as an energy source have a lot of power. They won't give up without a fight. The same Neocons that make a big show of decrying Islam to their base also chum around with Saudi Arabia, sucking up the royals. >Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power Here's a nice summary of arab contributions to mathematics. http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/arab/arab.html http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/arab/arab.html

w1ntermute 14y ago
> Folks in the West with stakes in maintaining the monopoly on oil as an energy source have a lot of power. There are certainly people at home who have just as much of a vested interest in preserving the status quo, which is precisely why things haven't changed much at all despite the rise of militant Islam. It's upstarts like Elon Musk that are going to force the hand of Big Oil on this matter. But it will be a long & hard battle, one that may not be won for quite a while. > Here's a nice summary of arab contributions to mathematics. I don't see how mathematical contributions hundreds of years ago have any relevance to the modern world. We're talking about a time when the US as a country didn't even exist.
- mcantelon 14y ago
  >There are certainly people at home who have just as much of a vested interest in preserving the status quo, which is precisely why things haven't changed much at all despite the rise of militant Islam. It's upstarts like Elon Musk that are going to force the hand of Big Oil on this matter. But it will be a long & hard battle, one that may not be won for quite a while. I'm guessing/hoping that Big Oil will be killed by grassroots innovation, open hardware designs that don't have companies behind them that can be bought out and their patented tech buried. If it's simply a matter of spending money or killing a few people to keep the gravy train going, they'll do it. >I don't see how mathematical contributions hundreds of years ago have any relevance to the modern world. We're talking about a time when the US as a country didn't even exist. True.

nodemaker 14y ago

Wow this is a surprisingly hateful and ignorant comment for Hacker News and its not even getting downvoted.

intended 14y ago
Well technically it should be getting downvoted for being wrong. Here he is stating that he is taking an extremely America centric stance, and focused on the shortest path solution. Its the obvious answer most people come up with, and its dissection and discovery of weak spots is valuable for those who would usually come up with a similar shortest path answer. At the same time, he has accepted that he doesn't hold the moral high ground. That should be repeated very clearly - this is a solution which doesn't hold to any high moral values. So its NOT a good answer - anyone who wants to eschew morality and discuss pragmatism as the greater morality will do well to see its edge and failure cases. His words should be heard because we can learn from others discussing it. The essence of free speech.
- nodemaker 14y ago
  Of course his right to say hateful things must be protected. But as a member of a community that values insightful comments, I feel obliged to point out that his opinion is based mostly on his personal hate and ignorance. Asking for a limit on immigration from islamic countries to or developing alternative energy sources still is pretty objective to me. But adding the " the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" makes it obvious where he is coming from.
  - intended 14y ago
    Your missing the point here. Look at the thread, the responses and the clarifications. The least useful answers in terms of education value are the ones which focus on whether he was or isn't a bad person for saying it. As I also point out, your concerns are handled when he gives up the moral ground. you don't have to follow something you know is wrong.
mylittlepony 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

potatolicious 14y ago

> "If you want to fight militant Islam, the first thing to do is to limit immigration from those countries and spread the immigrants out to force assimilation." It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that it really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a lot of baby for very little bath water. I'm not sure if your comment is meant to be hand-waving theorizing-out-loud or if you're actually serious - if you're serious, I'd hold your post up as one of the reasons why people despise America so much. You paint with a broad brush, advocate irrational fear-based decision making not supported by your own numbers, and demonstrate a tremendous amount of racial and cultural ignorance (desert nomads? seriously?) [edit] I've noticed that all of the posts here pointing out the racism in w1ntermute's post are getting downvoted. Normally I don't point out downvotes, but this in particular seems especially cowardly. Would the responsible party please get out from under that rock and explain why you feel the need to, without justification, silence everyone who has expressed this?

w1ntermute 14y ago
> It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. There's a big difference in that those white people are already in America, and getting rid of them would be impossible. Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward, not getting rid of people who are already here. > The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that it really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a lot of baby for very little bath water. To be honest, this whole Muslim immigration issue is more applicable to Europe than it is to America. America has (fortunately) maintained much stricter immigration policies than much of Europe, and the latter has consequently suffered from large swathes of Arab/Muslim immigrants failing to properly integrate into mainstream society. I'd say America has done quite well in comparison when it comes to assimilating Arab immigrants (although it has failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic and African Americans).
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "(although it has failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic and African Americans)." I wouldn't exactly describe African Americans as immigrants per se... It seems to imply a level of volunteerism that simply wasn't there. Anyways, that's a nitpick. > "Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward, not getting rid of people who are already here." Right, but how do you know there aren't any bad apples in the people who are already here? Also bear in mind that of all Muslim terrorists who have committed an act of terrorism on American soil, many were visitors to the US, not immigrants. Do you believe we should also restrict Muslim visitation of the USA? How many more extremists do you think we will create within the existing Muslim population if we essentially had a big "Muslims go home" sign at every border checkpoint? What would it to do in terms of our desire to assimilate these immigrants? Your idea is fun to think about, but IMO it's not realistic. There are too many moving pieces for "no more Muslims in the US" to be a realistic policy choice. Not to mention the costs would be rather high. Go to any of the top US schools and look at both the grad student and professor rosters, count the people of Middle Eastern decent or of Muslim faith. These are all huge wins for American society - both in talent addition and talent denial to rival regimes. Do you really want all of these people to, say, go work for the Chinese? Or Iran? US hegemony is ensured in large (and put large in big screaming rainbow marquee letters) part by talent acquisition. We took much of Europe's best scientific talent after WW2, and we continued mopping up all the smartest and most talented people from all over the globe - Japan, China, India, the whole Eastern Bloc, and beyond. The US's lead over everyone else is economic and technological - leaving a whole swathe of educated immigrants on the table seems to go very firmly against this model. Slamming the door shut on immigration would be like starving yourself so you don't have to poop - it would work, but why?

paganel 14y ago

> The minute that crude oil loses its relevance to the Western world, the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power. Just as a general rule of thumb: not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs.

JonnieCache 14y ago

The minute that crude oil loses its relevance to the Western world, the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power. You forgot the thousand years when they were inventing mathematics while your ancestors were living in mud huts covered in their own shit. Europe wasn't even capable of syllogism until they stole the knowledge back from the arabs.

guard-of-terra 14y ago
Why respect them for something they did a thousand years ago and then ceased to?
- Ygg2 14y ago
  Because it never ceased. If you ever used an algorithm or algebra you owe it to "those nomadic" Arabs.
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    How long do you think Gagarin will last?
    - Ygg2 14y ago
      I hope longer than this fad with Christ lasts.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Yuri?
      - guard-of-terra 14y ago
        Yes.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]

marshallp 14y ago

You would like to limit immigration. What would companies like google like look after that? Would you advocate sending the head of youtube back to Iran? What about much of Detroit or New York? You're conflating some poverty-stricken residents of impoverished parts of the world riled up by political rhetoric with a credible enemy (like a cold war style superpower). You're arguments make as much sense as labeling all white people everywhere as Nazis because Hitler was a white guy. Go to Liberia or the Congo or India. You'll see that people aren't civilized, they will eat each other if out of ritual. That was the case everywhere over a 100 years ago. You miss that it's not some kind of inherent badness, they are simply living in a different time, like 1800s europe for example. If children commit crimes they are not convicted in the same manner as adults, that's the correct analogy to take. As civilized people and members of the global species that is humanity, it's a responsibility to take care of the weak. The problems you've outlined are (global) law enforcement problems. And they are disappearing, as time passes everyone on earth will become modern. Watch some Steven Pinker and see how today is the most peaceful time in human history. Watch Carl Sagan's blue dot and realize it's not Us vs Them. That's the thinking of pre-space age man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo (Charlie Chaplin)

w1ntermute 14y ago
> You would like to limit immigration. What would companies like google like look after that? Would you advocate sending the head of youtube back to Iran? What about much of Detroit or New York? I'm not talking about educated people, and like I said above, this issue is not particularly applicable to America, it's more relevant to Europe. In Europe, there is a serious issue with Muslim immigrants not integrating into mainstream society, and this is because many European nations accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants in an indiscriminate fashion.
- marshallp 14y ago
  You've completely missed the point. There are not Us vs Them. There are simply people. If you would like to label people as uneducated or muslims or whatever else, then you have engaged in that fallacy that pre-space age humankind engaged. You should really watch that link I gave as well as the Pale Blue Dot and let it really sink in.

dmorgan 14y ago

>This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't. Put this way, it's even more stupid. It's as if people go about "hating the west" for no reason (or because their "religion tells them so", which is a Glenn Beck level argument). A thing called colonialism did exist. Some hundred million people were killed in invasions and wars and while fighting for their freedom, and some 2 billion people were living under foreign occupation. And then you had a thing called post-colonialism, that does exist. With hundreds of interventions and resource-grubbing all over the world. With so called "banana republics" set up. And with countries thousands of miles away of some areas, have the audacity to believe they have "strategic interests" in those areas, and that it gives them the right to intervene, get their resources for cheap, place puppet governments, etc. You know, like some country in the American continent controlling Philippines or killing people in Vietnam. What sets the Arabs apart is their vast oil riches. Without that, they wouldn't have the money or power to do anything to the West. Arabs, as in "arab states" could not care less about "doing anything to the west". What sets those people apart is indeed their vast oil riches, that had provoked unprecedented resource-grubbing, puppet government establishment and invasions western powers. Does anyone imagine what a foreign power invading the US would mean to the US people, and under some BS pretext at that? But invading Iraq under the BS pretext of WMDs, wrecking the country in the process, killing hundreds of thousands, taking control of the oil and leaving them in a state of civil war by playing into the competing tribal and religious interests, is somehow "normal", because they are "arabs". So, the people there have a lot of reasons to "blame the west". It's not like they have any spectacular resources, either. WWII era guns and ammo, and cheaply made stuff, while the "west" kills them with drones and 21st century military technology. >The minute that crude oil loses its relevance to the Western world, the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power. Actually they had a huge empire, including parts of Europe, even before the crude oil gained relevance. The west managed to turn them to "a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" precisely when it wanted to get ahold of cheap labour and later the crude oil.

w1ntermute 14y ago
> A thing called colonialism did exist.... All that is true, but it doesn't change what America needs to do now to ensure it remains in control in the most efficient manner. Moreover, with domestic and renewable sources of energy, we wouldn't need to get involved in the Middle East, so they would benefit too. > The west managed to turn them to "a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" precisely when it wanted to get ahold of cheap labour and later the crude oil. Great civilizations rise and fill. Regardless of how they got there, that's where they'll be when the US leaves. My point is that their ability to attack the US will be neutralized the minute their cash flow stops.

ucee054 14y ago

The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. The root cause would be the West arming and training militant Islam. Back in the day, there was the Caliphate, which was the government of Turkey and Egypt, and the Salafis, Wahhabis and Saudis, who were the militants. The Caliphate sent a huge army to wipe out the extremists and chase the survivors into the desert. Later, the West thought it would be clever to bring the extremists back to take over Pakistan (google for "Deobandi") and Arabia (which is why it is called Saudi Arabia now). Then, they thought it would be really clever to give them Stinger missiles to piss off the Russians (see "Rambo 3"). Saudis + help from Ronald Reagan = AlQaeda. The West are still arming the extremists (google for "Jundullah"). They think it's a really clever way to piss off the governments in Syria and Iran. Apparently nothing has been learned from 911.