Katatori-kun:
...
Whoops! Just one post in and you're already backpedaling. This doesn't bode well for the rest of the thread. Your claim was "Islam is utterly incompatible with secularism and liberalism." Singapore is a secular, liberal country where there is Islam. Ergo, your claim is incorrect. Admitting you spoke incorrectly here would make you look better than trying to shift the goal-posts and hoping we don't all notice that you're now making a different claim and trying to pass it off as the old one.

To cause actual harm, actual power is needed. A hyena in a cage is threat to no one, but that doesn't mean hyenas aren't dangerous beasts which must be locked in a cage.

To know the true nature of the beast, one need to open its cage.

But whatever, let's play your little revisionism game. How about Turkey? 97.8% of the country is Muslim according to some polls, and yet the country is fiercely secular- Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution.

Nobody was more aware of the dangers of Islam than Atatürk, and the Turkish military have had to forcefully step in time and again when Turkish governments became too Islamic.

Yet still blasphemy laws and honor killings persist (particularly in the rural areas where religion stands strong), and Turkey's record with the European Court of Human Rights is anything but unblemished.

Obviously I'm not Norwegian and don't have conversations about Norwegian immigration very often. But I suspect you're once again making up stuff here. I am extremely skeptical any such arguments comparable to your apology for Breivik are made. Perhaps you can prove me wrong by providing evidence where someone has tried to argue that not allowing Muslim men to spread hatred and abuse at non-Muslims causes them to be radicalized? Because if you can't do that, then the arguments aren't comparable at all. In which case all you're doing is defending a mass-murderer because he hates the same people you hate.

It's commonly argued that ostracising Muslims from society will cause some of them to radicalise. As Islam is a backwards ideology which these arguments implicitly suggest should be allowed to flourish, I see no difference in arguing that Breivik not being legally/culturally allowed to express his fierce ethnocentrism is what helped radicalise him.

I'm always on the side of unlimited political Freedom of Speech - be it for Muslims arguing that all gay people should be executed under a regime of Sharia law, or ultranationalists arguing that laws should be passed to send all Muslims to death camps - as well as the destruction of all taboos surrounding any subject. This is just another example of why, and I intend to use it as such.

Ah, here we go. Your objection isn't to a real ban on speech. It's to the speech being accurately identified as bigotry.

Sorry, that's what free speech is. If you're afraid to say something bigoted because you're afraid of being called a bigot, your free speech hasn't been restricted.

I'm totally fine with such labels, so long as they are the end of debates, and not made to cut them off.

Not sure I would call it war, but it certainly is a brawl. On account of attacks and dead people.

A) I believe Western Civilization has moved beyond religion. Europe mostly has, and in the next decades this hemisphere will too (though with more difficulty since Europe shipped all their batshit insane criminals and religious nuts here... thanks).

B) This whole Christian vs. Muslim thing is actually older than either faith. The Greeks and Romans often wrote about heroes fighting various people from Asia (aka the Middle East). Well, I guess if you consider Achilles a hero and not a little bitch.

East vs. West, Christians vs. Muslims, Greeks vs. Persians, Biggie vs. Pac...

These days I think it is more about how the West looks at their governments and thinks, "Holy shit chill out! NO you're not doing that here! Fuck off! Go away you savages!"

Enslave_All_Elves:
B) This whole Christian vs. Muslim thing is actually older than either faith. The Greeks and Romans often wrote about heroes fighting various people from Asia (aka the Middle East). Well, I guess if you consider Achilles a hero and not a little bitch.

Er, and each other and everything else they could think of.

But, true, the Other which defines you by defining what you are not, and which you heroically struggle against, has always been a big thing.

Katatori-kun:

Imperator_DK:
To cause actual harm, actual power is needed. A hyena in a cage is threat to no one, but that doesn't mean hyenas aren't dangerous beasts which must be locked in a cage.

To know the true nature of the beast, one need to open its cage.

Annnd you're still shifting goal posts. You said it was "utterly incompatible". That means zero tolerance. And yet here's a population where over a tenth of the people are Muslim. Face it, you were wrong. And trying to imply some kind of similarity between Muslims and a ravenous predator isn't going to distract from that.

This post may be the mother of all pedantry. You may as well have cited the United States; there's at least one Muslim! Zero tolerance. :O

Anyway, would you not agree that there is a difference between Muslims and Islam?

If yes, then your objection is inapplicable: he said Islam, not Muslims.
If no, I'm pretty sure if we take your words at face value they indicate that the principles of the Third Reich are compatible with democracy. So congratulations on that.

You appear to be arguing against not the idea that Islam is incompatible with democracy, but that democracy is incompatible with the existence of Muslim citizens. These are not the same things.

Imperator_DK:
If there was ever an actual war between the Western world countries and the Islamic world, then in a matter of weeks there would no longer be an Islamic world.

Islam is utterly incompatible with secularism and liberalism (particularly when it comes to sexual values, equal opportunities for both genders, and freedom of - and especially from - religion). So it's automatically in conflict with some of the most treasured aspects of contemporary western thought. But too claim that a bunch of powerless countries whose culture haven't evolved in 400 years are at war with us is more than a bit hyperbolic and paranoid.

Nope. You clearly don't seem to know Middle Eastern History very well. All these Islamists are actually pretty new or at least as a mainstream movement, they mostly gained prominence in the 80's beginning with the Iranian revolution. Before that you've probably heard some pretty big names like Nasser, Al-Asad, Saddam Hussein etc. They all share one thing in common, they're secular nationalists, they're all also Socialists. They were in fact extremely secular to the point that they were borderline Soviet Republics (and in some increasingly less common cases still are) when they were torturing and killing many of the Islamists in their republics to not repeat what happened in Iran again (which of course only made the Islamists stronger),before the Islamists rise in the 80's most Arabic countries were actually very Westernized, women didn't have shawls over their faces, everyone wore western attire and celebrated Western culture. All of them firmly separated religion from politics although they weren't always too successful (like how Al-Asad and his son are Alawi, a religious minority in Syria and how in the Lebanese Civil war he supported the Christians causing native Sunni's to question him). The problem however, is that the secular governments were oppressive as hell, and the Islamists began to become appealing as a mainstream movement as becoming pure and to their interests, telling the Arabs they lived in the dark ages under the secular governments. Thus while it may seem like it's an old phenomenon it's in fact very recent.

Depends on the term 'war'. Armed conflict? Yes in isolated areas of the world like the Caucasus (Azerbaijan want's to finish of the Armenians), Sudan (The Muslim north wants to cleanse the Christian/Pagan south),Lebanon (where the original Christian founders of the nation are slowly being swallowed up by 3rd, 4th and 5th+ generation immigrants; and armed conflict) and perhaps Bosnia (where the Bosniaks want to overthrow Serbian secular influence and Croatian Christian culture.).

But if anything it's culture. Culture warfare between the 'west' and the Islamic cultures hasn't been this hot since the fall of Constantinople. People seem to forget that the 'clash of the civilizations' is a conflict on culture, which may result in armed conflict. If you don't think this is happening, just go to Greece or Cyprus, and ask them about the disputes over Island territory. Then ask them why they hate the Turks historically, seriously the Ottomans did some pretty 'evil' things in name of their 'faith'.

christian and Muslim are not civilized religions.

xshadowscreamx:
christian and Muslim are not civilized religions.

Define "civilised religion", preferably with examples.

thaluikhain:

xshadowscreamx:
christian and Muslim are not civilized religions.

Define "civilised religion", preferably with examples.

there is always war and death, just becouse poeple have a different faith. which is unproven in the real world. anger over nothing

It's not a war between religions. The terrorists do not represent the majority of Islam and the US/whoever else troops in the Middle East aren't there to for Christian principles.

Of course, this isn't how everyone sees it. A pretty good chunk of people here in the US see the conflict as a battle against Islam.