[Saline9515]

Why is "civil war" the default situation here? How about domestic terrorism for instance?

Will you be on the side of the muslim terrorists who beheaded teachers and priests (among others), and killed 132 concert-goers (and injured 413 others) at the Bataclan in 2015? Will you tell the french people who were slaughtered that it was the price to live in a multicultural society?Damn.

Even if you don't go as far as terrorism, it's simple: multi-ethnic societies favor either identity politics (aka clientelism) or authoritarianism (only way to avoid it). The USA is a great example for this: the previous administration played identity politics to the maximum, and the new one used it to impose authoritarianism. It's very hard, if not impossible to escape this loop once you are in a minority-only society.

And of course you have to deal with collapsing social trust. The USA isn't the ultimate lawyer society, and the most armed one by pure chance. It's a logical consequence.

[tastyface]

What do the Bataclan terrorists have to do with 99.9999% of the Muslim population? Absolutely nothing. (Or, at least, as much as neo-Nazis have to do with the native white population.) Fact is, most people are extremely normal and just want to live in peace.

I'll be on the side of my nice Muslim neighbors (who did nothing wrong to anyone) against the red-faced white supremacist mobs. It is very obviously the correct moral position and will be viewed as such by our descendants.

In the US, the most heavily armed communities also tend to be the least diverse. It is largely a consequence of insular paranoia and hatred stoked by right-wing media.

[Saline9515]

> What do the Bataclan terrorists have to do with 99.9999% of the Muslim population?

They share the same religion and ethnicity. French muslims were actually a large contingent in Daesh forces. This is a classic "no true scotsman" fallacy. Every muslim will tell you that the Charlie Hebdo covers about Muhammad were "haram" - because that's exactly what their religion says.

Not that they are all bad people, just like you had nice soviets, or I'm sure that there a nice North Korean Juche party members, too.

You seem to be acting like an ostrich, putting your head in the sand to avoid problems. Face reality and read about Islam, which is inherently a political religion. Read also about the Muslim Brotherhood (or similar orgs).

> US armed communities.

How about latino gangs? Are they operating with nerf guns? Besides, the safest places in the US are those that are monoethnic, such as New Hampshire.

[constantius]

Your observation about multi-ethnic societies is rather interesting (though I would add slme caveats), but then you unfortunately are blinded by your preconceptions. The parent comment is right about 99.9...% of Muslims not being in any way related to terrorism.

A large country with 10% of Muslims being a large minority in a small terrorist force is not surprising. I would bet that Americans and foreigners in general are a large minority in Canadian far-right groups, for example.

The drawings of Muhammad were objectively haram, as you say, but almost none of the people who'd agree to that would also agree that murder was the right answer.

You can be anti-immigration without descending into racism and Islamophobia, actually it would greatly reinforce your points.

[Saline9515]

> The parent comment is right about 99.9...% of Muslims not being in any way related to terrorism.

Yet there are no country with a majority of muslims where the minorities were not pushed out in the 20th and 21st century. Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Irak, Iran, and so on. Have you read the Quran?

If course, I guess that Iran mullahs and their supporters are not representative of Islam. Not are Talibans (widely supported). Nor are Daesh. Nor are Saudis (who pushed salafism). Nor are Hamas members. Nor ar Al-Qaida. Nor are Boko Haram. Nor are Philippinos islamic groups (>400 deaths between 2000 and 2007). Nor are Jemaah Islamiyah. C'mon this is ridiculous.

I grew up in beautiful and prosperous village in the Alps, the town next to us had a mosque that sent jihadists to Syria. I guess they were not real muslims?

> A large country with 10% of Muslims being a large minority in a small terrorist force is not surprising.

There are many Portuguese in France, you don't hear about the behadings by Portuguese people. Same with Italians, Germans, Spaniards, and so on.

> The drawings of Muhammad were objectively haram, as you say, but almost none of the people who'd agree to that would also agree that murder was the right answer.

A teacher was beheaded 10 years after because he showed them in class. "Almost none" is doing a lot of work here. If that was true, every year teachers would show it as a way to discuss about religion and french laicity. But they don't because they know that there is a real risk to get a terrorist attack.

And everywhere in Europe it's the same. Theo Von Gogh was murdered for the same reason in 2004. Recently a guy burning a Quran in Sweden got stabbed by a bystander in the street. At which point are we allowed to say "enough"? It's obvious how it will end, in France for instance left-wing islamists open talk about taking power. Even after all of those bloody crimes.

[tastyface]

A racist white guy knifed a bunch of innocent people in the UK recently. When do we say "enough" to that?

[hackinthebochs]

A country owns their home-grown lunatics. They have no responsibility for the rest of the world's lunatics.

[tastyface]

I share the same(-ish) religion and ethnicity as white supremacist terrorists. Does this make me complicit in their degenerate world views? Obviously not.

All the same stuff was said about Jews in pre-Nazi Germany. It's always bullshit. Neither Muslims, nor Jews, nor white people, nor any broad group of people ever acts as a united bloc. Again: most people just want to live in peace and ensure a good future for their children.

[Saline9515]

The difference is that white supremacist who do domestic terrorism usually don't blow up in a concert hall crying "Jesus is great".

Violent white supremacism is a symptom of multiethnic societies. There is no reason to be one otherwise.

> Neither Muslims, nor Jews, nor white people, nor any broad group of people ever acts as a united bloc.

You don't understand. Quran says that you have to convert everyone to Islamic faith (and chariah law), and use force if necessary. It is forbidden to try to interpret what is written : the text is sacred.

This is why you have islamic terrorism in every muslim country, and countries with a large minority of muslims. White people in Thailand and other countries don't commit domestic terrorism because they don't have a proper reason to and do not share a common ideology or religion.

> Again: most people just want to live in peace and ensure a good future for their children.

Big fallacy here. I open a box of chocolate, and poison 10% of them. Then you have to eat 5 of them. Would you do it? After all, most are totally safe, I don't see why you are being such a bigot!

Overall the solution is simple: muslims can have their own countries where they can do what they want, and other people can have their own countries with their own rules. It's hardly painful for anyone. I don't see why we should absolutely mix everyone everywhere.

[tastyface]

"Quran says that you have to convert everyone to Islamic faith"

Hey, remember the Crusades? This is not unique to Islam. Any religion can be made into a tool of peace or a tool of war. Wicked leaders will interpret their sacred texts however needed to further their political goals.

"Violent white supremacism is a symptom of multiethnic societies."

All modern societies are multiethnic societies. Once white supremacy is done with the obviously foreign-looking people, it will start to eliminate those who are not white enough, resulting in an existential and violent battle over determination of the "volk". As a descendant of white immigrants whose ancestors would not have been considered fully white in my country, I would not want to live in this environment. No doubt that I would be on the chopping block at some point for not sharing x% blood with some arbitrary progenitor.

"Overall the solution is simple: muslims can have their own countries where they can do what they want, and other people can have their own countries with their own rules."

Well, as a white person in a historically white country, I say Muslims are welcome to be my neighbors, and anyone who disagrees can go live somewhere else.

[Saline9515]

Crusades were 900 years ago, at a time most people didn't know how to read. Now people don't need leaders to interpret texts. Do you have more recent examples?

> All modern societies are multiethnic societies.

No? Most European societies weren't multiethnic 50 years ago. Poland doesn't have Islamic terrorism, because it has very few muslims. Guess we found the solution for avoiding Islamic terrorism?

> Once white supremacy is done with the obviously foreign-looking people, it will start to eliminate those who are not white enough, resulting in an existential and violent battle over determination of the "volk".

You are using an American definition here. In Europe you don't have "white" people, but French, Germans, Swedish and so on. White people are not inherently bad and what you describe applies better to muslims who have genocided or expelled non-muslim minorities of their countries. See Armenians for instance, or Christians. Or Jews. Or Yezidis. And so on.

"white person in a historically white country" and what happens when you are a minority and you are asked to pay the Jizya? Will you pay? Will you veil your daughter?