# Islamic "Parallel Societies" in the West



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2007)

The creation of parallel structures is a long standing technique in insurgencies. The parallel structure is an attempt to discredit the government and provide a fig leaf of respectability to the insurgents (i.e. extortion is called "revolutionary taxation", while murdering opponents is "revolutionary justice")

http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2007/11/parallel-society.html



> *A Parallel Society*
> 
> Anyone concerned that Muslims don't seem to want to integrate into Western society should read this interview with Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, a featured speaker at the recent Counterhihad Summit in Brussels. It's not been anything we've done; it's been a project of Islam.
> 
> ...


----------



## FastEddy (4 Nov 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The creation of parallel structures is a long standing technique in insurgencies. The parallel structure is an attempt to discredit the government and provide a fig leaf of respectability to the insurgents (i.e. extortion is called "revolutionary taxation", while murdering opponents is "revolutionary justice")
> 
> http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2007/11/parallel-society.html




Oh ! but that can't happen here in CANADA, we're the most Peaceful, Politically Correct and Accommodating People in the World.

And after all, its only the Bad Muslims that do things like that, isn't it ?.


----------



## Greymatters (5 Nov 2007)

Its a double-edged sword, or maybe a better term would be 'dual-use tactics'.  On the surface, it can always be claimed as a legitimate extension of societal rights of a unique population, but underneath is a whole ideology movement that can take advantage of it. 

Any social group that claims it is not at fault for the actions of its youth is an immature society that needs lessons in parental responsibility.  If the youth rebel, it is because the parents promote it, allow it, or ignore it.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Nov 2007)

It can only be a successful tactic in a culture that permitted Mahatma Gandhi to function.  We are all inheritors of that tradition in this country. However the concept of "traditional cultures" forming political blocks to use liberalism against its authors finds roots in this country, and in Europe, dating back to the 1880s.

In "traditional societies" these "parallel societies" don't get a chance to grow roots as the originators get rooted out and "separated" from the community.  Exile is the least the offenders can expect.


----------



## FastEddy (5 Nov 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> In "traditional societies" these "parallel societies" don't get a chance to grow roots as the originators get rooted out and "separated" from the community.  Exile is the least the offenders can expect.




That's a very Sound and Logical Statement, but do you really see that happening in Canada.

I'm sure you are aware of the of the Public response to the "Reasonable Accommodation" proposed in a little Quebec Town.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2007)

Well, yes and no.  I don't see extreme measures being taken beyond "exile" but I do see more pressure being applied to enforce deportations and revoking citizenship for newcomers like myself that can't keep their noses clean.

As noted previously we are heirs to the society that alllowed Gandhi to conduct business in his way.  And we have "accomodated" various voting "_blocs_".  We're still accomodating them.  Whether or not that is reasonable....140 years and we're still here.....and we allowed at least one of those blocks a shot at being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.  But we weren't so far apart from them in the way we look at the world.  They operate within the "normal" range of ideas.

This other mob....their range of norms and ours seem to be mutually exclusive.  My concern is that like the lobsters in Jacques Parizeau's pot we end up reasonably accomodating the rising temperature until it is too late to react effectively or alternatively we end up being shocked out of the warm fuzzies and reacting excessively.... and I do see both of those as realistic possibilities here in peace-loving Canada.  Ever seen Canucks or Canadiens fans watch their team lose? Or peace-loving students protest big-business? Or natives protest the loss of a burial ground to a golf course?


----------



## Flip (6 Nov 2007)

> This other mob....their range of norms and ours seem to be mutually exclusive.



The serious problem we have here is that the "politically correct" cannot accept
that this is so.  When you see the liberals and NDP pandering to ethnic
groups for votes it's pretty clear that this possibility do not even occur to them.

The other examples noted cause short term strife to be sure, but things settle
down to a new normal after......  It's not possible to settle down to anything
like a new normal once a conflict begins with this "other mob".

I propose that radical Islamisation does pose an existential threat to the 
liberal democracy, not merely inconvenient conflict.


----------



## Greymatters (6 Nov 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> The serious problem we have here is that the "politically correct" cannot accept that this is so.  When you see the liberals and NDP pandering to ethnic groups for votes it's pretty clear that this possibility do not even occur to them.



Its not that they arent aware of it, its that they dont care about the possibility, its 'not their problem'.  In their view, if something illegal was going on, its up to the police to do something about it, not them.  What matters is the status of the party now, not ten years from now, and if you can get into office by pandering to a few special interest groups, its all fair ball.  Others may be more aware of it but think they can handle it when things go pear-shaped, or if they are lucky the opposition party will be in power and then the opposition can get stuck with fixing the problem.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Nov 2007)

They are aware of it, but can't resist any excuse to get up the nose of their domestic political foes.  The political war to extend all human rights to various heretofore excluded minorites has been won here in Canada and is in the consolidation phase; it has not been won in many places abroad.  If that trend changes, it will be due to pressures we import, not to any sort of rearguard action by the diminishing old guard of domestic social conservatives with long roots in this country.


----------



## FastEddy (7 Nov 2007)

[/quote]

All you Gentlemen make excellent points and conclusions, but if I've read them right, we're s....'d and the outcome is obvious ?.

Cheers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Nov 2007)

No, we're not pooched yet.  What is most likely is that there will be a camel-crippling straw which results in an over-correction.  By over-correction, I mean expensive and bloody.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Nov 2007)

Fast Eddy - 2.5 million years, at least 4 major ice ages, multiple asteroid and comet strikes, uncountable numbers of volcanos, floods galore, wars innumerable, cats and dogs living together....... And we're still here!

As long as the ball's still live, the game's still on.  And it is a game.

Cheers.


----------



## Flip (8 Nov 2007)

> Fast Eddy - 2.5 million years, at least 4 major ice ages, multiple asteroid and comet strikes, uncountable numbers of volcanos, floods galore, wars innumerable, cats and dogs living together....... And we're still here!



Like a bad case of crabs ......er....lice.   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2010)

Another attempt to slip in the idea that Sharia law is somehow legitimate and an acceptable part of society. The counterarguments raised here should be in everyone's toolkit (part 1):

 http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/12/28/the-five-best-arguments-against-sharia-in-the-united-states/



> *The Five Best Arguments Against Sharia in the United States*
> 
> Posted By Zombie On December 28, 2010 @ 4:27 pm In Uncategorized | 71 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2010)

Part 2



> 4. Sharia is fundamentally religious law, and should be inapplicable to U.S. criminal or civil law.
> 
> At its core, Sharia is religious law — the guidelines under which Muslims must live in order to follow Islam. As such, it is not comparable to nor could it be a replacement for the completely secular criminal and civil code of the United States.
> 
> ...


----------



## jhk87 (5 Jan 2011)

This sort of worry bears a striking resemblance to worries about the rise of Catholic minorities in the west a century and a half ago. Cuase for concern? Perhaps. Sharia law should obviously not be permitted in any form. But it's certainly not unprecedented, and not civilisation-sinking.


----------



## Spanky (5 Jan 2011)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> This sort of worry bears a striking resemblance to worries about the rise of Catholic minorities in the west a century and a half ago. Cuase for concern? Perhaps. Sharia law should obviously not be permitted in any form. But it's certainly not unprecedented, and not civilisation-sinking.


What Catholic minorities would that be?


----------



## jhk87 (5 Jan 2011)

Spanky said:
			
		

> What Catholic minorities would that be?



In the US, mostly Italians and Irish - who, by the way, mad a disproportionate amount of the US infatry in the Second World War.

In Canada, more of the same, although there were concerns in the west about both Catholic and Orthodox communities.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jan 2011)

But did they start making their own laws that fly in the face of the law of the land? Probably not.


----------



## jhk87 (5 Jan 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> But did they start making their own laws that fly in the face of the law of the land? Probably not.



Actually, given that sermons were often political and that the Italians operated a rather large mafia, yes.


----------



## Scott (5 Jan 2011)

That's it. I've had enough of your "actually"s.

And you've yet to respond to my PM's or request.

Consider yourself on silent mode until you learn and grow up


----------



## Sapplicant (5 Jan 2011)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Actually, given that sermons were often political and that the Italians operated a rather large mafia, yes.



The Catholic Church and *Sicilian* Mafia vs. Islam and Al Qaida. Think very hard about that. Very hard.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jan 2011)

Yeah, I was going to respond but he's been muted. He even tried to email me, but he won't answer mod PMs? Not worth my time.


----------



## Scott (6 Jan 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yeah, I was going to respond but he's been muted. *He even tried to email me, but he won't answer mod PMs? Not worth my time.*



Running theme of his. We'll see how he answers mine now that he's been muted. Until then let's keep it on topic, please.

Scott
Staff


----------

