Then you have to split this discussion into two different questions.

First, is Islam compatible with "western culture" in situations where Muslims emigrate to western nations? While there are examples of how poverty and unemployment have allowed radical Islamic groups to recruit Muslim youth in western nations such as France and the U.K., I'd say that overall Islam is no more or less compatible with western democracies than any other religion.

Second, is "western culture" something that can easily be established or imposed upon predominantly Muslim nations? That's a much trickier subject, since decades if not centuries of colonialism have pretty much poisoned the well as far as how "western culture" is perceived in the Middle East. Islamic fundamentalism didn't just develop anti-western sentiment in a vacuum, it did so in response to secular governments attempting to impose "western culture" (or at least some non-democratic version of such) in the name of modernization, often violently repressing Islamic traditions in the process.

If anything, that means that while fundamentalist Muslims may seem more at odds with American culture due to their traditions seeming more foreign, fundamentalist Christians have a greater chance of actually undermining certain western cultural values they see as ungodly since they have more political and cultural power.

This is still inaccurate. If you actually knew me you'd realize I'm not racist in the least, I'm just a stickler for behavior, both personal and prevailing.

I'm going to thank you for that, as it's basically what I've been ineffectually trying up to now. I've pretty grossly managed to mangle my words, but yes, it is much more what has caused the "fundamentalist, political interpretation of the faith" to be the problem, and unfortunately the way I see it is that these more base traditions and values are spreading internationally by means of Islam.

Edit: Let me clarify. Many traditions and practices would never take hold outside of the middle east if there were no religious backing.

I'm going to have to disagree with that. Hindus, Buddhists have had a much better time integrating, and with, unless I've missed something, no real history of violence.

Western culture absolutely cannot be imposed on others. I do not claim to think we're blameless in this, because I've honestly always thought that the 1st and 3rd world should intermingle as little as possible. Things do not go well when a rich, overbearing nation does dealings with a poor, isolated one.

However there is significant resistance to fundie christian movements, and I just don't see fundie muslims integrating successfully at all.

Fair enough.

Here you're making a stronger statement that's a lot harder to support, though. There are specific characteristics of Islam as a belief system that facilitate things like suicide bombing, but any religion could be just as anti-secular, and any downtrodden, and any humiliated postcolonial cultural tradition could be just as anti-Western.

I agree any religion and culture could have been distorted by world events (though I would argue Islam had a head start over more peaceful religions), but I don't think that makes it hard to support my argument. Religion lends validity to any idea, and I'm sure that a suicide attack for Allah and political gain is a lot easier to swallow than a suicide attack for just political gain.

That's a bit extreme of an example, but there are many more moderate traditions and practices in the world that are around because they are backed by religion which would have otherwise faded.

I would refer you here to the Second World War. Aside from the obvious kamikaze stuff, it needs to be remembered that, throughout the war, the Japanese military took far higher casualties to its units than could have even been conceivable in a Western army or navy, because any Western commander (or soldier) would have surrendered long before any Japanese commander or soldier.

That was a cultural difference between the West and the Empire of Japan. There is a similar cultural difference between the West and Arab-Palestinian Islam, but that's not the same as saying Islam is uniquely amenable to such actions.

In fact, if I recall correctly, the practice was originally adopted during the Lebanese Civil War and later by Palestinian anti-Zionists from the Tamil Tigers, who are an ostensibly secular Hindu nationalist group.

To be fair, I'm not sure that that's what you're saying. But it could easily be read that way.

Again, it's hard to say that. Bolshevism in both the Soviet Union and Red China had all the disadvantages and violence of any fanatical religion, yet it was stridently atheist. I think there's some propensity to evil in the mind of man that usually takes form in intolerant religion, but I don't think that religion as properly understood is really necessary for the expression of that propensity.

Yes, of course knowing the correct answer to "As Salaamu Alaikum" is the key to multicultural harmony and peace. In fact, if you told muslim militants about this incident after being taken hostage, they might merely shoot you instead of cutting off your head with a rusty hacksaw.

Of course muslims want peace. Even Hitler wanted peace, the question is on what terms. For the extremist muslims, the only way peace will be acceptable is when the Islamic serpent has crushed the life out of all infidel life in the world. World domination is their goal, and they have no problems with slaughtering people (even muslims) to achieve it.

You're from Germany, just look at the annual May Day riots in Kreuzberg if you need proof of what these people are like.

Zarth said:
I would refer you here to the Second World War. Aside from the obvious kamikaze stuff, it needs to be remembered that, throughout the war, the Japanese military took far higher casualties to its units than could have even been conceivable in a Western army or navy, because any Western commander (or soldier) would have surrendered long before any Japanese commander or soldier.

That was a cultural difference between the West and the Empire of Japan. There is a similar cultural difference between the West and Arab-Palestinian Islam, but that's not the same as saying Islam is uniquely amenable to such actions.

In fact, if I recall correctly, the practice was originally adopted during the Lebanese Civil War and later by Palestinian anti-Zionists from the Tamil Tigers, who are an ostensibly secular Hindu nationalist group.

To be fair, I'm not sure that that's what you're saying. But it could easily be read that way.

Heathen_Dave said:
That's a bit extreme of an example, but there are many more moderate traditions and practices in the world that are around because they are backed by religion which would have otherwise faded.


Again, it's hard to say that. Bolshevism in both the Soviet Union and Red China had all the disadvantages and violence of any fanatical religion, yet it was stridently atheist. I think there's some propensity to evil in the mind of man that usually takes form in intolerant religion, but I don't think that religion as properly understood is really necessary for the expression of that propensity.
Esoteric said:

Actually, during the invasion of France (aka Operation Overlord) there were Waffen SS units who were counterattacking at 10% of their strength, i.e. they were still ocunterattacking when 90% of their unit had been either killed or wounded. Last I checked, the Waffen SS was an elite group of volunteers dedicated to fighting for Nazi Germany, who originally came from 33 different countries. All of them were from Europe or "the West".

Yeah, Colinism pointed that out to me, and I looked a little further into the numbers. It turned out my old research was incomplete - casualties for the Eastern Front were roughly comparable to those for the Japanese.

I think it strengthens what was actually my point, though, which was that there's nothing about Islam that lends itself uniquely to suicidal fanaticism.

Why "No no no no."?

He pulled it from his bigoted asshole! Mexicans are more American than he is. They're forcing their culture down our throats with their chimichangas, churros and all of that stuff! It's not like our three favorite foods have German or Italian roots. They're American!

Those older Italian Americans that used to shop at my store weren't immigrants, they were obviously tourists, because EVERYONE who didn't come here from Mexico learns English and immediately sheds their own language COMPLETELY (even when speaking to one another) as it's ALWAYS more comfy speaking English. My grandparents spoke (Quebecois) French at home not because it was easier, but because they were SPYING for the BQ back home!

He's onto something there...

Yes, I do think knowledge is at least part of the key. Hence the programm this article was about in the first place.

And while I do know what the annual May Day riots in Berlin are about, I have not the slightest idea why you think they have anything to do with what we're talking about here.

And another weird piece of information:

The SS from 33 different countries, all of them from Europe or "the West"? That's bullshit.

Mind giving your source for that?

Edit: you might be mixing that up with volunteers fighting against Franco's fascists in Spain. Which would be quite some mix-up.

33 sounds high but there were more than a few foreigners serving in the SS.

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=307

The Waffen SS was not composed entirely of volunteers. The Reichsführer introduced conscription to the Waffen-SS in 1943 to make up for crippling losses on the Russian Front and a lack of volunteers due to war fatigue on the home front.