You want a discussion that just accepts your premises. I think there’s more to gain from a discussion that questions the premises. Otherwise, you’ve already programmed the only “correct” outcome and learn nothing new. You’re better off if the premises can be discussed, too.
What can and should we do?
– We should intensify talks and exchange with the moderate majority of the same creed that the extremist minority holds. That way, the moderates are more likely to assist in working against the extremists. Neglect that and you’ll tend to have the moderates against you, too.
– We should only use force where absolutely necessary, where lives and the foundations of our society are at stake.
What should we not do?
– We shouldn’t adopt the so-called “strong” ideology you suggest and give up the progress in society you call “weak”. It is that progress which has made Europe live through its longest period of peace to date. What false dichotomy? You are putting words in my mouth, I never said masculinity needs to go at the cost of supressed feminity. That is exactly the opposite of what I am saying !
The hypothesis of the degeneration of masculinity is unquestionably out of the context of this topic. If you wish to discuss this, I suggest opening a new thread. The discussion about Global Jihadism can take place whether or not we accept my premise of weakened reactionary capacity of western civilizations, so let’s continue: How exactly does that translate to talks and exchange with the moderate majority of the Global Jihadist aimed Islamic State? Who are you going to talk to ? Its a religious Khaliphate, where the commands and actions of the leader are ordained by the Deity. So who would you talk to and what would you talk about ? Would you ask the leaders to give up their religious philosophy of conquering the world ?
Just to be clear i’m playing devil’s advocate here, but what you suggest is that we should resist reactionary movement and wait till it either spins out of control, solves itself or until we cannot wait any longer ?
This is for a different topic but I do not believe that the “progress in society” (with that you seem to mean socialism and leftist principles) and the refusal of strong ideologies has led Europe through its longest periode of peace to date. I believe it has nothing to do with that at all ! You can have a ‘strong’ ideology that advocates peace and tolerance towards all human beings, free from facism. Don’t let national socialism be your example of a ‘strong’ ideology (because it shouldnt)