Explosions at Zaventem Airport (Brussels airport)/Brussels metro

[alfred russel]

Our best weapon in the fight against radical Islam is compassion. Right viper?

Don't underestimate the power of Mormon Missionaries. Imagine if they were sent to the Middle East in large numbers. Jaron, isn't it time for you to do a mission?

[Solmyr]

The odds of some particular policy being motivated by actual racism are exceedingly small, and the bar should be very high when individuals desire to whip out the racism card. You should, as an individual, be very careful before accusing someone else in particular of being motivated by racism.

A policy does not need to be motivated by racism to be racist. I'm sure you are not motivated by racism, and you are most likely motivated by good end goals, but that does not prevent the actual means used to reach those goals from being racist.

[LaCroix]

I actually do NOT agree that "some proposed solutions might shade into racism". There is no *solution* that could be racist, because if you are using racism to define your solutions, you aren't looking for solutions to begin with, you are looking for a way to use security concerns to step on people you don't like.

And I simply do not buy that that is happening to any real degree - that organizations like US Homeland security is using concerns about terrorism to engage their racist desires to treat Muslims like shit.

I think this is what's essentially happening with those organizations that support banning all arab immigrants/refugees. it's such a stupid position to take; so, to me, the only thing that makes sense is it's rooted in racism. otherwise, why would you be fearful of an entire group of people, the vast majority of whom haven't done shit to anyone

(edit) and by "racism," I don't mean they collude and think to themselves, "let's fuck over the arabs and exterminate them."

[derspiess]

Banning all Muslims from immigrating to the US is of course a stupid idea.  Adjusting limits per country based upon various factors, including security risk, ability to assimilate, and other things is just common sense.

[viper37]

Hey, man.  I was agreeing with you and using a choice quote from our awesome president to back you up.

I thought you were sarcastic, sorry

[derspiess]

Hey, man.  I was agreeing with you and using a choice quote from our awesome president to back you up.

I thought you were sarcastic, sorry

I was

[Malthus]

Way I see the difference between left and right solutions to terrorism is like this.

Both sides agree that we are in a conflict between cultures. What they disagree on, is what those cultures are, and what the likely risks are.

The Left tends to see the enemy culture as a very specific subset of radical Islam, and not Islam per se. To them, there is no conflict between "Islam" and "the West". Hence the oft-repeated, oft-ridiculed notion that the terrorists "aren't Islamic". What is meant by this is not that they aren't from a Muslim background, but rather, that they do not exemplify Islam: they are a very specific subset, with ideas that tend to contradict more mainstream Islamic ideas.

In this scenario, allowing Muslim immigration does not necessarily increase danger - the danger is only increased by allowing radical Islamic ideas to flourish.

As an aside, it reminds me a bit of this logical paradox from Chinese philosophy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_a_white_horse_is_not_a_horse

In other words, the expression "a white horse is not a horse" is ambiguous between "a white horse is not identical with a horse" (true, because "white horse" is more specific than "horse"), and "a white horse is not a member of the set of horses" (obviously false). The Advocate in the dialogue is asserting that "a white horse is not [identical with] a horse," while the Objector is interpreting the Advocate's statement as "a white horse is not [a member of the group of] horses."

In contrast, the right tends to see Islamic terrorism as very much a "clash of cultures" between the West and the Islamic world itself; they tend to see radical Islam as simply a more militant, non-hypocritical version of regular old Islam. In this scenario, allowing Muslim immigration automatically increases danger - Islam isn't really "assimilatable", as it is in direct conflict with Western values.

[viper37]

Way I see the difference between left and right solutions to terrorism is like this.

while I agree with most of what you posted, from my rightwing point of view, Justin Trudeau's (and the left in general) policies are like this:


I don't disagree with the philosophy, but to me, the left is just as guilty as the right as classifying all muslims in the same bag.  The left sees them as all benevolent, except at the moment they push the trigger to detonate the bomb, while the right will see them all guilty, just as much as if they pulled the trigger themselves.

I think that before you become totally radicalized, before you see yourself as a soldier of God, before you get this idea that non believers must be killed, there is a whole process to arrive there.  And this is where the Left has always failed, at not seeing the danger until it's too late.

It ain't just true that you can fight radicalism with love.  We could not fight nazism with peace & tolerance, we had to forbid nazi organizations during the war, we had to arrest members of these organizations, and we needed not only words, but strong actions against neo-nazi organizations to bring it to a manageable level.



EDIT:  in case anyone needed a translation: Fighting terrorism with Selfie Trudeau and "I have a plan"

[Josquius]

That is a bit of a mistake with the left.
Really the left should make more of an effort to highlight WHY some of them go bad and push harder to fix it- the shitty situation in these ex-working class towns is the primary culprit.

[viper37]

That is a bit of a mistake with the left.
Really the left should make more of an effort to highlight WHY some of them go bad and push harder to fix it- the shitty situation in these ex-working class towns is the primary culprit.

part of the problem, not the primary culprit.  Lots of people of all origins come from there.  Only some of them will radicalize, and quite often, due to external influence.

[Valmy]

I find it interesting you chose the Manson family as your American analogue to the Islamic terrorists. The obvious one is the KKK and the white nationalists terrorists. Even though they were never enormous in number, and generally (though not universally by any means) considered distasteful they had millions of sympathizers and important political allies.

[Malthus]

Another difference between left and right: the left tends to see the "clash of cultures" as one "we" in the West will likely win - unless we ruin it ourselves from within, by betraying "our" ideals. Of course, what they mean by "culture" is more distilled than the way that term is seen on the right - it means more like 'democracy, civil rights, rule of law', but lacks much of what is typically thought of as "culture" (like religion, language, particular style of dress, etc.).

In contrast, on the right, there is more of a tendency to see "culture" in traditional terms, and a "clash of culture" as something "the West" may very well lose. And radical terrorism is only a part of that - so is changes in religion, language, dress and the like. Hence, to them, opposing immigration (particularly Muslim immigration) is more than about the danger of terrorism - it is also about the danger of "our" Western culture being diluted or replaced: which would, inevitably, also result in the loss of 'democracy, civil rights, rule of law', which are seen as cultural elements specific to "western" culture. 

[derspiess]

That is a bit of a mistake with the left.
Really the left should make more of an effort to highlight WHY some of them go bad and push harder to fix it- the shitty situation in these ex-working class towns is the primary culprit.

Is that the cause in the US?  Most of our immigrant Muslim terrorists seem to have had pretty good working/living conditions over here. 

Here at least it seems like the pattern is: he (or she now, sadly) comes over to the US or is born to muslim immigrant parents, enjoys a pretty decent standard of living and plenty of economic opportunities --> at some point in their 20s or 30s something snaps and they become ripe for radicalization --> a radical imam at their mosque or online gains their ear --> violent jihadist attack.

[Malthus]

That is a bit of a mistake with the left.
Really the left should make more of an effort to highlight WHY some of them go bad and push harder to fix it- the shitty situation in these ex-working class towns is the primary culprit.

Is that the cause in the US?  Most of our immigrant Muslim terrorists seem to have had pretty good working/living conditions over here. 

Here at least it seems like the pattern is: he (or she now, sadly) comes over to the US or is born to muslim immigrant parents, enjoys a pretty decent standard of living and plenty of economic opportunities --> at some point in their 20s or 30s something snaps and they become ripe for radicalization --> a radical imam at their mosque or online gains their ear --> violent jihadist attack.

True. But the number of US Muslims who have actually launched terror attacks is pretty small. In percentage terms, miniscule. 9/11, for example, was caused by foreigners.

[frunk]

True. But the number of US Muslims who have actually launched terror attacks is pretty small. In percentage terms, miniscule. 9/11, for example, was caused by foreigners.

So far much less than the US born population's shooting sprees, but they are catching up nicely.  Soon they'll be fully assimilated.