http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/Livecenter/1.2607821
http://www.tijd.be/politiek_economie/belgie_algemeen/Dode_en_gewonden_na_explosies_op_Brussels_Airport.9746687-4002.art?ckc=1&ts=1458633324
http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/explosies-luchthaven-zaventem-eerst-geschoten-dan-iets-in-het-arabisch-geroepen/live-normal-681403.html
dutch links only so far.
----------
two explosions (bombs apparently), rumours of more found. 11 dead s o far it seems, at least 25 wounded.
Government assumes it's an attack.
At the entrance to the freight zone their are currently police cars. We hear sirens and we heard some explosions when we opened the windows ourselves. We follow info on the newswebsites.
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/957/Binnenland/article/detail/2654073/2016/03/22/LIVE-Zeker-een-dode-bij-aanslag-op-Brussels-Airport.dhtml (http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/957/Binnenland/article/detail/2654073/2016/03/22/LIVE-Zeker-een-dode-bij-aanslag-op-Brussels-Airport.dhtml)more pictures
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/europe/brussels-explosions/index.html
More from the religion of peace?
current eye witness report. before explosion shooting and there was something shouted in arabic.
After arrest of Abdelsalam their were riots by allochton youths in the place he was arrested.
Apparantly also explosions in the Metro in Brussels City. It's bigger than the airport
I'm guessing a lot of terrorists dudes were afraid Absolom would give them up, so they compressed the schedule.
terrorlevel to maximum in entire country now (was so on al airports before), Brussel Cetraal/Midi apparently evacuated, same for Brussel Metro system. Seems smoke is coming from one (maybe more) of the metro stations.
from De Tijd (second link in OP)
"09:22
Bericht over aanslagen in metro
Volgens verschillende berichten zou er nu ook een explosie zijn gehoord in één of meerdere metrostations in Brussel."
->Report about attacks in metro. According to reports an explosion has been heard in one of more metrostations in Brussel.
edit1 -the attack in metroStation Maalbeek (close to de Wetstraat/Rue de Loi: political heart of the state) seems to have been confirmed.
edit2 (in regards to Archy's message): Belga has a report seemingly confirming the arab shouting before the explosions. It also mentions shooting before that.
edit3: apparently attacks in two more metroStations (Wetstraat, Schuman)
Is anyone surprised by any of this? This thread will go just like the Paris once - cant wait for Raz's "contribution". :rolleyes:
Stop being racist, Martinus. ;) :P
BB will be most offended...
:(
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/mar/22/brussels-airport-explosions-live-updates
Quote
4m ago 08:55
The deathtoll at the Zaventem airport in Brussels has increased to 13, according to the Belgian broadcaster VRT. Another 35 people were severely injured it said, Reuters reports.
Lord have mercy.
Christ.
Oh fuck. :(
:(
I'm seeing reports that another 10 were killed in the subway attack. :(
This is horrible. :(
I am puzzled and terrified how things could have gone so wrong, that Paris and Brussels (and who knows which cities to follow) are starting to look like Turkish cities in terms of level of security, and being turned into a war zone. Turkey is next to the most unstable region in the world with huge ethnic and political internal conflicts, a real pressure-cooker. But the heart of Europe? WTF?!
To be expected.
Wonder what the stupid emotional reaction form our politicians will be.
I have a few friends in Brussels, so I just found out about this Facebook "your friend isn't dead" notification system. Not sure whether is helpful or creepy.
Anyhow, terrible development. The circle of hate just keeps burning and getting fueled.
Terrible news, condolences to Belgium. :(
Quote from: celedhring on March 22, 2016, 06:26:35 AM
I have a few friends in Brussels, so I just found out about this Facebook "your friend isn't dead" notification system. Not sure whether is helpful or creepy.
Anyhow, terrible development. The circle of hate just keeps burning and getting fueled.
"Circle of hate", yup:
1. Muslims kill people.
2. Some non-Muslims say it must stop.
3. Other non-Muslims call the first group of non-Muslims racist.
4. Muslims kill more people.
:(
If only the people in 2) limited themselves to "saying it must stop", you might have a point.
Quote from: celedhring on March 22, 2016, 06:26:35 AM
I have a few friends in Brussels, so I just found out about this Facebook "your friend isn't dead" notification system. Not sure whether is helpful or creepy.
Anyhow, terrible development. The circle of hate just keeps burning and getting fueled.
This feature has been in the news at least since the islamist attacks in Paris last November, possibly before (earthquake in Nepal).
Back to topic, I am not surprised by these attacks, again.
IS seems to have claimed the attacks according to an article on telegraaf.nl, which in turn referred to a Kurdish newssource.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 06:41:48 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 22, 2016, 06:26:35 AM
I have a few friends in Brussels, so I just found out about this Facebook "your friend isn't dead" notification system. Not sure whether is helpful or creepy.
Anyhow, terrible development. The circle of hate just keeps burning and getting fueled.
"Circle of hate", yup:
1. Muslims kill people.
2. Some non-Muslims say it must stop.
3. Other non-Muslims call the first group of non-Muslims racist.
4. Muslims kill more people.
It IS a circle.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 22, 2016, 07:01:02 AM
IS seems to have claimed the attacks according to an article on telegraaf.nl, which in turn referred to a Kurdish newssource.
I wonder if its "IS" as it used to be "AQ". I mean, I am afraid it can't be that heard to strap some IED on yourself, maybe get yourself a firearm and then blow yourself up in a public place. And you can claim you were an ultra-badass-IS fighter, and the organisation will surely not say no.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 22, 2016, 06:54:32 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 22, 2016, 06:26:35 AM
I have a few friends in Brussels, so I just found out about this Facebook "your friend isn't dead" notification system. Not sure whether is helpful or creepy.
Anyhow, terrible development. The circle of hate just keeps burning and getting fueled.
This feature has been in the news at least since the islamist attacks in Paris last November, possibly before (earthquake in Nepal).
Back to topic, I am not surprised by these attacks, again.
Facebook Safety Check was activated in Nepal, but it evolved from Safety Message Board, developed by Facebook engineers in response to the 2011 tsunami in Japan and launched a year later. Here's a feature I wrote about technology used in the aftermath of humanitarian emergencies: http://www.nridigital.com/brite-magazine/issue2.html (http://www.nridigital.com/brite-magazine/issue2.html)
Sigh.
My condolences of course to our European friends. I don't even know how to react anymore to this shit.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 07:40:10 AM
Sigh.
My condolences of course to our European friends. I don't even know how to react anymore to this shit.
Same. It feels like you can copy/paste 50-pages thread.
yep
fyi we were sent home a bit before noon. Entrance to the freight zone is blockaded by the police. You could leave freely though.
Quote from: Archy on March 22, 2016, 07:46:55 AM
fyi we were sent home a bit before noon. Entrance to the freight zone is blockaded by the police. You could leave freely though.
Hope your friends and colleagues weren't directly affected Archy.
My pro-Trump/hate Facebook group (aka fan page of the podcast I subscribe to :P) says there is a hostage situation near Amsterdam as well.
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2016, 07:44:49 AM
yep
I wonder if this is moving slowly but surely towards the right wing camp, though. I know my views shifted recently, I think Berkut's did too somewhat.
My friend who works with the European Commission is in Poland today. I wonder how he knew. :hmm:
at least everyone I know who works in Brussels and Zaventem, and is on Facebook, is safe.
No confirmation about father-in-law but he's not a person who takes public transport. edit: And he's okay too, but can't leave building.
Quote from: Brazen on March 22, 2016, 07:49:32 AM
Quote from: Archy on March 22, 2016, 07:46:55 AM
fyi we were sent home a bit before noon. Entrance to the freight zone is blockaded by the police. You could leave freely though.
Hope your friends and colleagues weren't directly affected Archy.
according to facebook everyone is safe.
34 dead, 100 (+?) wounded.
This is beyond terrible. Getting tired of things like this happening. Especially in a place like Brussels :(
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 22, 2016, 08:05:39 AM
34 dead, 100 (+?) wounded.
Skipping through the news channels. CNN just spoke of nearly 200 injured. But it's CNN, so let's hope their reports are bogus again.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 07:50:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2016, 07:44:49 AM
yep
I wonder if this is moving slowly but surely towards the right wing camp, though. I know my views shifted recently, I think Berkut's did too somewhat.
well, it depends. Collective guilt or punishment will always remain the far right's own thing, but the rest is up for grabs by sane people if they are willing to. Like what's being discussed in the Paris thread about extra security screening on Syrians. Or admitting that integration of Islamic culture into the main European one has failed in such a way that it makes EU citizens commit suicide attacks on what should be their home soil. That's what should be looked at by moderate forces and a rational debate to see if this has been a correctable mistake or what we are seeing is simply an unavoidable byproduct of trying to have two very different views on social and cultural matters coexist in the same society. I honestly don't know which.
But if the mainstream continues to pretend the above questions are not valid, then the far-right's rise to power in most of the EU is pretty much guaranteed.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 07:42:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 07:40:10 AM
Sigh.
My condolences of course to our European friends. I don't even know how to react anymore to this shit.
Same. It feels like you can copy/paste 50-pages thread.
I hate to say this, but it may be time for a European terror megathread. I have a feeling that we will have to revisit the issue more often in the coming months and years... :(
Quote from: celedhring on March 22, 2016, 06:43:14 AM
If only the people in 2) limited themselves to "saying it must stop", you might have a point.
Yeah. Pretty much everyone across the political spectrum is saying it must stop. Firebombing refugee shelters and organizing nazi street patrols is not quite the same thing, though.
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2016, 08:23:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 07:50:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2016, 07:44:49 AM
yep
I wonder if this is moving slowly but surely towards the right wing camp, though. I know my views shifted recently, I think Berkut's did too somewhat.
well, it depends. Collective guilt or punishment will always remain the far right's own thing, but the rest is up for grabs by sane people if they are willing to. Like what's being discussed in the Paris thread about extra security screening on Syrians. Or admitting that integration of Islamic culture into the main European one has failed in such a way that it makes EU citizens commit suicide attacks on what should be their home soil. That's what should be looked at by moderate forces and a rational debate to see if this has been a correctable mistake or what we are seeing is simply an unavoidable byproduct of trying to have two very different views on social and cultural matters coexist in the same society. I honestly don't know which.
But if the mainstream continues to pretend the above questions are not valid, then the far-right's rise to power in most of the EU is pretty much guaranteed.
I agree with that. I think the rise of people like Trump in US, and far-right parties in EU, is directly caused by the muffling of free speech via political correctness. When the respectable people say what everyone knows deep inside is total bullshit, the people not filtering themselves start sounding more reasonable.
Yeah. The right wing "solutions" to this are nasty - but they are the only solutions on the table - everybody else is not proposing anything except for saying that any religious, cultural or ethnic profiling is "kind of racist".
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 08:26:43 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 22, 2016, 06:43:14 AM
If only the people in 2) limited themselves to "saying it must stop", you might have a point.
Yeah. Pretty much everyone across the political spectrum is saying it must stop. Firebombing refugee shelters and organizing nazi street patrols is not quite the same thing, though.
What are the solutions the non-right-wing parties propose?
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 08:33:19 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 08:26:43 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 22, 2016, 06:43:14 AM
If only the people in 2) limited themselves to "saying it must stop", you might have a point.
Yeah. Pretty much everyone across the political spectrum is saying it must stop. Firebombing refugee shelters and organizing nazi street patrols is not quite the same thing, though.
What are the solutions the non-right-wing parties propose?
Solutions to what, exactly? It would help if you defined this. For example, most right-wingers conflate immigration and terror attacks, and their proposed "solutions" are the same for both, as if they are one and the same. This is bullshit, of course, so I assume you as an intelligent person aren't conflating the two. Which one are you looking to solve, then?
Quote from: Jaron on March 22, 2016, 03:04:01 AM
More from the religion of peace?
they have as much to do with Islam as Charles Manson with America.
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 08:42:52 AM
Quote from: Jaron on March 22, 2016, 03:04:01 AM
More from the religion of peace?
they have as much to do with Islam as Charles Manson with America.
Yep, we ARE going to have the same 50 pages thread.
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 08:42:52 AM
Quote from: Jaron on March 22, 2016, 03:04:01 AM
More from the religion of peace?
they have as much to do with Islam as Charles Manson with America.
Yep. "ISIL is not Islamic."
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 08:58:17 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 08:42:52 AM
Quote from: Jaron on March 22, 2016, 03:04:01 AM
More from the religion of peace?
they have as much to do with Islam as Charles Manson with America.
Yep. "ISIL is not Islamic."
neither was their socalled prophet by that yardstick
Apparently a coworker was in the Brussels airport when the bomb went off. Someone woke me up this morning by calling to tell me he was fine. Didn't want me to worry. I wouldn't have worried because I didn't know he was even out of the country.
:(
Quote from: celedhring on March 22, 2016, 06:26:35 AM
I have a few friends in Brussels, so I just found out about this Facebook "your friend isn't dead" notification system. Not sure whether is helpful or creepy.
I think it's useful, even if we don't know anyone in the places affected by these events you never know who might be around visiting. When the Nepal earthquake hit it turned out that a friend of mine was vacationing in the area. For people who have lots of friends there it's also quite useful, I guess. A girl I know said this morning that she had had 146 friends reported safe already but was still missing some.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 07:50:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2016, 07:44:49 AM
yep
I wonder if this is moving slowly but surely towards the right wing camp, though. I know my views shifted recently, I think Berkut's did too somewhat.
No, these things don't really shift my views at all, to be honest.
I know they are coming - there will be more attacks. The only unknown is who and when and how.
So when they happen, I like to think that my personal views on policy have already accounted for their inevitability.
What concerns me more is that the masses views seem very susceptible to these kinds of actions, which of course is entirely the point of these attacks to begin with - and we keep making the same mistake as a society that we seem to make decisions about what we should do about systemic problems in the aftermath of these kinds of things, rather than before they happen, even though we *know* that they are in fact going to happen.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2016, 08:29:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2016, 08:23:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 07:50:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2016, 07:44:49 AM
yep
I wonder if this is moving slowly but surely towards the right wing camp, though. I know my views shifted recently, I think Berkut's did too somewhat.
well, it depends. Collective guilt or punishment will always remain the far right's own thing, but the rest is up for grabs by sane people if they are willing to. Like what's being discussed in the Paris thread about extra security screening on Syrians. Or admitting that integration of Islamic culture into the main European one has failed in such a way that it makes EU citizens commit suicide attacks on what should be their home soil. That's what should be looked at by moderate forces and a rational debate to see if this has been a correctable mistake or what we are seeing is simply an unavoidable byproduct of trying to have two very different views on social and cultural matters coexist in the same society. I honestly don't know which.
But if the mainstream continues to pretend the above questions are not valid, then the far-right's rise to power in most of the EU is pretty much guaranteed.
I agree with that. I think the rise of people like Trump in US, and far-right parties in EU, is directly caused by the muffling of free speech via political correctness. When the respectable people say what everyone knows deep inside is total bullshit, the people not filtering themselves start sounding more reasonable.
Yep, I have to agree with both Tamas and DG.
The demand to not "seem kind of racist" is letting the actual racists more voice that they do not deserve.
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 08:42:52 AM
Quote from: Jaron on March 22, 2016, 03:04:01 AM
More from the religion of peace?
they have as much to do with Islam as Charles Manson with America.
This the left wing "solution".
Pretend the problem does not exist, because to acknowledge it might "seem kind of racist".
If Manson killed those people because he thought that the ideals of America demanded that he do so, and there were hundreds of attacks like that from other people who thought that American ideals *demanded* that they murder pregnant women, it would be incredibly foolish to demand that everyone ignore those ideals and pretend like the people executing those attacks don't actually believe in the things they say they believe in, and in fact insist motivate their actions.
It would, in fact, be stupid to then claim that Manson's group actions had nothing to do with America.
Especially if you then show that some significant portion of Americans say things like "Yeah, Manson is right, and we support those attacks" or "Manson and his kind really shouldn't do that, but you can hardly blame them..." or "I don't support Manson, because he sometimes kills the wrong pregnant people, but killing pregnant people is fine in other cases and in fact demanded by America".
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 08:33:19 AM
What are the solutions the non-right-wing parties propose?
Not sure what left-wing parties in Europe propose.
Here in Canada, the left wing solution is to engage Muslims, including Muslim immigrants, as basically "us", so that the "us" versus "them" dynamic is "everyone in our country, including Muslims and Muslim immigrants" is versus "terrorists, including Muslim terrorists".
Rather than "everyone in the country except Muslims and Muslim immigrants" versus "Muslims, Muslim immigrants, and terrorists (mostly if not exclusively Muslim)".
Part of that strategy is to avoid expressly "targeting" Muslims, as much as reasonably conforms to essential security imperatives. Not because to do so would be "racist", but rather, as part of a deliberate strategy of inclusion. The idea is that if Muslims feel they are part of society, the radicals are less likely to be able to recruit, less likely to get a sympathetic hearing, less likely to be sheltered by the surrounding community, and more likely to be turned in by other Muslims - as indeed some have been, like the two bozos planning train derailments in the Toronto/NY rail line.
What Malthus said.
People are forgetting that the solutions proposed by the far right are not solutions to successfully integrating immigrants at all. They are solutions in the same vein as Hitler's solution to the Jewish problem. Thus, they should not even be considered as valid.
No question that what Malthus is saying is right, the issue is that when it comes down to practical application of those ideas, we end up hearing a lot of "that sounds kind of racist" when any reasonable application of security is applied, and "that sounds totally racist!" when discussions inevitably come about on how to actually integrate "moderately" radical Islamic ideas into Western culture.
Stuff like "Yeah, you know, you are going to have to send your daughters to school, and you can't tell them they cannot get married, and Sharia law? Fuck that".
I don't know what left-wingers you've been listening to, but all the ones I know here, as well as all other people who are not racist assholes, pretty much agree with what you posted about integration.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 09:48:00 AM
I don't know what left-wingers you've been listening to, but all the ones I know here, as well as all other people who are not racist assholes, pretty much agree with what you posted about integration.
You raise a really good point actually, that I suspect isn't really illuminated well in these discussions.
The vast majority of left wingers are not actually the problem.
But there is a very vocal minority who make a lot of noise about racism and intolerance who effectively mute the conversation, and a lot of that, I suspect, isn't even honestly held views, but rather tactical opposition to moderation and the "status quo".
The Chomsky's of the world, the Greenwalds, the people who demand that any acknowledgement of the religious roots of jihadism is exactly equivalent to racism I suspect aren't even really supporting religious radicalism so much as they are at war with Western culture, and the enemy of their enemy is their friend.
I think this is akin to those dumbasses on US campuses who now insist that "micro-aggression" is a thing, and that their demand for "safe spaces" equates to a right to punish and restrict free speech is the same kind of phenomenon, where the radical extreme of a view point is not shared by the rest of that overall group (in both cases this is the liberal left), yet the group seems unable to police their own in a reasonable fashion, since they are easily then targeted as part of the same problem.
It is like trying to be the person to stand up in 1921 and say that the pogroms in Russia have gone too far, or being a slightly less radical French revolutionary in 1794. The response from the radicals is to put you up against the wall or under the guillotine as well. Yesterdays radicals become today's reactionaries.
This is why it is dangerous to tolerate that kind of suppression of thought. It moves the bar to a very, very scary place - to one extreme or the other.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
No question that what Malthus is saying is right, the issue is that when it comes down to practical application of those ideas, we end up hearing a lot of "that sounds kind of racist" when any reasonable application of security is applied, and "that sounds totally racist!" when discussions inevitably come about on how to actually integrate "moderately" radical Islamic ideas into Western culture.
Stuff like "Yeah, you know, you are going to have to send your daughters to school, and you can't tell them they cannot get married, and Sharia law? Fuck that".
I don't see it as a problem any different from the sometimes-painful compromises made with other ethnic and religious communities: some stuff is rightfully non-negotiable; other stuff isn't.
In the US, for example, lots of people from fringe Christian groups are allowed to "home school"; reasonably arguments may be made at what the ambit of this accommodation ought to be (or if it should even exist). Then, apply across the board, to Christians, Jews, Muslims alike.
Thinks like personal choices in marriage and 'honour killings' when they are exercised are, obviously, beyond the pale of compromise or accommodation.
OTOH, stuff like 'wearing in public a funny hat' is something we ought to compromise on all the time: stuff like Sikhs wearing a turban with their Mountie uniform. That helps bind the Sikh community to Canada, makes them "us", and has no real downside.
Sharia law - well, we had a controversy here in Canada about "Sharia law", but it was bullshit (highly misleading to non-lawyers). It was all about someone setting up an Arbitration centre using "Sharia Law", not someone attempting to actually impose it as the law of the land. The latter is obviously a no-go. The former is just an issue about freedom of contract (you can set up an ADR centre based on whatever you want, ordinarily, as long as it meets some basics of procedural fairness - Christian and Jewish ones have been operating for years without anyone noticing or caring. There are legitimate issues with using ADR in family law settings, just as there are with any sort of family law contract - but otherwise, not).
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 09:41:33 AM
What Malthus said.
People are forgetting that the solutions proposed by the far right are not solutions to successfully integrating immigrants at all. They are solutions in the same vein as Hitler's solution to the Jewish problem. Thus, they should not even be considered as valid.
Bullshit. Cutting off immigration from certain countries is not the same as gassing Jews.
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 10:00:37 AM
Thinks like personal choices in marriage and 'honour killings' when they are exercised are, obviously, beyond the pale of compromise or accommodation.
Well, this is the key, I think.
There are the dicsussions around the margins where it becomes a difficult topic. Sure, the obvious stuff is obvious. You can't tolerate honor killing.
But can you tolerate wearing head scarves? Probably.
Can you tolerate people requiring their own children to dress in total head to toe concealing clothing in public? What if their children don't want to - can you tolerate a father refusing to send his daughter to school because she will take it off?
There are a lot of things at the margins that are not so obvious. They will involve difficult discussions.
And it seems like the moment one of those discussion start, you get this vocal minority screeching "RACISM!!!!!" if you don't line up with their views.
THAT is the problem.
Hell, we have an easy example right here in Languish. Look at the response to my posts in regards to the guy who missed a flight because some dumbass thought he might be texting with ISIS.
That immediately went to "OMG BERKUT IS A RACIST!".
It is just such an easy and effective rhetorical tool.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 08:33:19 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 08:26:43 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 22, 2016, 06:43:14 AM
If only the people in 2) limited themselves to "saying it must stop", you might have a point.
Yeah. Pretty much everyone across the political spectrum is saying it must stop. Firebombing refugee shelters and organizing nazi street patrols is not quite the same thing, though.
What are the solutions the non-right-wing parties propose?
Behavioral profiling.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 03:46:48 AM
Is anyone surprised by any of this? This thread will go just like the Paris once - cant wait for Raz's "contribution". :rolleyes:
I'm beginning to think you don't like me.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
And it seems like the moment one of those discussion start, you get this vocal minority screeching "RACISM!!!!!" if you don't line up with their views.
THAT is the problem.
Actually, I think racism is a bigger problem than screaming about racism.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 08:58:17 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 08:42:52 AM
Quote from: Jaron on March 22, 2016, 03:04:01 AM
More from the religion of peace?
they have as much to do with Islam as Charles Manson with America.
Yep. "ISIL is not Islamic."
Charles Manson was American. Therefore, he was American.
The Nazis certainly were working for Germany's best future, in their mind. It follows that all Germans are collectively guilty of genocide.
The fact that someone claims to be from Islam and act on Islam behalf does not make it reprensetative of all Islam.
When a US preacher says gays should be killed, does it mean Christianity wants all gays to die? Even when Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee deliver a speech at the same place, in front of the same people, does it mean American politicians wants gays to be sent to the gaz chambers? These Republican politicians certainly claim to speak for America. They were elected by Americans. Therefore, all Republicans wants gays do die, preferably in the most horrible death to atone for their sins? Is that what you are telling me, Derspiess? :)
When a nutjob bombs an abortion clinic and his lauded for his actions by other Christians, and since we know they acted in the name of Christ, does it mean being Christian you are guilty by association with these people that commit crimes and promote violence in the name of the God you share?
There are multiple problems with Islam, but there are problems with other religions too. There have been lots of violence done in the name of Jesus Christ in the past. Catholics and Protestants Priests have committed several abuses toward children in the name of Christ. Indians were massacred in the name of Christ. Survivors were deported, stripped of their cultural identity and beaten in the name of Jesus Christ.
From my point of view, if I were to use the same rationale as you do, it seems all Christians share this belief that children are meant to be abused. I am not aware of many Christians who renounced their Faith after these allegations were made public. In the past, when a child complained to his very religious parents he was abused by a priest, the child was beaten by his religious parent in the name of Christ. A priest could do no wrong. How many Catholics protested in the street, asking for the Pope to resign when the first mass scandals of pedophilia and the Clergy cover up were made public? Not many. How many Catholics publicly went out and called for the disbandment of the Clergy?
The reaction, as with any group of people whose members commit atrocious crime was the same: claim it was the act of misguided individuals and ask that these people be punished, but that they did not speak or act in their name.
Why would it be different for muslims? Why should we hold them to an higher standard than our own? Should a Shiite muslim be concerned by ISIS actions? Why would an ISIS member listen to the criticism of an heretic?
I was baptized and confirmed as a Catholic. Should the actual Pope listen to my criticism of his religion? Why would the Bishop excomunicating raped 9 year old girls and their parents care about what I say when he acts in the name of Jesus Christ?
Religious fanatics are totally irrational. The moment you go down that path, you don't care about anything else. You have the True religion, others are morons. Just like Democrats, from your point of view, I guess.
We are certainly too tolerant toward radical islam and its symbol, and we let these people poison the life of moderate muslims. Then, after a while, we reap what we sow. Europe was way too tolerant for way too long and its gonna take at least two or three generation before they can solve the problem of radical islam. By this time, we will be the one with the problems, with our idiotic policies.
The problem is religious fanatics, not religion. Religion can be good or bad. Some will tell you it's only good, others it's only bad. I'm not gonna remake that debate, I've chose my own path. How we react and differentiate religious fanatics from other religious people is what's important. For this, people like Jacob are just as dangerous and idiotic as people like Martinus. Bombing all muslim countries to kill civilians like your favorite Presidential candidate has suggested is no more a good option than turning a blind eye to the radicalization of young muslims and beachheads of fundamentalism in our countries. Religious zealots, of all religions, must be fought so that everyone else can live in peace. Deporting/arresting productive citizens will not solve the problem. Shutting our borders to all muslim immigration will simply ensure a larger pool of recruits for ISIS-type. Killing the families of suspected terrorists won't do shit. But fighting radicals at home and preventing them from spreading their hate, this will eventually go a long way.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 10:00:37 AM
Thinks like personal choices in marriage and 'honour killings' when they are exercised are, obviously, beyond the pale of compromise or accommodation.
Well, this is the key, I think.
There are the dicsussions around the margins where it becomes a difficult topic. Sure, the obvious stuff is obvious. You can't tolerate honor killing.
But can you tolerate wearing head scarves? Probably.
Can you tolerate people requiring their own children to dress in total head to toe concealing clothing in public? What if their children don't want to - can you tolerate a father refusing to send his daughter to school because she will take it off?
There are a lot of things at the margins that are not so obvious. They will involve difficult discussions.
And it seems like the moment one of those discussion start, you get this vocal minority screeching "RACISM!!!!!" if you don't line up with their views.
THAT is the problem.
Hell, we have an easy example right here in Languish. Look at the response to my posts in regards to the guy who missed a flight because some dumbass thought he might be texting with ISIS.
That immediately went to "OMG BERKUT IS A RACIST!".
It is just such an easy and effective rhetorical tool.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 10:00:37 AM
Thinks like personal choices in marriage and 'honour killings' when they are exercised are, obviously, beyond the pale of compromise or accommodation.
Well, this is the key, I think.
There are the dicsussions around the margins where it becomes a difficult topic. Sure, the obvious stuff is obvious. You can't tolerate honor killing.
But can you tolerate wearing head scarves? Probably.
Can you tolerate people requiring their own children to dress in total head to toe concealing clothing in public? What if their children don't want to - can you tolerate a father refusing to send his daughter to school because she will take it off?
There are a lot of things at the margins that are not so obvious. They will involve difficult discussions.
And it seems like the moment one of those discussion start, you get this vocal minority screeching "RACISM!!!!!" if you don't line up with their views.
THAT is the problem.
See, on this we agree. Before we arrive to the honor killing, there is a whole lot of stuff going on in the community that preludes to that.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
There are a lot of things at the margins that are not so obvious. They will involve difficult discussions.
Yes
QuoteAnd it seems like the moment one of those discussion start, you get this vocal minority screeching "RACISM!!!!!" if you don't line up with their views.
THAT is the problem.
It's A problem, hardly THE problem.
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 10:35:05 AM
Even when Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee deliver a speech at the same place, in front of the same people, does it mean American politicians wants gays to be sent to the gaz chambers? These Republican politicians certainly claim to speak for America. They were elected by Americans. Therefore, all Republicans wants gays do die, preferably in the most horrible death to atone for their sins? Is that what you are telling me, Derspiess? :)
This would be a better argument if Cruz and Huckabee said anything like that.
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 10:35:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 08:58:17 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 08:42:52 AM
Quote from: Jaron on March 22, 2016, 03:04:01 AM
More from the religion of peace?
they have as much to do with Islam as Charles Manson with America.
Yep. "ISIL is not Islamic."
Charles Manson was American. Therefore, he was American.
The Nazis certainly were working for Germany's best future, in their mind. It follows that all Germans are collectively guilty of genocide.
The fact that someone claims to be from Islam and act on Islam behalf does not make it reprensetative of all Islam.
When a US preacher says gays should be killed, does it mean Christianity wants all gays to die? Even when Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee deliver a speech at the same place, in front of the same people, does it mean American politicians wants gays to be sent to the gaz chambers? These Republican politicians certainly claim to speak for America. They were elected by Americans. Therefore, all Republicans wants gays do die, preferably in the most horrible death to atone for their sins? Is that what you are telling me, Derspiess? :)
When a nutjob bombs an abortion clinic and his lauded for his actions by other Christians, and since we know they acted in the name of Christ, does it mean being Christian you are guilty by association with these people that commit crimes and promote violence in the name of the God you share?
Who are you arguing with?
I don't know anyone who has said any of those things.
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 10:35:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 08:58:17 AM
Yep. "ISIL is not Islamic."
Charles Manson was American. Therefore, he was American.
The Nazis certainly were working for Germany's best future, in their mind. It follows that all Germans are collectively guilty of genocide.
The fact that someone claims to be from Islam and act on Islam behalf does not make it reprensetative of all Islam.
When a US preacher says gays should be killed, does it mean Christianity wants all gays to die? Even when Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee deliver a speech at the same place, in front of the same people, does it mean American politicians wants gays to be sent to the gaz chambers? These Republican politicians certainly claim to speak for America. They were elected by Americans. Therefore, all Republicans wants gays do die, preferably in the most horrible death to atone for their sins? Is that what you are telling me, Derspiess? :)
When a nutjob bombs an abortion clinic and his lauded for his actions by other Christians, and since we know they acted in the name of Christ, does it mean being Christian you are guilty by association with these people that commit crimes and promote violence in the name of the God you share?
There are multiple problems with Islam, but there are problems with other religions too. There have been lots of violence done in the name of Jesus Christ in the past. Catholics and Protestants Priests have committed several abuses toward children in the name of Christ. Indians were massacred in the name of Christ. Survivors were deported, stripped of their cultural identity and beaten in the name of Jesus Christ.
From my point of view, if I were to use the same rationale as you do, it seems all Christians share this belief that children are meant to be abused. I am not aware of many Christians who renounced their Faith after these allegations were made public. In the past, when a child complained to his very religious parents he was abused by a priest, the child was beaten by his religious parent in the name of Christ. A priest could do no wrong. How many Catholics protested in the street, asking for the Pope to resign when the first mass scandals of pedophilia and the Clergy cover up were made public? Not many. How many Catholics publicly went out and called for the disbandment of the Clergy?
The reaction, as with any group of people whose members commit atrocious crime was the same: claim it was the act of misguided individuals and ask that these people be punished, but that they did not speak or act in their name.
Why would it be different for muslims? Why should we hold them to an higher standard than our own? Should a Shiite muslim be concerned by ISIS actions? Why would an ISIS member listen to the criticism of an heretic?
I was baptized and confirmed as a Catholic. Should the actual Pope listen to my criticism of his religion? Why would the Bishop excomunicating raped 9 year old girls and their parents care about what I say when he acts in the name of Jesus Christ?
Religious fanatics are totally irrational. The moment you go down that path, you don't care about anything else. You have the True religion, others are morons. Just like Democrats, from your point of view, I guess.
We are certainly too tolerant toward radical islam and its symbol, and we let these people poison the life of moderate muslims. Then, after a while, we reap what we sow. Europe was way too tolerant for way too long and its gonna take at least two or three generation before they can solve the problem of radical islam. By this time, we will be the one with the problems, with our idiotic policies.
The problem is religious fanatics, not religion. Religion can be good or bad. Some will tell you it's only good, others it's only bad. I'm not gonna remake that debate, I've chose my own path. How we react and differentiate religious fanatics from other religious people is what's important. For this, people like Jacob are just as dangerous and idiotic as people like Martinus. Bombing all muslim countries to kill civilians like your favorite Presidential candidate has suggested is no more a good option than turning a blind eye to the radicalization of young muslims and beachheads of fundamentalism in our countries. Religious zealots, of all religions, must be fought so that everyone else can live in peace. Deporting/arresting productive citizens will not solve the problem. Shutting our borders to all muslim immigration will simply ensure a larger pool of recruits for ISIS-type. Killing the families of suspected terrorists won't do shit. But fighting radicals at home and preventing them from spreading their hate, this will eventually go a long way.
Hey, man. I was agreeing with you and using a choice quote from our awesome president to back you up.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
No question that what Malthus is saying is right, the issue is that when it comes down to practical application of those ideas, we end up hearing a lot of "that sounds kind of racist" when any reasonable application of security is applied, and "that sounds totally racist!" when discussions inevitably come about on how to actually integrate "moderately" radical Islamic ideas into Western culture.
It sounds like BB's comment really got to you.
What do you reckon? We should not have discussions of how potential responses to terrorism may or may not be racist, for fear that it empowers racists?
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 08:33:19 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 08:26:43 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 22, 2016, 06:43:14 AM
If only the people in 2) limited themselves to "saying it must stop", you might have a point.
Yeah. Pretty much everyone across the political spectrum is saying it must stop. Firebombing refugee shelters and organizing nazi street patrols is not quite the same thing, though.
What are the solutions the non-right-wing parties propose?
I was just thinking today that it's curious that when this sort of thing happens it's always the right screaming about it being the lefts problem, how could we be so stupid, etc....
Yet you never see the far more valid criticism that the right is to blame. It was they who destroyed the working class and turned these estates into pits of despair. Full of angry young men looking for something to latch onto.
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2016, 11:30:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
No question that what Malthus is saying is right, the issue is that when it comes down to practical application of those ideas, we end up hearing a lot of "that sounds kind of racist" when any reasonable application of security is applied, and "that sounds totally racist!" when discussions inevitably come about on how to actually integrate "moderately" radical Islamic ideas into Western culture.
It sounds like BB's comment really got to you.
What do you reckon? We should not have discussions of how potential responses to terrorism may or may not be racist, for fear that it empowers racists?
No, we should avoid using loaded language like "racism" altogether when it comes to reasonable responses to how do deal with security.
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.
Instead, the bar is incredibly low - it is used as a matter of routine as a way to shut down the conversation, because it is so easy and effective.
Quote from: Tyr on March 22, 2016, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 08:33:19 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 08:26:43 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 22, 2016, 06:43:14 AM
If only the people in 2) limited themselves to "saying it must stop", you might have a point.
Yeah. Pretty much everyone across the political spectrum is saying it must stop. Firebombing refugee shelters and organizing nazi street patrols is not quite the same thing, though.
What are the solutions the non-right-wing parties propose?
I was just thinking today that it's curious that when this sort of thing happens it's always the right screaming about it being the lefts problem, how could we be so stupid, etc....
I don't think anyone should really care about what the right says - we know they are full of shit.
What bothers me is that even liberals get shouted down by other liberals if you don't toe the radical line on racism, that appears to be that anything that "seems racist" IS racist, and we don't even need to bother considering whether or not it actually is racism.
You see people on college campuses in the US losing their jobs because someone found "micro-aggression" in their speech, for God's sake. It is like the left has lost the ability to respond rationally - it is all either with us or under the guillotine you go...
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
That immediately went to "OMG BERKUT IS A RACIST!".
No it didn't.
BB, that notorious left-winger, said one of the positions you articulated "sounded kind of racist." You took offense, and the retard-brigade jumped in to blow it out of all proportion.
If, as you, Malthus, and I agree, we should avoid racism on one hand but we should take all reasonable security precautions on the other hand it is likely that some of the proposed approaches could shade into racism. In some instances it could be a reasonable compromise, in some instances upon examination there's no racist implication after all, and on others it could end up that after a sober second examination we realize that the proposed solution is kind of racist without any worthwhile benefit.
It seems to me that if we actually want to avoid empowering the far-lefty"crying racism at everything" types (of which BB is not one, IMO) we should be able to discuss whether something potentially "sounds kind of racist" without it shutting down the conversation.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 10:03:30 AM
Bullshit. Cutting off immigration from certain countries is not the same as gassing Jews.
No - it's what was done to the Jews before they were gassed.
I don't think Berkut is racist, but I can't figure out why he is soft on the Manson family.
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2016, 11:45:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
That immediately went to "OMG BERKUT IS A RACIST!".
No it didn't.
BB, that notorious left-winger, said one of the positions you articulated "sounded kind of racist." You took offense, and the retard-brigade jumped in to blow it out of all proportion.
If, as you, Malthus, and I agree, we should avoid racism on one hand but we should take all reasonable security precautions on the other hand it is likely that some of the proposed approaches could shade into racism. In some instances it could be a reasonable compromise, in some instances upon examination there's no racist implication after all, and on others it could end up that after a sober second examination we realize that the proposed solution is kind of racist without any worthwhile benefit.
It seems to me that if we actually want to avoid empowering the far-lefty"crying racism at everything" types (of which BB is not one, IMO) we should be able to discuss whether something potentially "sounds kind of racist".
Is there a statement that doesn't potentially sound kind of racist?
Quote from: The Brain on March 22, 2016, 11:47:44 AM
Is there a statement that doesn't potentially sound kind of racist?
Yes.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 11:39:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 22, 2016, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 08:33:19 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 08:26:43 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 22, 2016, 06:43:14 AM
If only the people in 2) limited themselves to "saying it must stop", you might have a point.
Yeah. Pretty much everyone across the political spectrum is saying it must stop. Firebombing refugee shelters and organizing nazi street patrols is not quite the same thing, though.
What are the solutions the non-right-wing parties propose?
I was just thinking today that it's curious that when this sort of thing happens it's always the right screaming about it being the lefts problem, how could we be so stupid, etc....
I don't think anyone should really care about what the right says - we know they are full of shit.
What bothers me is that even liberals get shouted down by other liberals if you don't toe the radical line on racism, that appears to be that anything that "seems racist" IS racist, and we don't even need to bother considering whether or not it actually is racism.
You see people on college campuses in the US losing their jobs because someone found "micro-aggression" in their speech, for God's sake. It is like the left has lost the ability to respond rationally - it is all either with us or under the guillotine you go...
These faux left American kids with their appropriation and other "I'm a nationalist and I just don't know it" nonsense aren't really representative of the broader left though.
:mad:
Our best weapon in the fight against radical Islam is compassion. Right viper?
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2016, 11:45:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
That immediately went to "OMG BERKUT IS A RACIST!".
No it didn't.
BB, that notorious left-winger, said one of the positions you articulated "sounded kind of racist."
No, I was talking about garbon's thread, where I was told to "check my white privilege" because I didn't think some guy accidently being taken of a plane and missing his flight was a terrible injustice.
In this case, I don't think BB even thought that what was being discussed was racist - and he certainly isn't a member of the far left. I do consider him a nominal member of the supposed liberal left in this context, as someone who cares about human rights, liberal ideals, etc., etc.
Quote
You took offense, and the retard-brigade jumped in to blow it out of all proportion.
Not offense per se, but I see it as a typical reaction that shuts down conversation because the not so middle of the road has succeeded in turning even the hint of racism into something that destroys careers, regardless of whether it is real or not.
Now we see even people like Beebs shying away from anything that might even possibly sound kind of racist to people who are desperate to find racism where it doesn't exist. We've modulated our language to appease to the most agenda driven amongst us.
Quote
If, as you, Malthus, and I agree, we should avoid racism on one hand but we should take all reasonable security precautions on the other hand it is likely that some of the proposed approaches could shade into racism.
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.
Quote
In some instances it could be a reasonable compromise, in some instances upon examination there's no racist implication after all, and on others it could end up that after a sober second examination we realize that the proposed solution is kind of racist without any worthwhile benefit.
The reality though is that the moment someone says "that sounds kind of racist" the discussion ends, and what is more, in some cases people lose their jobs or are forced to resign because they suggested that maybe people should not be so quick to be offended.
Quote
It seems to me that if we actually want to avoid empowering the far-lefty"crying racism at everything" types (of which BB is not one, IMO) we should be able to discuss whether something potentially "sounds kind of racist" without it shutting down the conversation.
Agreed, but sadly that is not the case. In today's world, the hint of racism is too dangerous to allow, so the best way to turn off actual public discourse is to make an accusation of racism.
I can assure you that I would never take this position at work, for example, if it came up. Because I know that there are only one acceptable response to any hint of racism, and that is total and complete rejection of anything that "seems kind of racist".
We are getting pretty far afield at this point though...
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 10:03:30 AM
Bullshit. Cutting off immigration from certain countries is not the same as gassing Jews.
Don't try to reason with these people. As much as they would like to continue denying the problem, events such as this new attack keep conspiring against their idyllic worldview. So now they've started yet another round of hand wringing about 'what to do!?!' (cue little bleating squeels).
When people demand real solutions they're told to suck it up and live with it because nothing can be done...
If islamism is the disease then Islam is the vector and all Muslims are carriers - even if most of them will never develop the symptoms. And it is certainly not the ridiculous 'multikulti' group therapy Malthus is advocating that will work, not when Europe is being overrun.
G.
Quote from: Jaron on March 22, 2016, 12:01:14 PM
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?
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 11:35:52 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 12:06:20 PMI 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."
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.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 11:28:56 AM
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 :(
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 12:34:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 11:28:56 AM
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 :P
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
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 12:38:52 PM
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:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fygreck.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341c5dd653ef01b7c809ccf5970b-800wi&hash=5e0a76acdc9ae164a43f1b95a5a721bc50807b8d)
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"
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.
Quote from: Tyr on March 22, 2016, 12:49:02 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Tyr on March 22, 2016, 12:49:02 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 01:05:45 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 22, 2016, 12:49:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 01:13:57 PM
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.
Quote from: frunk on March 22, 2016, 01:17:16 PM
So far much less than the US born population's shooting sprees, but they are catching up nicely. Soon they'll be fully assimilated.
Well they have one. I was about to say that Spicey's scenario describes them as well.
Quote from: Grallon on March 22, 2016, 12:11:38 PM
Don't try to reason with these people. As much as they would like to continue denying the problem, events such as this new attack keep conspiring against their idyllic worldview. So now they've started yet another round of hand wringing about 'what to do!?!' (cue little bleating squeels) . . .If islamism is the disease then Islam is the vector and all Muslims are carriers - even if most of them will never develop the symptoms.
With friends like these, derspeiss . . .
there's still two at large apparently (one from Zaventem who's bomb didn't detonate), and one from the metro.
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 01:13:57 PM
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.
I think I'm missing your point here.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2016, 01:19:39 PM
Quote from: frunk on March 22, 2016, 01:17:16 PM
So far much less than the US born population's shooting sprees, but they are catching up nicely. Soon they'll be fully assimilated.
Well they have one. I was about to say that Spicey's scenario describes them as well.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 12:51:20 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 22, 2016, 12:49:02 PM
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.
I considered that.
I think the thing is that there is no outlet for depressed white kids. If it was the 60s then maybe there could have been some kind of radical communism (an interesting theoretical that I pondered a lot there- what if the west's economic situation was shifted back a few decades). Pre-war of course fascism. But these days....what is there?
With muslims though they've the fucked up situation back in the home country breeding crazy stuff there and giving them an outlet to turn to.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 01:45:36 PM
:rolleyes:
Well it is true dude. Those shooters are not typically coming from impoverished backgrounds.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2016, 01:57:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 01:45:36 PM
:rolleyes:
Well it is true dude. Those shooters are not typically coming from impoverished backgrounds.
Still irrelevant to the discussion. It's like you guys are so uncomfortable with the conversation about violent radical Islamic terrorism here that you just have to blurt out that native-born US citizens also kill people.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 02:06:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2016, 01:57:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 01:45:36 PM
:rolleyes:
Well it is true dude. Those shooters are not typically coming from impoverished backgrounds.
Still irrelevant to the discussion. It's like you guys are so uncomfortable with the conversation about violent radical Islamic terrorism here that you just have to blurt out that native-born US citizens also kill people.
I am very comfortable with it. I have been saying resources should be spent monitoring people who fit profiles that are likely to commit violent crimes and not other ones.
Malthus' well-written posts in this thread pretty much cover my views on this.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 02:06:35 PM
Still irrelevant to the discussion. It's like you guys are so uncomfortable with the conversation about violent radical Islamic terrorism here that you just have to blurt out that native-born US citizens also kill people.
Cause we kill more Americans each year than the radical Islamic terrorists have since the founding of the US. I'm assuming that it's inevitable that as the US Muslim population increases the number of Americans killed by Muslims (radical, terrorist or otherwise) will also increase.
as a thought: eastervacation starts in 3 days. Imagine the carnage if they attacked then. Small favours I guess.
Quote from: frunk on March 22, 2016, 02:26:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 02:06:35 PM
Still irrelevant to the discussion. It's like you guys are so uncomfortable with the conversation about violent radical Islamic terrorism here that you just have to blurt out that native-born US citizens also kill people.
Cause we kill more Americans each year than the radical Islamic terrorists have since the founding of the US. I'm assuming that it's inevitable that as the US Muslim population increases the number of Americans killed by Muslims (radical, terrorist or otherwise) will also increase.
Ok I guess I am missing your point here. Therefore we do...what exactly?
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 01:44:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 01:13:57 PM
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.
I think I'm missing your point here.
The allegation raised is that alienation of Muslim youth living in shitty ex-working-class towns in Europe is a major problem, causing them to radicalize.
You rightfully point out that this isn't an issue in the US. In the US, those radicals who attack, don't come from that background.
My point is simple: actual numbers of attacking Muslim radicals in the US are tiny. Europe is more at risk.
In summary, you can both be right: alienation of impoverished youth can be a major problem, in that it inspires a larger number of attacks; and this pattern does not persist in the US, which lacks an equivalent alienated mass of Muslim youth. The US still gets attacks, but a lot less.
Does poverty breed terrorism? I am not so sure. I know the 9/11 guys were from privileged backgrounds were they not? Are the poor over-represented in ISIS or other groups?
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 03:11:43 PM
The US still gets attacks, but a lot less.
The problem with the 'alienation' thing is that the overwhelming majority of terrorism victims are other Muslims and other local ethnic and religious minorities. Hardly people that have alienated anybody. They just do not agree with the terrorists ideology and/or methods so are considered enemies.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2016, 03:16:56 PM
Does poverty breed terrorism? I am not so sure. I know the 9/11 guys were from privileged backgrounds were they not? Are the poor over-represented in ISIS or other groups?
Silly Texan. We all know the cause is global warming.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
No question that what Malthus is saying is right, the issue is that when it comes down to practical application of those ideas, we end up hearing a lot of "that sounds kind of racist" when any reasonable application of security is applied, and "that sounds totally racist!" when discussions inevitably come about on how to actually integrate "moderately" radical Islamic ideas into Western culture.
Stuff like "Yeah, you know, you are going to have to send your daughters to school, and you can't tell them they cannot get married, and Sharia law? Fuck that".
Not to mention that not only for Malthus's ideas to actually work and bring any tangible effect, they would have to be applied consistently for many years to come, but people in Europe have been told for years that these ideas are being implemented, and all they see is bloodshed. Europeans want politicians who will come and implement a solution that will stop their friends and families being killed by Islamic terrorists here and now - Malthus's ideas won't cut it.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 10:28:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
And it seems like the moment one of those discussion start, you get this vocal minority screeching "RACISM!!!!!" if you don't line up with their views.
THAT is the problem.
Actually, I think racism is a bigger problem than screaming about racism.
And people dying in terrorist attacks is a bigger problem than racism.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2016, 03:19:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 03:11:43 PM
The US still gets attacks, but a lot less.
The problem with the 'alienation' thing is that the overwhelming majority of terrorism victims are other Muslims and other local ethnic and religious minorities. Hardly people that have alienated anybody. They just do not agree with the terrorists ideology and/or methods so are considered enemies.
Well, sure. Different people have different motives. The motives of those actually in the ME are likely to be different from the motives of those living in NA or Europe.
Plus, the targets of violence aren't always the logical ones of those who committed whatever "offence" the radicals are complaining about. The radicals can always simply label the targets as the dupes or cat's paws of the hated enemy - much like how every executed Iranian dissident magically becomes a CIA and/or Israeli agent.
You see the same thing with the communists: their enemies may be international capitalists, but the overwhelming number of their victims were simply local peasants (re-defined in Soviet speak as "Kulacks", and so, class enemies).
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 01:04:44 PM
Another difference between left and right:
You, as a Jew, should understand it - the left is into Mercy, the right is into Severity/Justice. There is a time and a place for each (and Torah advocates picking, when appropriate, the middle ground) but when the enemy is slaughtering innocent people only a fool errs on the side of Mercy.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 03:21:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
No question that what Malthus is saying is right, the issue is that when it comes down to practical application of those ideas, we end up hearing a lot of "that sounds kind of racist" when any reasonable application of security is applied, and "that sounds totally racist!" when discussions inevitably come about on how to actually integrate "moderately" radical Islamic ideas into Western culture.
Stuff like "Yeah, you know, you are going to have to send your daughters to school, and you can't tell them they cannot get married, and Sharia law? Fuck that".
Not to mention that not only for Malthus's ideas to actually work and bring any tangible effect, they would have to be applied consistently for many years to come, but people in Europe have been told for years that these ideas are being implemented, and all they see is bloodshed. Europeans want politicians who will come and implement a solution that will stop their friends and families being killed by Islamic terrorists here and now - Malthus's ideas won't cut it.
So you are saying Euros are demanding a ... final solution? ;)
But seriously, any reasonable solution to these problems is going, by the nature of these problems, to be protracted - left or right. The left leaning solutions require gradual assimilation to Western values, which will take time; the right leaning solutions will require eternal border vigilance and security measures - which will also take time. Neither will absolutely prevent future attacks; I suspect elements of both will be necessary.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 03:23:54 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 10:28:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
And it seems like the moment one of those discussion start, you get this vocal minority screeching "RACISM!!!!!" if you don't line up with their views.
THAT is the problem.
Actually, I think racism is a bigger problem than screaming about racism.
And people dying in terrorist attacks is a bigger problem than racism.
And addressing both problems is not mutually exclusive.
All I am saying that the left/liberal/mainstream have completely dropped the ball on this issue and people are no longer buying the multi-kulti spiel (irrespective of how (in)correct it is).
So, when I ask what is the mainstream/liberal/leftist proposal for the people, to counter the right wing/extreme solutions, "more multi-kulti" is not going to cut it.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 03:29:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 01:04:44 PM
Another difference between left and right:
You, as a Jew, should understand it - the left is into Mercy, the right is into Severity/Justice. There is a time and a place for each (and Torah advocates picking, when appropriate, the middle ground) but when the enemy is slaughtering innocent people only a fool errs on the side of Mercy.
The problem lies in identifying the enemy.
Sure, no mercy for terrorists, I can get behind that. But the real issue is what to do with the vast majority of Muslim people, who are not terrorists. Justice demands that they not be treated as enemies in a pre-emptory manner.
But then you have a mainstream leftist/liberal politician saying something like this:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/6845_1092469494107175_1535987607715464264_n.jpg?oh=30dae97573bfe2da9d37b67d03c1a278&oe=5752409B&__gda__=1469056508_7c231e7027d88eb52f3e12b93aa82863)
And then wonder why people support Trump. It's bullshit what she said - sure not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists operating in the West today are Muslim - and refusing to acknowledge that fact means more vote for right wingers.
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 03:36:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 03:29:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 01:04:44 PM
Another difference between left and right:
You, as a Jew, should understand it - the left is into Mercy, the right is into Severity/Justice. There is a time and a place for each (and Torah advocates picking, when appropriate, the middle ground) but when the enemy is slaughtering innocent people only a fool errs on the side of Mercy.
The problem lies in identifying the enemy.
Sure, no mercy for terrorists, I can get behind that. But the real issue is what to do with the vast majority of Muslim people, who are not terrorists. Justice demands that they not be treated as enemies in a pre-emptory manner.
It depends what they do. Those who organise a protest in the Muslim district of Brussels after the arrest of the Paris attacks mastermind - or those who throw stones at police cars and ambulances during the same arrest - should be treated as enemies, and with no mercy. Do you disagree?
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 03:38:09 PM
And then wonder why people support Trump. It's bullshit what she said - sure not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists operating in the West today are Muslim - and refusing to acknowledge that fact means more vote for right wingers.
I dunno, sometimes it feels that there are more members of Neo-Nazi groups (whom I'd classify as terrorists, even though apparently only brown people can be terrorists) operating in the West than there are Islamist terrorists. Have you done a count?
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 03:38:09 PM
And then wonder why people support Trump. It's bullshit what she said - sure not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists operating in the West today are Muslim - and refusing to acknowledge that fact means more vote for right wingers.
I dunno, sometimes it feels that there are more members of Neo-Nazi groups (whom I'd classify as terrorists, even though apparently only brown people can be terrorists) operating in the West than there are Islamist terrorists. Have you done a count?
Yes, in terms of body count of their victims it is pretty obvious which one is more dangerous.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 22, 2016, 03:47:51 PM
I dunno, sometimes it feels that there are more members of Neo-Nazi groups (whom I'd classify as terrorists, even though apparently only brown people can be terrorists) operating in the West than there are Islamist terrorists. Have you done a count?
I'd say you should be counting the number/severity of incidents rather than group membership.
Dikembe Mutombo is okay, thankfully. Too bad he wasn't able to reject the bombers and wave his finger at them.
Quote from: Martinus link=topic=13826.msg961488#msg961488
It depends what they do. Those who organise a protest in the Muslim district of Brussels after the arrest of the Paris attacks mastermind - or those who throw stones at police cars and ambulances during the same arrest - should be treated as enemies, and with no mercy. Do you disagree?
I am with Martin here. We need to prosecute terrorist sympathisers and supporters, and not just terrorists, swiftly and harshly and should deport them where possible. They create a fertile ground for further attacks and I don't see why we should bother to integrate them.
I am with Malthus though in that I don't think that most Muslims are in that group.
The Gutmensch cucks have at least one thing right, it's only a narrow minority of Islamoids that actively cheers on the more religiously devout Muslims as they bring the pain to the infidels.
It's just they'd never drop a dime on their own as they quietly meet and plan their next multicultural extravaganza.
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 08:42:52 AM
Quote from: Jaron on March 22, 2016, 03:04:01 AM
More from the religion of peace?
they have as much to do with Islam as Charles Manson with America.
you
Your analogy fails.
Charles Manson was never claiming to speak in the name of America, and he was rightfully denounced by absolutely every body.
Your analogy is retarded.
Wait a minute, was this bait?
Did i just got baited by Viper?
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 11:39:18 AM
I don't think anyone should really care about what the right says - we know they are full of shit.
Well fuck you, too, Berkut.
Quote from: Malthus
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...
...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.
Speaking as someone on the right, I don't think either of those characterizations are correct. I certainly thing that Muslims can be assimilated (maybe not in Europe, but in the US and Canada, sure--see below) and I think that in the long term we'll win
unless we abandon our values (which you say is a leftist, rather than rightist POV).
OTOH, saying that the West will win, as opposed to "we will win"--I am somewhat hesitant to lump western Europe in with the US and Canada here. While since WWII, western Europe and the US have been politically aligned, and our political and cultural values are closer to each other than to those of any other area or group, I'm not sure that our values are as similar as might commonly be assumed. I'm not sure that Europe
will win, and partly that's because I think that they hold certain values that make them both less likely to succeed against Islamic fundamentalism, and on a certain level, less deserving of succeeding. While I do have some difficultly in articulating exactly what values are different between Europe and Anglo-America, I think it's fairly obvious that we tend to be more inclusive than Europe (even though obviously we have had a long history of not always living up to our values). I think one way this shows up is in our reaction to terrorist attacks when carried out by someone in the country they actually grew up in. When it happens here, we're shocked, and our reaction is along the lines of "But they're Americans, how could they become radicalized like this?" whereas in Europe, the European reaction is more along the lines of "Well of course they're terrorists--they're dirty stinking Musselmen".
One obvious difference between US/Canada and Europe is that US/Canada are not nation-states. That by itself makes integration much easier. I imagine that in Europe, no matter what generation French you are, you aren't really French if you don't look like a stereotypical Frenchman.
I don't think your perceptions of Europe are correct, dguller and dps. You can be French with non-white skin and there is lots of soul-searching here about homegrown Muslims turning terrorist or joining the war in Syria.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2016, 04:20:54 PM
One obvious difference between US/Canada and Europe is that US/Canada are not nation-states. That by itself makes integration much easier. I imagine that in Europe, no matter what generation French you are, you aren't really French if you don't look like a stereotypical Frenchman.
That's actually a crappy example because in France, you are French as long as you speak French and accept general French culture. :P In other countries, it varies.
Are these statistics fake?
QuoteOn the back of the Brussels terror attack it is worthwhile remembering that while a majority of Muslims in the West appear to have no truck with terrorism or extremism, there are a significant number who sympathise with terrorism and repeatedly attempt to justify attacks on the West.
TERRORISM
An ICM poll from 2006 revealed that 20 per cent of British Muslims sympathised with the 7/7 bombers who brought terror to the streets of the British capital, killing 52 and injuring hundreds. This number rose to one in four British Muslims, according to NOP Research for Channel 4. With a British Muslim population of over 3 million today, that translates to roughly three quarters of a million terror-sympathising people in the UK.
The number rises for younger British Muslims – a sure sign that radicalisation through schools, mosques, and prisons (often via Saudi-funded groups) is creating a long-term problem in Europe. Thirty-one per cent of younger British Muslims endorsed or excused the 7/7 bombings of 2005, with just 14 per cent of those over 45 doing so.
Twenty-seven per cent of those polled in the United Kingdom say they had sympathy with the attacks on Charlie Hebdo – the French satirical magazine that published cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammed last year, with 78 per cent supporting punishment for the publication of cartoons featuring Muhammed and 68 per cent supporting the arrest and prosecution of British people who "insult Islam."
And this number pales in comparison to global Muslim population figures. According to World Public Opinion (2009) at the University of Maryland, 61 per cent of Egyptians, 32 per cent of Indonesians, 41 per cent of Pakistanis, 38 per cent of Moroccans, 83 per cent of Palestinians, 62 per cent of Jordanians, and 42 per cent of Turks appear to endorse or sympathise with attacks on Americans or American groups.
A 2013 study found that 16 per cent of young Muslims in Belgium believed that state terrorism is "acceptable," while 12 per cent of young Muslims in Britain said that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified.
Pew Research from 2007 found that 26 per cent of young Muslims in America believed suicide bombings are justified, with 35 per cent in Britain, 42 per cent in France, 22 per cent in Germany, and 29 per cent in Spain feeling the same way.
And Muslims who are more devout or dedicated to Islam are three times more likely to believe that suicide bombings are justified — a harrowing statistic when you consider that 86 per cent of Muslims in Britain "feel that religion is the most important thing in their life."
While just 5 per cent of UK Muslims said they would not report a terror attack being planned, the number leaps to 18 per cent amongst young, British Muslims. The anti-police narrative fuelled by groups like Black Lives Matter are no doubt contributing to this idea that people should not work with the police, with the British Muslim Youth group recently urging a boycott of police.
More recently, in 2015, it was revealed that 45 per cent of British Muslims think that hate preachers that advocate violence against the West represent "mainstream Islam."
Forty per cent of British Muslims say they want Sharia law in the West, while 41 per cent oppose it.
Despite the fact that "Islamophobia" did not rise after the Paris Attacks, there remains a grievance industry across the Western world which targets young Muslims especially, urging them to feel victimised by Western governments for taking a stance against Islamism – and scarcely a tough stance at that.
No more was this evident than in the case of Tell MAMA, a government-backed Muslim grievance group which saw its state funding removed after it was found trying to artificially inflate statistics on hate crimes against Muslims in the UK.
CRIMINALITY
Earlier this year it was reported that one in five prisoners in the United Kingdom's top security jails is now Muslim, a rise of 23 per cent from just five years ago. In total, a 20 per cent increase in the jail population in Britain has been outstripped by the rise in Muslim inmates — up 122 per cent over 13 years.
The same disproportionate figures are borne out across the United States, where Pew data from 2011 revealed that Muslims made up 9 per cent of state and federal prisoners though at the time Muslims made up just 0.8 per cent of the U.S. population.
In 2008, the Washington Post reported "About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in [France's] prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population."
ANTI-SEMITISM
"An average of 55 percent of Western European Muslims harbored antisemitic attitudes. Acceptance of antisemitic stereotypes by Muslims in these countries was substantially higher than among the national population in each country," an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) report found in 2015.
A Swedish government report from 2006 found that that 5 per cent of the total population held anti-Semitic views, with the number surging to 39 per cent amongst adult Muslims.
In Germany in 2012, a study of the country's burgeoning Turkish population revealed that 62 percent of Turks in Germany said they wanted to only live amongst each other, with 46 per cent wanting the country to become a Muslim majority nation. This report also found that 18 per cent of the Turkish population thought of Jews as "inferior."
Breitbart News reported in January about an ongoing exodus of French Jews, with some 8,000 headed for Israel in 2015 and many others migrating to the UK or the U.S, as a result of rising anti-Semitism.
INTEGRATION
Despite hundreds of millions of pounds, dollars, and euros spent on integration projects, it appears to be a Sisyphean task – calling into question the rate at which immigration is occurring throughout the Western world and the tolerance with which our societies have operate thus far.
The BBC found that 36 per cent of 16 to 24-year-old Muslims believe that if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death. Thirty five per cent of Muslims say they would prefer to send their children to an Islamic school, and 37 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds say they want government-funded Islamic schools to send their kids to.
The report again highlights the radicalisation of the Muslim youth in the West, with 74 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds preferring Muslim women to wear the veil, compared with only 28 per cent for those over the age of 55.
Raheem Kassam is the Editor in Chief of Breitbart London. He tweets at @RaheemKassam and you can follow him on Facebook here
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/22/polling-muslims-in-the-west-increasingly-sympathise-with-extremism-terror/
Breitbart? :lol:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 22, 2016, 04:49:07 PM
Breitbart? :lol:
That's not the question I asked - my question was "are these statistics fake?".
Impossible to say without seeing the original studies and not just an editorial article from a well-known ideological website. The origin of the article makes me at least cautious and sceptical.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 22, 2016, 04:16:22 PM
The Gutmensch cucks have at least one thing right,
Lord, you really do see
everything in terms of your favorite kink! :lol:
QuoteIt's just they'd never drop a dime on their own as they quietly meet and plan their next multicultural extravaganza.
Not true, as it happens. Or maybe Canadian "cucks" are different from the Euro variety.
See example:
http://globalnews.ca/news/508988/meet-the-lawyer-linking-police-with-torontos-muslim-community/
QuoteWhen they announced terror charges against Jaser, 35, and 30-year-old Montreal resident Chiheb Esseghaier, investigators took pains to note the arrests wouldn't have happened had community members not come forward. Muslim leaders were also invited to a briefing before Monday's press conference.
"This wasn't a one-off. ... These types of interactions between members of the Muslim community and authorities have been fairly common but haven't been well publicized," Syed said.
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 04:17:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 11:39:18 AM
I don't think anyone should really care about what the right says - we know they are full of shit.
Well fuck you, too, Berkut.
Quote from: Malthus
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...
...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.
Speaking as someone on the right, I don't think either of those characterizations are correct. I certainly thing that Muslims can be assimilated (maybe not in Europe, but in the US and Canada, sure--see below) and I think that in the long term we'll win unless we abandon our values (which you say is a leftist, rather than rightist POV).
OTOH, saying that the West will win, as opposed to "we will win"--I am somewhat hesitant to lump western Europe in with the US and Canada here. While since WWII, western Europe and the US have been politically aligned, and our political and cultural values are closer to each other than to those of any other area or group, I'm not sure that our values are as similar as might commonly be assumed. I'm not sure that Europe will win, and partly that's because I think that they hold certain values that make them both less likely to succeed against Islamic fundamentalism, and on a certain level, less deserving of succeeding. While I do have some difficultly in articulating exactly what values are different between Europe and Anglo-America, I think it's fairly obvious that we tend to be more inclusive than Europe (even though obviously we have had a long history of not always living up to our values). I think one way this shows up is in our reaction to terrorist attacks when carried out by someone in the country they actually grew up in. When it happens here, we're shocked, and our reaction is along the lines of "But they're Americans, how could they become radicalized like this?" whereas in Europe, the European reaction is more along the lines of "Well of course they're terrorists--they're dirty stinking Musselmen".
I don't think the attitudes I have described are universally held by left and right, but I do think it is fair to say there is a
tendency for those on the left and right to align that way.
I like how you ignored my post/question to you, Malthus.
I was going home tonight and walked past the PATH station, as I do everyday. Except today I saw two Port Authority cops stand near the entrance with mean expressions on their face, and mean assault rifles on their shoulders. I went WTF for a second, and then it dawned on me why they're there today.
As I continued on walking home, I had another realization. Why didn't Belgians think to put mean looking guys with assault rifles by the metro entrances? Surely some of these tragedies could've been averted with this one simple trick?
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 04:57:09 PM
I like how you ignored my post/question to you, Malthus.
I didn't see it. :(
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 03:41:54 PM
It depends what they do. Those who organise a protest in the Muslim district of Brussels after the arrest of the Paris attacks mastermind - or those who throw stones at police cars and ambulances during the same arrest - should be treated as enemies, and with no mercy. Do you disagree?
Is this the one you want me to respond to?
If so, I would say - those that assault the cops ought to be arrested and charged; those who protest - however distasteful I find them - have that right, same as any other group I personally find hateful, to do so within the law (neo-Nazis spring to mind).
Some of the values I want to preserve, that make "us" different from "them", is the rule of law and freedoms such as freedom of assembly and expression; I refuse to make an exception for Islamoid kooks, any more than for any other species of kook.
Quote from: mongers on March 22, 2016, 05:09:03 PM
Unconfirmed reports of a spontaneous demonstration in Sint-Jans-Molenbeek, the mainly muslim protesters condemned the attacks, some held home-made placards, which loosely translated said "Not in our name".
Good. So these would be the Muslims you do not jail and deport, unlike the ones that protested the arrest of a terrorist or threw rocks at ambulances and police. See? This is quite easy.
Quote from: Zanza on March 22, 2016, 04:50:44 PM
Impossible to say without seeing the original studies and not just an editorial article from a well-known ideological website. The origin of the article makes me at least cautious and sceptical.
I can only hope you are as critical of the propaganda being spew by leftist websites...
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 03:52:53 PM
Dikembe Mutombo is okay, thankfully. Too bad he wasn't able to reject the bombers and wave his finger at them.
You asshole, I waited all day to post that. :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5J4wBxE.gif&hash=a4b086e01f32ecc8f6fddcf8f8a7cb2ace4626ab)
In the end, there are only 3 kinds of muslims:
Terrorists, terrorists factories, and terrorists in the making.
You wanna save muslim people?
Brainwash them so they stop being muslims.
Or take their brains out of their skulls.
Either way works.
Says the Jewfro war criminal.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 04:50:11 PM
That's not the question I asked - my question was "are these statistics fake?".
I doubt that, even from breitbart. But I notice there is a selection of numbers from a number of individual polls spread out over the last decade, and presumably each containing many other inquiries. So right away, there is the possibility of cherry picking bias. I also notice that some of the questions are rather vague (or breitbart reports them in a vague manner). Finally, assuming the purpose of this statistical tour through the ages is to prove something about "Muslims" there needs to be a control group. E.g. how many non-Muslim Russians would say that attacks on America are justified? To what extent is this capturing general anti-American/British/"Western" sentiment and to what extent strictly Muslim sentiment.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2016, 06:10:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 04:50:11 PM
That's not the question I asked - my question was "are these statistics fake?".
I doubt that, even from breitbart. But I notice there is a selection of numbers from a number of individual polls spread out over the last decade, and presumably each containing many other inquiries. So right away, there is the possibility of cherry picking bias. I also notice that some of the questions are rather vague (or breitbart reports them in a vague manner). Finally, assuming the purpose of this statistical tour through the ages is to prove something about "Muslims" there needs to be a control group. E.g. how many non-Muslim Russians would say that attacks on America are justified? To what extent is this capturing general anti-American/British/"Western" sentiment and to what extent strictly Muslim sentiment.
.
Even accepting the article at face value, the focus on young Muslims just tells us that today's young people are stupid. We need to look no further than young Americans' support for Sanders to know that. :p:
plus, it cherrypicks muslim countries
@why europe sucks re immigration: imo, it's the obsession with culture
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2016, 05:15:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 22, 2016, 05:09:03 PM
Unconfirmed reports of a spontaneous demonstration in Sint-Jans-Molenbeek, the mainly muslim protesters condemned the attacks, some held home-made placards, which loosely translated said "Not in our name".
Good. So these would be the Muslims you do not jail and deport, unlike the ones that protested the arrest of a terrorist or threw rocks at ambulances and police. See? This is quite easy.
Is this a rule for everyone or just Muslims?
Has anyone complained yet that people are more in an uproar about the Belgian bombings than the ones in Istanbul?
Breitbart is trash. This is a site that seriously posts articles about Obama being a Muslim pro gay alcohol drinking Kenyan.
I read it when I need a laugh.
Quote from: Jaron on March 22, 2016, 07:50:51 PM
Has anyone complained yet that people are more in an uproar about the Belgian bombings than the ones in Istanbul?
You CAN be Ottoman Empire.
Quote from: Siege on March 22, 2016, 05:57:10 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 22, 2016, 04:50:44 PM
Impossible to say without seeing the original studies and not just an editorial article from a well-known ideological website. The origin of the article makes me at least cautious and sceptical.
I can only hope you are as critical of the propaganda being spew by leftist websites...
As you would probably consider the mainstream media that I read "leftist" whereas I trust them more than breitbart, I am probably de facto less sceptical of other sources than I am of breitbart. As for websites that I would consider "leftist" - I would not read those just like I usually don't read breitbart. Selective reading here.
But I still consider myself sceptical of most statistics, no matter where I read them, even in mainstream media or the research institutions directly.
A little perspective for the more panicky of our fellow 'Muricans--
QuoteIs America Next?
I'll make no guarantees, but there's a reason these terror attacks keep happening in Europe.
By Daniel Benjamin
Politico.com
March 22, 2016
When a bomb goes off in Europe, Americans shudder as if rocked by the blast. Whatever the geographical reality, post-industrial Old Europe—in Donald Rumsfeld's deathless phrase—is, emotionally speaking, our nearest neighbor and closest peer. So if an explosion propels shattered glass and broken bodies in a Brussels airport, we instinctively expect it to happen here next.
We shouldn't. While the jihadist threat is genuinely global, it is by no means equally distributed. There is, of course, no such thing as perfect security, and as we saw as recently as the San Bernardino shootings in December of last year, there are individuals in the United States who are prepared to commit violence against other Americans. But the European context underlying the attacks at Brussels Airport and the downtown Maelbeek subway station—one of alienated, underemployed and ghettoized Muslims as well as subpar security differs dramatically from anything found in the United States.
To begin with, consider the Muslim minority communities of North America and Europe. In the United States, Muslim communities are mostly comprised of reasonably well-off families from numerous Muslim majority countries. Income and education levels are roughly those of average Americans—the only sizable asterisk on that statement is the impoverished refugees who have come from Somalia.
By contrast, Europe's Muslim communities were seeded by poor peasants who came as guest workers for the burgeoning industries of the postwar period. They were expected to return home. Instead, they stayed even as their industries faded—think of Britain's rust belt in the Midlands—and grew in numbers due to family unification and comparatively high fertility.
They came poor and, to a large extent, have stayed poor, with little access to higher education and much higher unemployment rates than the non-Muslim populations. And this is in countries already plagued by high unemployment. They tend to be concentrated in rundown urban neighborhoods that look more like the places they and their forbears hail from—with their satellite dishes and drying laundry—than the surrounding neighborhoods.
Although the overwhelming majority of European Muslims want nothing to do with extremism and, as polls show, are often as patriotic or more so than their non-Muslim fellow citizens, there are more extremists in their midst than in the United States. In Belgium, the numbers are particularly high. According a Soufan Group report from December, for example, 470 Belgian Muslims have gone to fight in Syria or Iraq out of a population of about 660,000—in terms of rate of recruitment, it is the top supplier of militants in Western Europe.
By contrast, an estimated 250 American Muslims have gone to the region out of a population five or more times larger. (Demographics on the U.S. Muslim community are problematic; Pew puts its estimate at 3.3 million Muslims.) Overall, Western European Muslims are three times likelier to end up in ISIStan than their American co-religionists. As an indicator of radicalization levels, this is pretty definitive.
For another barometer though, consider this: Since 9/11, the four largest attacks in Europe—Madrid (2004), London (2005), Paris (2015) and Brussels (2016) have claimed at least 426 lives. In the United States, even with the Fort Hood shooting, the Boston Marathon bombing and San Bernadino, the total is 45. Add in a passel of smaller attacks over the years in Europe, and the difference with the United States is a factor of ten.
One big reason why the chances of a Brussels or Paris-like attack are lower here is that we've been working flat out to reduce the threat for almost 15 years, since 9/11. With one of the worst extremism problems in the West, Britain has gone hard at this as well. But the same cannot be said for our Continental cousins. The United States has spent upwards of $650 billion on homeland security since 9/11. No comparable European statistic exists, but judging by law enforcement, border security and other agency budgets, the overall figures are much lower. The numerous French government foul-ups in the run-up and aftermath of the Paris attacks tell the story.
Within this picture, Belgium has been an especially sad case. Deeply riven by political conflicts between its Flemings and Walloons over political reform, the country was distracted by a domestic political crisis that ran on and off from 2007 to 2011. During much of this time, there was only a caretaker government, and the Belgians' inability to improve their counterterrorism capabilities was a running frustration for U.S. officials. At one point, I observed to a senior Belgian official that his country was competing with Iraq for taking the longest time to form a government. "The comparison is not welcome," he replied drily. In the end, the Belgians took more than twice as long—541 days—to form a government; their authorities were stuck with flat budgets and little room for new programs.
There are other reasons why Europe is—and will be—more bedevilled by jihadist terrorism for some years to come. The United States still has the blessing of geography—two oceans that mean that outside extremists will need to fly to get here. As we found on Christmas Day 2009, when Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab tried to detonate his underwear on a flight bound for Detroit, our aviation security, no-fly lists and intelligence needs constant updating. But we have made major strides. By contrast, Europe, with its weak external borders, non-existent internal borders and a migrant crisis that has brought close to million and a half migrants into its borders, faces multiplying perils.
America's advantages are no reason for complacency, even if they do suggest that panic isn't justified. Much could still go wrong. Donald Trump's effort to outrage American Muslims, who are the first line of defense against extremism—and whose trust in U.S. law enforcement is invaluable—will likely continue for months to come. And if the violence in Europe spreads, we still face a major challenge—a fire next door with unpredictable consequences.
Ambassador Daniel Benjamin is Director of the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College and served as Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the State Department 2009-2012.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2016, 09:03:36 PM
A little perspective for the more panicky of our fellow 'Muricans--
Our perspective?
A bad month on the streets of Baltimore.
Quote
Are these statistics fake?
No reason to believe so.
The wouldn't report a terror attack one is worrying however I wouldn't get too concerned about the having sympathy for terrorists one. That's such a vague question. You can have sympathy for someone and still think they're wrong. I have sympathy for those kids running away to Syria to join isis- how could they get so Fucked up in the head?
When they have a similar background to you I'd imagine this feeling rises.
Also the young /old split....
Well, the young growing up in shittier conditions is part. But I think it's also true that poor kids tend to be more right wing in general. Theyre more ignorant of the world at large, never really meet people who are different. Many barely ever leave their town. That just comes with age.
QuoteWhile I do have some difficultly in articulating exactly what values are different between Europe and Anglo-America, I think it's fairly obvious that we tend to be more inclusive than Europe (even though obviously we have had a long history of not always living up to our values
The right most commonly say the opposite is true and that it is a problem. That europe is too inclusive
Well that's. ....interesting.
I'm at the airport right now and I notice all flights to Brussels this morning are cancelled.
The entire place is still shut down? They think there could be a follow up?
Must be crushing for the economy. ..
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2016, 03:16:56 PM
Does poverty breed terrorism? I am not so sure. I know the 9/11 guys were from privileged backgrounds were they not? Are the poor over-represented in ISIS or other groups?
Silly Texan. We all know the cause is global warming.
Syrian civil war was caused by famine which was caused by drought which was caused by global warming. So all the combat, attrocities, refugees and terrorist attacks that have occured as a result of that conflict all can be traced to global warming.
Quote from: Tyr on March 23, 2016, 12:08:06 AM
Well that's. ....interesting.
I'm at the airport right now and I notice all flights to Brussels this morning are cancelled.
The entire place is still shut down? They think there could be a follow up?
Must be crushing for the economy. ..
yes, Zaventem is still closed and normally will stay closed until the end of the week.
just so you know.
-----------
deathtoll for now stands at 35: one wounded perished this night.
during searches in, iirc, Schaarbeek (another part of Brussel, jihadi-capital of Europe) one/two (not sure) more bomb(s) (nailbomb too) was/were found. The house was flagged due to a tip from a taxi-driver/company. Seems the scumbags asked for a bigger taxi and couldn't get one. Small favours again I guess.
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2016, 04:17:31 PM
OTOH, saying that the West will win, as opposed to "we will win"--I am somewhat hesitant to lump western Europe in with the US and Canada here. While since WWII, western Europe and the US have been politically aligned, and our political and cultural values are closer to each other than to those of any other area or group, I'm not sure that our values are as similar as might commonly be assumed. I'm not sure that Europe will win, and partly that's because I think that they hold certain values that make them both less likely to succeed against Islamic fundamentalism, and on a certain level, less deserving of succeeding. While I do have some difficultly in articulating exactly what values are different between Europe and Anglo-America, I think it's fairly obvious that we tend to be more inclusive than Europe (even though obviously we have had a long history of not always living up to our values). I think one way this shows up is in our reaction to terrorist attacks when carried out by someone in the country they actually grew up in. When it happens here, we're shocked, and our reaction is along the lines of "But they're Americans, how could they become radicalized like this?" whereas in Europe, the European reaction is more along the lines of "Well of course they're terrorists--they're dirty stinking Musselmen".
this seems to more or less ignore the concept that a significant amount of muslim immigrants may not want to integrate at all. Rather the reverse. And so much easier now that modern communication allows islamic trash-ideology to be broadcasted directly into their homes, regardless of location.
Especially considering that the Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Greeks, Hungarians, Poles, Russians, etc (combination depending on point in 20th century, and destination-country) did integrate and often did come in the same period of guestworkership (a program that ended in 1974, for Belgium at least, when a general migrationstop was enacted. didn't work of course, cause closing the main gate doesn't work if you leave open the backdoor and windows)
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 23, 2016, 04:09:33 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 23, 2016, 12:08:06 AM
Well that's. ....interesting.
I'm at the airport right now and I notice all flights to Brussels this morning are cancelled.
The entire place is still shut down? They think there could be a follow up?
Must be crushing for the economy. ..
yes, Zaventem is still closed and normally will stay closed until the end of the week.
just so you know.
-----------
deathtoll for now stands at 35: one wounded perished this night.
during searches in, iirc, Schaarbeek (another part of Brussel, jihadi-capital of Europe) one/two (not sure) more bomb(s) (nailbomb too) was/were found. The house was flagged due to a tip from a taxi-driver/company. Seems the scumbags asked for a bigger taxi and couldn't get one. Small favours again I guess.
fyi this morning the inquiry by the parquet still hadn't ended and at the moment there's such a structural damage to the building they need a couple of days to stabilize it and clean up the debris. Currently only empty flights. From this night is expected cargo flights to arrive.
A little anecdote from my boss who flew back from Paris a few days ago. Bags were being checked very thoroughly, they were emptying them and going through everything. Funnily, all the airport security personnel were Muslim, and all the travelers were white. :P
A little anecdote from today - I was meeting a client - French guy in his mid-30s working for an international French corporation, big on diversity, political correctness etc., the guy himself highly educated, well travelled. We started talking about Brussels and how likely such attack is elsewhere - someone mentioned if Warsaw is a likely target.
The French guy just shrugged and said "you have nothing to worry about - you don't have banlieus where terrorists can hide and plan their attacks for months".
Made me wonder what an average working class Frenchman would respond if this guy was so frank about it.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 06:20:58 AM
A little anecdote from my boss who flew back from Paris a few days ago. Bags were being checked very thoroughly, they were emptying them and going through everything. Funnily, all the airport security personnel were Muslim, and all the travelers were white. :P
So are you saying the security at Paris airports is not to be trusted?
Over here at the cargoside business back as usual. The strange thing is the eerily quietness since no planes landing or taking off.
Also our office is above the train tunnel to the airline and normally when we have a train there's a small sound, which also misses.
For tomorrow no shipments expected to arrive for us. The shipments from yesterday morning are handled today. On friday first diverted freight from AMS/FRA/CDG will arrive.
Only time we had this before was the 24h strike of Belgian air control.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 07:43:42 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 06:20:58 AM
A little anecdote from my boss who flew back from Paris a few days ago. Bags were being checked very thoroughly, they were emptying them and going through everything. Funnily, all the airport security personnel were Muslim, and all the travelers were white. :P
So are you saying the security at Paris airports is not to be trusted?
I'm saying it's funny when people scream for more monitoring of Muslims, when Muslims would probably be doing a large part of the monitoring. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 23, 2016, 12:40:13 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2016, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2016, 03:16:56 PM
Does poverty breed terrorism? I am not so sure. I know the 9/11 guys were from privileged backgrounds were they not? Are the poor over-represented in ISIS or other groups?
Silly Texan. We all know the cause is global warming.
Syrian civil war was caused by famine which was caused by drought which was caused by global warming. So all the combat, attrocities, refugees and terrorist attacks that have occured as a result of that conflict all can be traced to global warming.
:lol: I knew it! It was global warming all along!
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 07:43:42 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 06:20:58 AM
A little anecdote from my boss who flew back from Paris a few days ago. Bags were being checked very thoroughly, they were emptying them and going through everything. Funnily, all the airport security personnel were Muslim, and all the travelers were white. :P
So are you saying the security at Paris airports is not to be trusted?
He's saying put bacon and other pork products in your bags for some extra fun.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 08:23:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 07:43:42 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 06:20:58 AM
A little anecdote from my boss who flew back from Paris a few days ago. Bags were being checked very thoroughly, they were emptying them and going through everything. Funnily, all the airport security personnel were Muslim, and all the travelers were white. :P
So are you saying the security at Paris airports is not to be trusted?
He's saying put bacon and other pork products in your bags for some extra fun.
:thumbsup:
I will make sure to use this idea if/when travelling for my secondment.
and it didn't take a day for the reports (of course not in the main media, never there!) of muslims dancing in the streets to appear.
at some point the jackboot is going to come down on all of this, and everyone will act surprised...
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 08:58:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 08:23:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 07:43:42 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 06:20:58 AM
A little anecdote from my boss who flew back from Paris a few days ago. Bags were being checked very thoroughly, they were emptying them and going through everything. Funnily, all the airport security personnel were Muslim, and all the travelers were white. :P
So are you saying the security at Paris airports is not to be trusted?
He's saying put bacon and other pork products in your bags for some extra fun.
:thumbsup:
I will make sure to use this idea if/when travelling for my secondment.
Heh, may want to rethink that - importing meat products in your luggage = problems with inspectors, regardless of religion. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2016, 09:29:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 08:58:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 08:23:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 07:43:42 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 06:20:58 AM
A little anecdote from my boss who flew back from Paris a few days ago. Bags were being checked very thoroughly, they were emptying them and going through everything. Funnily, all the airport security personnel were Muslim, and all the travelers were white. :P
So are you saying the security at Paris airports is not to be trusted?
He's saying put bacon and other pork products in your bags for some extra fun.
:thumbsup:
I will make sure to use this idea if/when travelling for my secondment.
Heh, may want to rethink that - importing meat products in your luggage = problems with inspectors, regardless of religion. :lol:
wrap it around yuor head instead, call it a religious prerequisite.
You guys are both hillarious and sad. You are talking about punishing the airport workers for the terror attacks, just because they happen to be Muslims as well (originating from a Muslim country anyways - who knows if they even follow the religion). Great form.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 23, 2016, 09:15:52 AM
and it didn't take a day for the reports (of course not in the main media, never there!) of muslims dancing in the streets to appear.
at some point the jackboot is going to come down on all of this, and everyone will act surprised...
I can't find this. like, on main media or any media. where does this report come from?
Regarding the statistics on muslim support for terrorism, found this research from the Pew Research Center:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/05/23/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world/
It's about 10 years old (pre-ISIS), so possibly not up to date.
It notes that support for suicide bombings and the killing of civilians had declined, but in all countries those that said that violence against civilians is often/sometimes justified is always in the double digits (all the way up to 57% in Jordan).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 23, 2016, 12:40:13 AM
Syrian civil war was caused by famine which was caused by drought which was caused by global warming. So all the combat, attrocities, refugees and terrorist attacks that have occured as a result of that conflict all can be traced to global warming.
The Syrian Civil War stems from the Arab Spring.
The overthrow of the Tunisian dictator encouraged the populations of other states to try to bring down their oppressive regimes.
In Syria, there was the fear that al-Assad would have enough support to keep them down, as most of the revolts were benefitting Turkey, who happened to have a deal with Iran to keep the Alawites (a shia sect) of Assad in power in exchange for no Iranian interference in the affairs of Sunni states to the West of Iraq.
But when the West intervened in Lybia - and by this I especially mean France, who went forward without telling her partners and basically forced most of NATO to follow suit - the Syrian sunnis believed they could get western support if they rose against the Allawites, so a uprising started to take place.
There was never a unified command, so things got dicey, with hundreds of rebel groups getting support from several sources, including France and Saudi Arabia, though not as the direct military intervention the initial rebels had hoped, so the situation turned into a stalemate (this is what Assad has been referring to when he denounces/threatens 'foreign support for terrorists').
Hell, I bet a majority of Languish thinks that violence against civilians is sometimes justified.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2016, 09:46:37 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 23, 2016, 09:15:52 AM
and it didn't take a day for the reports (of course not in the main media, never there!) of muslims dancing in the streets to appear.
at some point the jackboot is going to come down on all of this, and everyone will act surprised...
I can't find this. like, on main media or any media. where does this report come from?
Trump saw it.
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 10:00:37 AM
OTOH, stuff like 'wearing in public a funny hat' is something we ought to compromise on all the time: stuff like Sikhs wearing a turban with their Mountie uniform. That helps bind the Sikh community to Canada, makes them "us", and has no real downside.
see, that's where we disagree.
1st, if you allow for one, you must allow for everyone. Otherwise, it is discrimination on the rest of the populace.
I can not, as a Mountie, were any hat I want to. There is a uniform and I must adhere to it. End of story. If a religious man can make an exception, why can't I? Why can't I wear a Metallica cap? Why can I proudly wear my DRX Army shirt under my uniform? Should we, theoritically, allow burqas for our female soldiers as well? Should you be allowed to cover your face everywhere, at any time, because apparently your religion says so all the while non religious people can not benefit from the same priviledges?
This is just religious sillyness. A State should not have any religion. Individuals have religion and they are free to exercise it, within the limits other religious or non religious people have. These limits do change over time, of course. But they must change for everyone, not just because you have a religion.
Having a religion does not make one superior or inferior to any other. It is not a disability, a handicapp, it is not in your DNA, it is a choice of life. That you chose to put this choice above all else is your responsibility and you should consequently adapt your life around it, not the other way around.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 23, 2016, 09:48:38 AMIt notes that support for suicide bombings and the killing of civilians had declined, but in all countries those that said that violence against civilians is often/sometimes justified is always in the double digits (all the way up to 57% in Jordan).
and half the countries polled have a clear majority who would never ever support any violence (all the way up to 79% in morocco). bullshitting statistics is a really lazy way to make an argument
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2016, 09:46:37 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 23, 2016, 09:15:52 AM
and it didn't take a day for the reports (of course not in the main media, never there!) of muslims dancing in the streets to appear.
at some point the jackboot is going to come down on all of this, and everyone will act surprised...
I can't find this. like, on main media or any media. where does this report come from?
you speak dutch?
apparently an eyewitnessreport from a brussels fireman, yesterday.
given the proliferation of media and probable obscurity (I never heard of the site until now) of the site it's unlikely you'd have found it.
The phenomenon is hardly new though.
http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2016/03/brusselse-brandweerman-immigranten-stonden-na-aanslagen-te-dansen-en-te-lachen-en-maakten-onthoofdingsgebaren/
Quote from: viper37 on March 23, 2016, 10:39:39 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2016, 10:00:37 AM
OTOH, stuff like 'wearing in public a funny hat' is something we ought to compromise on all the time: stuff like Sikhs wearing a turban with their Mountie uniform. That helps bind the Sikh community to Canada, makes them "us", and has no real downside.
see, that's where we disagree.
1st, if you allow for one, you must allow for everyone. Otherwise, it is discrimination on the rest of the populace.
I can not, as a Mountie, were any hat I want to. There is a uniform and I must adhere to it. End of story. If a religious man can make an exception, why can't I? Why can't I wear a Metallica cap? Why can I proudly wear my DRX Army shirt under my uniform? Should we, theoritically, allow burqas for our female soldiers as well? Should you be allowed to cover your face everywhere, at any time, because apparently your religion says so all the while non religious people can not benefit from the same priviledges?
This is just religious sillyness. A State should not have any religion. Individuals have religion and they are free to exercise it, within the limits other religious or non religious people have. These limits do change over time, of course. But they must change for everyone, not just because you have a religion.
Having a religion does not make one superior or inferior to any other. It is not a disability, a handicapp, it is not in your DNA, it is a choice of life. That you chose to put this choice above all else is your responsibility and you should consequently adapt your life around it, not the other way around.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson ;)
See, I weigh the value of 'making everyone do exactly the same in the name of fairness' on one hand, and 'creating an inclusive society in which, despite petty differences, we all consider each other as basically us' on the other; and the latter outweighs the former, by a long shot.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 23, 2016, 10:45:28 AMyou speak dutch?
apparently an eyewitnessreport from a brussels fireman, yesterday.
given the proliferation of media and probable obscurity (I never heard of the site until now) of the site it's unlikely you'd have found it.
The phenomenon is hardly new though.
http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2016/03/brusselse-brandweerman-immigranten-stonden-na-aanslagen-te-dansen-en-te-lachen-en-maakten-onthoofdingsgebaren/
nope, but google translate does an OK job. thanks
so, the story comes from a fb post?
QuoteBij het terugkomen van interventie met betrekking tot de aanslagen van vandaag, heeft het ons gedegouteerd hoeveel groeperingen van vreemde origine stonden te dansen en te lachen en gebaarden ons te onthoofden!!! Ze laten enkel beelden zien van mensen die sympathie tonen, maar over hoe een grote meerderheid denk, wordt niet getoond! Dit zijn even gevaarlijke mensen dan de daders zelf!!!!
QuoteUpon return of intervention with regard to the attacks of today , it has disgusted us how many groups of foreign origin were dancing and laughing and motioned to behead us !!! They show only images of people showing sympathy, but think about how a large majority , is not displayed! These are equally dangerous people than the perpetrators themselves !!!!
I dunno, doesn't seem very specific. could be an emotional response to seeing some asshole 17 year old who thinks he's cool making a beheading sign while laughing. kids generally don't have much empathy
The freaking Sikhs served in WW1 and WW2 without helmets. If they are that committed to their silly hats I think Canada can be flexible.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2016, 10:54:33 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 23, 2016, 10:45:28 AMyou speak dutch?
apparently an eyewitnessreport from a brussels fireman, yesterday.
given the proliferation of media and probable obscurity (I never heard of the site until now) of the site it's unlikely you'd have found it.
The phenomenon is hardly new though.
http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2016/03/brusselse-brandweerman-immigranten-stonden-na-aanslagen-te-dansen-en-te-lachen-en-maakten-onthoofdingsgebaren/
nope, but google translate does an OK job. thanks
so, the story comes from a fb post?
QuoteBij het terugkomen van interventie met betrekking tot de aanslagen van vandaag, heeft het ons gedegouteerd hoeveel groeperingen van vreemde origine stonden te dansen en te lachen en gebaarden ons te onthoofden!!! Ze laten enkel beelden zien van mensen die sympathie tonen, maar over hoe een grote meerderheid denk, wordt niet getoond! Dit zijn even gevaarlijke mensen dan de daders zelf!!!!
QuoteUpon return of intervention with regard to the attacks of today , it has disgusted us how many groups of foreign origin were dancing and laughing and motioned to behead us !!! They show only images of people showing sympathy, but think about how a large majority , is not displayed! These are equally dangerous people than the perpetrators themselves !!!!
I dunno, doesn't seem very specific. could be an emotional response to seeing some asshole 17 year old who thinks he's cool making a beheading sign while laughing. kids generally don't have much empathy
les excuses sont faites pour s'en servir... It's safer to assume they know exactly what they were doing, that they mean everything and that the fireman saw exactly what saw.
Quote from: Tamas on March 23, 2016, 09:43:04 AM
You guys are both hillarious and sad. You are talking about punishing the airport workers for the terror attacks, just because they happen to be Muslims as well (originating from a Muslim country anyways - who knows if they even follow the religion). Great form.
People calling for ethnic profiling tend to be assholish in general. :P
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 11:01:37 AM
People calling for ethnic profiling tend to be assholish in general. :P
Well what is your plan? I mean I have called for my own ethnicity to be monitored for people who meet the mass shooter profile. When most of them are angry white men wouldn't it make sense to monitor angry white men? Or is it ok since I am talking about white men?
Or in the name of not being as asshole should we weaken our efforts by deploying equal resources looking over elderly Latina women?
Or do we pretend mass shootings are not a problem in the US and do not study the profile of the offenders and just sit back?
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2016, 11:02:48 AM
Well what is your plan? I mean I have called for my own ethnicity to be monitored for people who meet the mass shooter profile. When most of them are angry white men wouldn't it make sense to monitor angry white men? Or is it ok since I am talking about white men?
Or in the name of not being as asshole should we weaken our efforts by deploying equal resources looking over elderly Latino women?
How about conserving our resources by monitoring people about whom there is reasonable suspicion, instead of monitoring thousands of random and most likely innocent people? I don't want police and security services getting that kind of power in any case.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 11:06:10 AM
How about conserving our resources by monitoring people about whom there is reasonable suspicion, instead of monitoring thousands of random and most likely innocent people?
What is the standard of "reasonable suspicion"? Almost all of those shooters were completely innocent people before they committed a mass shooting. So...do nothing is the solution?
QuoteI don't want police and security services getting that kind of power in any case.
Well that boat sailed away decades ago, if not centuries.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2016, 11:10:22 AMWhat is the standard of "reasonable suspicion"?
I think it's something like, "he walked a little funny." that might be a slight exaggeration
Quote from: Tamas on March 23, 2016, 09:43:04 AM
You guys are both hillarious and sad. You are talking about punishing the airport workers for the terror attacks, just because they happen to be Muslims as well (originating from a Muslim country anyways - who knows if they even follow the religion). Great form.
:huh:
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 23, 2016, 09:48:38 AM
The Syrian Civil War stems from the Arab Spring.
The overthrow of the Tunisian dictator encouraged the populations of other states to try to bring down their oppressive regimes.
Tim will come back and say that the Tunisian dude who set himself on fire really did so because the tomato plants in his garden died from global warming. Or possibly global warming got so hot that he spontaneously combusted.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 11:01:37 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 23, 2016, 09:43:04 AM
You guys are both hillarious and sad. You are talking about punishing the airport workers for the terror attacks, just because they happen to be Muslims as well (originating from a Muslim country anyways - who knows if they even follow the religion). Great form.
People calling for ethnic profiling tend to be assholish in general. :P
I meant Martinus' idea on putting pork in his luggage just to screw with the Muslim security guards. I agree with the idea of profiling as resources are scarce and lives are at stake.
Luggage pork was my idea :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 11:38:05 AM
Luggage pork was my idea :contract:
ok but he was the one who jizzed all over it
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 11:38:05 AM
Luggage pork was my idea :contract:
Sounds like a good way to ruin your luggage.
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2016, 09:29:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 08:58:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 08:23:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 07:43:42 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 06:20:58 AM
A little anecdote from my boss who flew back from Paris a few days ago. Bags were being checked very thoroughly, they were emptying them and going through everything. Funnily, all the airport security personnel were Muslim, and all the travelers were white. :P
So are you saying the security at Paris airports is not to be trusted?
He's saying put bacon and other pork products in your bags for some extra fun.
:thumbsup:
I will make sure to use this idea if/when travelling for my secondment.
Heh, may want to rethink that - importing meat products in your luggage = problems with inspectors, regardless of religion. :lol:
Hell, after vodka, Polish sausages are the primary vendor item at souvenir shops at Warsaw airport. Which means I can actually put it in my carry on luggage.
Quote from: Tamas on March 23, 2016, 11:44:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 11:38:05 AM
Luggage pork was my idea :contract:
ok but he was the one who jizzed all over it
"Jizzing all over luggage pork" should be an idiom if it isn't one already.
And I think people who refuse to touch food stuffs for religious reasons are idiots who should be fucked with irrespective of whether their "fellow travellers" blow people up or not.
Quote from: Tamas on March 23, 2016, 11:44:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 11:38:05 AM
Luggage pork was my idea :contract:
ok but he was the one who jizzed all over it
Lighten up, FranzLiszt :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 11:47:57 AM
Hell, after vodka, Polish sausages are the primary vendor item at souvenir shops at Warsaw airport. Which means I can actually put it in my carry on luggage.
:thumbsup: Wiktory!!!
Speaking of Polish sausages, a friend (who has a lot of Polish ancestry) of mine posted on Facebook that she was looking for "white sausages" in the local area and seemed repelled when I told her to just seek out German-style weisswurst, which is abundant. What makes the Polish white sausage so different from weisswurst?
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2016, 11:45:23 AM
If, as you, Malthus, and I agree, we should avoid racism on one hand but we should take all reasonable security precautions on the other hand it is likely that some of the proposed approaches could shade into racism. In some instances it could be a reasonable compromise, in some instances upon examination there's no racist implication after all, and on others it could end up that after a sober second examination we realize that the proposed solution is kind of racist without any worthwhile benefit.
People like you will scream at racism the moment a society refuses special rights for a racial/religious group.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 11:47:57 AM
Hell, after vodka, Polish sausages are the primary vendor item at souvenir shops at Warsaw airport. Which means I can actually put it in my carry on luggage.
May not be a problem for travel within Europe, but watch out if going overseas - in many places, meat products are non-importable (even if inside a wrapper, or otherwise preserved). The reason: pathogens and pests.
In Canada, for example, it looks like you can personally import sausages from the US, but not from elsewhere.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/information-for-consumers/travellers/what-can-i-bring-into-canada-/eng/1389648337546/1389648516990
Even if you can bring it, they will send you to a special line to check out any food you have, which takes a long time and is generally a pain.
Well I know who I'm asking next time I want to travel with meat.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 11:47:57 AM
Hell, after vodka, Polish sausages are the primary vendor item at souvenir shops at Warsaw airport. Which means I can actually put it in my carry on luggage.
:thumbsup: Wiktory!!!
Speaking of Polish sausages, a friend (who has a lot of Polish ancestry) of mine posted on Facebook that she was looking for "white sausages" in the local area and seemed repelled when I told her to just seek out German-style weisswurst, which is abundant. What makes the Polish white sausage so different from weisswurst?
Dunno, but when I was in Gran Canaria just recently they had "sausage blanca" (don't remember Spanish for sausage) and it was completely different from Polish white sausage. I think the term "white sausage" is just a general one used for "raw"/not smoked sausage, with actual composition differing from a region to a region.
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2016, 12:21:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 11:47:57 AM
Hell, after vodka, Polish sausages are the primary vendor item at souvenir shops at Warsaw airport. Which means I can actually put it in my carry on luggage.
May not be a problem for travel within Europe, but watch out if going overseas - in many places, meat products are non-importable (even if inside a wrapper, or otherwise preserved). The reason: pathogens and pests.
In Canada, for example, it looks like you can personally import sausages from the US, but not from elsewhere.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/information-for-consumers/travellers/what-can-i-bring-into-canada-/eng/1389648337546/1389648516990
Even if you can bring it, they will send you to a special line to check out any food you have, which takes a long time and is generally a pain.
That's fine - I was planning to inconvenience security guards at the Paris airport. :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 12:38:12 PM
Dunno, but when I was in Gran Canaria just recently they had "sausage blanca" (don't remember Spanish for sausage) and it was completely different from Polish white sausage. I think the term "white sausage" is just a general one used for "raw"/not smoked sausage, with actual composition differing from a region to a region.
I guess I figured with Germany and Poland being next to each other and having such an intertwined history there would be some commonality among the white sausage.
Quote from: Tamas on March 23, 2016, 11:44:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 11:38:05 AM
Luggage pork was my idea :contract:
ok but he was the one who jizzed all over it
that seems like a waste of good pork
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 01:05:54 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 12:38:12 PM
Dunno, but when I was in Gran Canaria just recently they had "sausage blanca" (don't remember Spanish for sausage) and it was completely different from Polish white sausage. I think the term "white sausage" is just a general one used for "raw"/not smoked sausage, with actual composition differing from a region to a region.
I guess I figured with Germany and Poland being next to each other and having such an intertwined history there would be some commonality among the white sausage.
Well I know who I'm asking next time I want to know about varieties of European sausage.
:P
Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed that the Spanish fuego sausage (and some other types of sausage/salami, like the Bretagne one) actually smells as if someone jizzed all over it?
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 11:47:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2016, 09:29:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 08:58:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 08:23:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 07:43:42 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 06:20:58 AM
A little anecdote from my boss who flew back from Paris a few days ago. Bags were being checked very thoroughly, they were emptying them and going through everything. Funnily, all the airport security personnel were Muslim, and all the travelers were white. :P
So are you saying the security at Paris airports is not to be trusted?
He's saying put bacon and other pork products in your bags for some extra fun.
:thumbsup:
I will make sure to use this idea if/when travelling for my secondment.
Heh, may want to rethink that - importing meat products in your luggage = problems with inspectors, regardless of religion. :lol:
Hell, after vodka, Polish sausages are the primary vendor item at souvenir shops at Warsaw airport. Which means I can actually put it in my carry on luggage.
there's a polish delicatessen shop not far from where I live. It intrigues me but I have no idea what would be considered a must-taste that isn't vodka or goat-eyes...
Any type of pickled forest mushrooms is likely going to be good and not disgusting.
tnx :)
This thread turning to discussing things people eat is somehow disturbing. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 02:03:09 PM
Any type of pickled forest mushrooms is likely going to be good and not disgusting.
Heh, our old Ukrainian nanny (my wife's aunt) was wild about wild mushrooms. We took her up to the cottage, and she spent an hour or two mushroom picking. Only problem was, she was dismayingly uncaring as to which species she picked - there are a couple of highly poisonous ones here. We suggested she not eat random forest mushrooms, but rather stick to a couple of clearly edible varieties ...!
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 02:08:33 PM
This thread turning to discussing things people eat is somehow disturbing. :P
I'm hoping the sausage part is about actual sausages, and not "sausages"...
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2016, 02:11:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 02:03:09 PM
Any type of pickled forest mushrooms is likely going to be good and not disgusting.
Heh, our old Ukrainian nanny (my wife's aunt) was wild about wild mushrooms. We took her up to the cottage, and she spent an hour or two mushroom picking. Only problem was, she was dismayingly uncaring as to which species she picked - there are a couple of highly poisonous ones here. We suggested she not eat random forest mushrooms, but rather stick to a couple of clearly edible varieties ...!
There is hardly anything better than fresh (or dried) boletus soup. Beeb can (hopefully) attest as we ate it when they were in Krakow.
Pickled forest mushrooms.
Marti's mouth is a Petrie dish of sadness in so many ways.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 02:13:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2016, 02:11:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 02:03:09 PM
Any type of pickled forest mushrooms is likely going to be good and not disgusting.
Heh, our old Ukrainian nanny (my wife's aunt) was wild about wild mushrooms. We took her up to the cottage, and she spent an hour or two mushroom picking. Only problem was, she was dismayingly uncaring as to which species she picked - there are a couple of highly poisonous ones here. We suggested she not eat random forest mushrooms, but rather stick to a couple of clearly edible varieties ...!
There is hardly anything better than fresh (or dried) boletus soup. Beeb can (hopefully) attest as we ate it when they were in Krakow.
Yeah, I think I remember having mushroom soup in Krakow that was pretty good.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 02:13:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2016, 02:11:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 02:03:09 PM
Any type of pickled forest mushrooms is likely going to be good and not disgusting.
Heh, our old Ukrainian nanny (my wife's aunt) was wild about wild mushrooms. We took her up to the cottage, and she spent an hour or two mushroom picking. Only problem was, she was dismayingly uncaring as to which species she picked - there are a couple of highly poisonous ones here. We suggested she not eat random forest mushrooms, but rather stick to a couple of clearly edible varieties ...!
There is hardly anything better than fresh (or dried) boletus soup. Beeb can (hopefully) attest as we ate it when they were in Krakow.
I love (edible) wild mushrooms. Thing is, you can't just go picking any ones: you have to know the right species. Get just one
amanita phalloides in your basket, it can ruin your day. ;)
Oh I never picked mushrooms (neither I or my parents were into it, really. I remember, as a kid, they took me once for "wild mushroom picking" because it was a thing you were supposed to do; we collected a whole basket and when we were walking out of the forest, we noticed a sign saying that the forest has just been sprayed with pesticides. :P).
But whenever we are in the mountains or somewhere similar, we pick a shitton of that stuff from people who look like professional pickers.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 23, 2016, 02:11:31 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2016, 02:08:33 PM
This thread turning to discussing things people eat is somehow disturbing. :P
I'm hoping the sausage part is about actual sausages, and not "sausages"...
(https://media.giphy.com/media/MJ0sxcBzT3mTu/giphy.gif)
I was in Warsaw for 3 weeks and loved just about everything I ate. I liked Polish food a lot before, but it was actually pretty surprising how much variety there was.
Also Marty is terrible for not meeting me when I was in Warsaw.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 23, 2016, 03:09:37 PM
I was in Warsaw for 3 weeks and loved just about everything I ate. I liked Polish food a lot before, but it was actually pretty surprising how much variety there was.
Also Marty is terrible for not meeting me when I was in Warsaw.
WTF. You didn't tell me you were here. I would have met you.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 03:45:15 PM
WTF. You didn't tell me you were here. I would have met you.
[aside]Whew, dodged a bullet there.[/aside]
:sleep:
A sausage and mushroom hijack of a thread on a major tragedy?
Languish has sunk to new lows. :(
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 23, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
A sausage and mushroom hijack of a thread on a major tragedy?
Languish has sunk to new lows. :(
Sausage and pepperoni would be much better.
Besides, we just had a hijack on whether Israel won the Yom Kippur War in the election thread. If Trump's not a major tragedy, I don't know what is. ;)
Ok, back on topic:
QuoteHere are some strategies to defeat the Islamic State:
Publish a long-form article detailing the challenges involved in fighting an enemy that does not value human life
Refuse to appear terrorized by this constant, worldwide threat of violence and death
Organize a coup, leaving the U.S. free to prop up the ISIS leader of their choice
Spend $1.7 trillion
Attempt to compromise with our adversary by meeting them halfway on their demand to spill the blood of all apostates
Stop flow of new ISIS recruits from West by encouraging disaffected youth to join violent extremist groups back home
Maybe draw them out to sea?
Simply coordinate with our allies on a comprehensive strategy that targets ISIS militants while limiting civilian casualties, while simultaneously addressing the longstanding socioeconomic struggles that drive young Arab men to embrace radicalism, reaching out to liberal and moderate factions within Syria, and addressing our own prejudices that galvanize support for terror around the Islamic world
Train and arm somebody else's kids to go over there and shoot them
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 04:03:20 PM
Ok, back on topic:
QuoteHere are some strategies to defeat the Islamic State:
Publish a long-form article detailing the challenges involved in fighting an enemy that does not value human life
Refuse to appear terrorized by this constant, worldwide threat of violence and death
Organize a coup, leaving the U.S. free to prop up the ISIS leader of their choice
Spend $1.7 trillion
Attempt to compromise with our adversary by meeting them halfway on their demand to spill the blood of all apostates
Stop flow of new ISIS recruits from West by encouraging disaffected youth to join violent extremist groups back home
Maybe draw them out to sea?
Simply coordinate with our allies on a comprehensive strategy that targets ISIS militants while limiting civilian casualties, while simultaneously addressing the longstanding socioeconomic struggles that drive young Arab men to embrace radicalism, reaching out to liberal and moderate factions within Syria, and addressing our own prejudices that galvanize support for terror around the Islamic world
Train and arm somebody else's kids to go over there and shoot them
Does the person who wrote that think that we should do nothing?
Arming somebody else's kids is a pretty popular answer.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 23, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
A sausage and mushroom hijack of a thread on a major tragedy?
Languish has sunk to new lows. :(
coping mechanism
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2016, 02:15:24 PM
Pickled forest mushrooms.
Marti's mouth is a Petrie dish of sadness in so many ways.
Polish restaurant I took the family to in Chicago a few years ago brought out a complimentary "relish tray" as an appetizer. And it was huge. They had some pickled vegetables on there I didn't even know existed. Would have been great if I liked any pickled beyond... pickles. Kielbasa was bangin', though.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 01:58:07 PM
Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed that the Spanish fuego sausage (and some other types of sausage/salami, like the Bretagne one) actually smells as if someone jizzed all over it?
WTH? I have no idea what you're talking about. And there's no such a thing like a "fuego sausage".
Quote from: The Larch on March 23, 2016, 04:28:09 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2016, 01:58:07 PM
Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed that the Spanish fuego sausage (and some other types of sausage/salami, like the Bretagne one) actually smells as if someone jizzed all over it?
WTH? I have no idea what you're talking about. And there's no such a thing like a "fuego sausage".
You ever had Indian food?
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2016, 04:27:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2016, 02:15:24 PM
Pickled forest mushrooms.
Marti's mouth is a Petrie dish of sadness in so many ways.
Polish restaurant I took the family to in Chicago a few years ago brought out a complimentary "relish tray" as an appetizer. And it was huge. They had some pickled vegetables on there I didn't even know existed. Would have been great if I liked any pickled beyond... pickles. Kielbasa was bangin', though.
Starapolska in Avondale?
Apparently one of the suicide bombers had been deported back to Belgium from Turkey last year, after having been caught near the Syrian border, and Turkish authorities had warned Belgium about his radicalization and that it was highly likely that he had been a foreign combatant for yihadi groups in Syria. It must be said that Belgian police don't come out nicely out of this whole affair, it seems.
From what I've heard the whole thing would make Agatha Christie turn in her grave at how badly the Belgian police have handled this.
Quote from: The Larch on March 23, 2016, 04:45:58 PM
Apparently one of the suicide bombers had been deported back to Belgium from Turkey last year, after having been caught near the Syrian border, and Turkish authorities had warned Belgium about his radicalization and that it was highly likely that he had been a foreign combatant for yihadi groups in Syria. It must be said that Belgian police don't come out nicely out of this whole affair, it seems.
The police should closely watch every potentially violent radical Muslim?
Quote from: PJL on March 23, 2016, 04:55:22 PM
From what I've heard the whole thing would make Agatha Christie turn in her grave at how badly the Belgian police have handled this.
Yeah, I talked with a friend living in Brussels the other day and she was fuming against the police, saying that they had been living in a semi-militarized city for months but without any kind of results whatsoever, and hardly any intelligence work being done, just heavily armoured guys patrolling the streets serving more as decoration than for anything useful.
Quote from: The Larch on March 23, 2016, 04:45:58 PM
Apparently one of the suicide bombers had been deported back to Belgium from Turkey last year, after having been caught near the Syrian border, and Turkish authorities had warned Belgium about his radicalization and that it was highly likely that he had been a foreign combatant for yihadi groups in Syria. It must be said that Belgian police don't come out nicely out of this whole affair, it seems.
It may have been the Netherlands, not Belgium. Or maybe both. Erdogan's message was not entirely clear, but the Dutch intelligence service seems to be in full panic mode.
Quote from: Maladict on March 23, 2016, 05:01:12 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 23, 2016, 04:45:58 PM
Apparently one of the suicide bombers had been deported back to Belgium from Turkey last year, after having been caught near the Syrian border, and Turkish authorities had warned Belgium about his radicalization and that it was highly likely that he had been a foreign combatant for yihadi groups in Syria. It must be said that Belgian police don't come out nicely out of this whole affair, it seems.
It may have been the Netherlands, not Belgium. Or maybe both. Erdogan's message was not entirely clear, but the Dutch intelligence service seems to be in full panic mode.
The article I read said that Turkey had warned both Belgium and the Netherlands.
Quote from: The Larch on March 23, 2016, 04:58:48 PM
Quote from: PJL on March 23, 2016, 04:55:22 PM
From what I've heard the whole thing would make Agatha Christie turn in her grave at how badly the Belgian police have handled this.
Yeah, I talked with a friend living in Brussels the other day and she was fuming against the police, saying that they had been living in a semi-militarized city for months but without any kind of results whatsoever, and hardly any intelligence work being done, just heavily armoured guys patrolling the streets serving more as decoration than for anything useful.
At least they did not appear "somewhat racist". :thumbsup:
Quote from: The Larch on March 23, 2016, 04:45:58 PM
It must be said that Belgian police don't come out nicely out of this whole affair, it seems.
Belgian policy rarely come out nicely, especially if they are in their favorite pub.
Most Belgians don't put much faith in their police, politicians and justice system.
It's a joke especially in Brussels in which the city is split in 18 municipalities with their own mayor and local police. Crossing the borders of such a municipality is a good way to fly for the cops.
Fun fact the place Abdesallam was caught was owned by such a municipality and rented out. :rolleyes:
So, Trump was right when he called Brussels a hellhole?
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2016, 02:58:36 AM
So, Trump was right when he called Brussels a hellhole?
nope, cause it casts hellholes into an unfavourable light...
And the first EU country with an asshole response is... Poland! (surprise!)
http://www.eurowire.co/immigration/poland-pm-refuses-refugees/
Quote from: Solmyr on March 24, 2016, 06:18:58 AM
And the first EU country with an asshole response is... Poland! (surprise!)
http://www.eurowire.co/immigration/poland-pm-refuses-refugees/
Damn, maybe PiS is not that bad after all.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2016, 06:23:33 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 24, 2016, 06:18:58 AM
And the first EU country with an asshole response is... Poland! (surprise!)
http://www.eurowire.co/immigration/poland-pm-refuses-refugees/
Damn, maybe PiS is not that bad after all.
I'm sure they'll start monitoring gays soon enough.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 24, 2016, 07:01:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2016, 06:23:33 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 24, 2016, 06:18:58 AM
And the first EU country with an asshole response is... Poland! (surprise!)
http://www.eurowire.co/immigration/poland-pm-refuses-refugees/
Damn, maybe PiS is not that bad after all.
I'm sure they'll start monitoring gays soon enough.
You can start using that argument when gays go about blowing metro stations and mowing down people in cafes like your Muslim friends you idiot cunt. <_<
G.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 24, 2016, 06:18:58 AM
And the first EU country with an asshole response is... Poland! (surprise!)
http://www.eurowire.co/immigration/poland-pm-refuses-refugees/
Go team Shitlord. :thumbsup:
Yeah, this current terrorism is out of control. Europe will not survive this. Clearly, everyone should panic!
(https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/chartoftheday_4093_people_killed_by_terrorist_attacks_in_western_europe_since_1970_n.jpg)
@solmyr
Yes, I saw that chart over at the paradox forums earlier. Very thought-provoking.
A few thousand dissident Irishmen caused much more havoc in the UK than the massed might of over a billion Muslims. They are either very incompetent or their hearts are not really in it and they are too busy with mundane matters like family, education, work etc etc.
It does put things into perspective, but I'd like to point out that handling the Irishman situation involved a heavy military military presence in the concerned Irish neighbourhoods with several bloody incidents, and a low scale civil war between parts of the civil population.
If things deteriorate to that level, it won't be confined to Belfast, it will be in almost every major city on the continent. And that's assuming the Brits (muslims and no muslims alike) know better then to set their own house on fire.
Quote from: Tamas on March 24, 2016, 07:34:00 AM
It does put things into perspective, but I'd like to point out that handling the Irishman situation involved a heavy military military presence in the concerned Irish neighbourhoods with several bloody incidents, and a low scale civil war between parts of the civil population.
If things deteriorate to that level, it won't be confined to Belfast, it will be in almost every major city on the continent. And that's assuming the Brits (muslims and no muslims alike) know better then to set their own house on fire.
Deteriote to that level???
Are you fucking kidding me?
There is a large scale, very much NOT low scale civil war going on all over the Muslim world right now. There is an incredibly ehavy military presence in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Pakistan at this particular moment. Not to mention Africa.
Europe (and the US) are just sideshows to this war - minor blowback.
Yeah but I meant the European situation specifically.
Quote from: Tamas on March 24, 2016, 08:32:28 AM
Yeah but I meant the European situation specifically.
OK, but that is kind of a distinction that doesn't really make sense when comparing it to the IRA.
It is like saying you want to talk about the IRA, but limit your talk to just what is happening in England, and ignoring Ireland.
There isn't really any "just Europe" view of this, when it comes to understanding attacks on Europe. There IS a large scale civil war going on within Islam right now, and it is a fucking mess. These attacks are really just sideshows to that. A way for one side to "prove" that they are the REAL jihadists...
NOT THAT ANY OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION OF COURSE! :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2016, 08:44:36 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 24, 2016, 08:32:28 AM
Yeah but I meant the European situation specifically.
OK, but that is kind of a distinction that doesn't really make sense when comparing it to the IRA.
It is like saying you want to talk about the IRA, but limit your talk to just what is happening in England, and ignoring Ireland.
There isn't really any "just Europe" view of this, when it comes to understanding attacks on Europe. There IS a large scale civil war going on within Islam right now, and it is a fucking mess. These attacks are really just sideshows to that. A way for one side to "prove" that they are the REAL jihadists...
NOT THAT ANY OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION OF COURSE! :lol:
I think you are both talking about the same thing: IRA terrorism was a matter internal to Europe, because Ireland is located there: naturally, that made it more serious (to Europe).
The current mess in the ME is of course a much bigger deal than that in Ireland ever was, but as you say, Europe is just a "sideshow" to that, and is just feeling the fallout - terrorism and refugees.
Kind of surprised there has been so little terrorism in France. When I was there in 1997 and 1998 it really had a feeling of paranoia about bombings and terrorist attacks.
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2016, 09:22:13 AM
Kind of surprised there has been so little terrorism in France. When I was there in 1997 and 1998 it really had a feeling of paranoia about bombings and terrorist attacks.
95-96 saw bombings in Paris by Algerian militant groups, IIRC.
Hopefully this didn't happen:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeKnM1pUIAAs750.jpg)
So Flemish teacher's class had his students cheering the attacks and then his tweet about it had him harassed by the cops in some fashion? Is that what is going on there?
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2016, 12:46:27 PM
So Flemish teacher's class had his students cheering the attacks and then his tweet about it had him harassed by the cops in some fashion? Is that what is going on there?
That's what the dude said.
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2016, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2016, 12:46:27 PM
So Flemish teacher's class had his students cheering the attacks and then his tweet about it had him harassed by the cops in some fashion? Is that what is going on there?
That's what the dude said.
Ok just checking. The translation was a bit rough.
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2016, 12:46:27 PM
So Flemish teacher's class had his students cheering the attacks and then his tweet about it had him harassed by the cops in some fashion? Is that what is going on there?
No not quite. A Flemish yoga teacher claimed his friends who were teachers told him kids in their classes applauded the attacks, and he tweeted that as if it was a first hand account. Police visited him to inquire.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/655135/Man-says-Muslims-celebrate-Brussels-attacks
Ah ok. Don't attention whore about stuff like that.
Fwiw I've heard similar stories second hand from a school near The Hague. Kids went round going "isn't it great what happened on Paris?". Just parroting their fathers of course, but still chilling.
Quote from: Maladict on March 24, 2016, 01:30:48 PM
Fwiw I've heard similar stories second hand from a school near The Hague. Kids went round going "isn't it great what happened on Paris?". Just parroting their fathers of course, but still chilling.
It seems hard to believe people would be happy about something so dangerous for them personally. A lot of terrorist attacks is something almost 100% likely to put those people and their families in danger. So why would they be happy about that? :hmm: The idea of right wing nationalists winning elections all over Europe is appealing to them?
I just find it odd that these stories are always "my friend saw" type things rather than first hand accounts.
I would take such reports with a grain of salt. Here in Finland, for example, racist right-wingers got caught several times fabricating rumors about immigrants that they "heard from a friend".
Quote from: Jacob on March 24, 2016, 12:53:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2016, 12:46:27 PM
So Flemish teacher's class had his students cheering the attacks and then his tweet about it had him harassed by the cops in some fashion? Is that what is going on there?
No not quite. A Flemish yoga teacher claimed his friends who were teachers told him kids in their classes applauded the attacks, and he tweeted that as if it was a first hand account. Police visited him to inquire.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/655135/Man-says-Muslims-celebrate-Brussels-attacks
Dutch. Breda is still located in the Netherlands.
that said: In Brussels two pupils are now under investigation for supposed pro-attack expressions.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 24, 2016, 01:38:00 PM
I would take such reports with a grain of salt. Here in Finland, for example, racist right-wingers got caught several times fabricating rumors about immigrants that they "heard from a friend".
Same here in Germany. The NPD in particular spread a lot of stories about specific cases of migrant crime that turned out to be fabricated when investigated by the police.
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2016, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: Maladict on March 24, 2016, 01:30:48 PM
Fwiw I've heard similar stories second hand from a school near The Hague. Kids went round going "isn't it great what happened on Paris?". Just parroting their fathers of course, but still chilling.
It seems hard to believe people would be happy about something so dangerous for them personally. A lot of terrorist attacks is something almost 100% likely to put those people and their families in danger. So why would they be happy about that? :hmm: The idea of right wing nationalists winning elections all over Europe is appealing to them?
Same reason Muslims in New Jersey were cheering in the streets to celebrate the 9/11 attacks.
... except, of course, that didn't actually happen in spite of it being widely reported in the media at the time.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 24, 2016, 01:38:00 PM
I would take such reports with a grain of salt.
Absolutely. But at the same time I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand.
Quote from: Jacob on March 24, 2016, 02:06:59 PM
Same reason Muslims in New Jersey were cheering in the streets to celebrate the 9/11 attacks.
... except, of course, that didn't actually happen in spite of it being widely reported in the media at the time.
Actually it did happen, according to news reports at the time. Just possibly not as widespread as Trump seemed to claim.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 24, 2016, 01:38:29 PM
Dutch. Breda is still located in the Netherlands.
Right. Thanks.
Quotethat said: In Brussels two pupils are now under investigation for supposed pro-attack expressions.
The upside to this, at least, is that with an actual investigation there's a little more substance to the conclusion (whatever it is) compared to tweets of things friends said.
Personally, my expectation is that a few random idiots, sick people, and deliberate iconoclasts might say such things to make themselves feel special, but to the extent that anyone in the local area are actually sympathetic to the terrorists they'll express that sympathy in private.
Quote from: Jacob on March 24, 2016, 02:06:59 PM
Same reason Muslims in New Jersey were cheering in the streets to celebrate the 9/11 attacks.
... except, of course, that didn't actually happen in spite of it being widely reported in the media at the time.
I recall being shown pictures of Palestinians celebrating but the New Jersey Muslims was not reported by anybody at the time that I can remember. I only heard about that from Donald Trump last year.
In any case Muslims in the West celebrating either in private or public strikes me as pretty unlikely considering what bad news each terrorist attack is for them personally. Might ISIS guys in Syria be celebrating? Sure.
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
Actually it did happen, according to news reports at the time. Just possibly not as widespread as Trump seemed to claim.
You have a different understanding of that than I do. As I understand it news reports at the time did indeed report, but there was never any actual evidence provided.
Snopes has the status of cheering down as being debunked: http://www.snopes.com/2015/11/22/donald-trump-cheering-911/
More on debunked "they were cheering": http://www.snopes.com/rumors/dunkin.asp
There was images of Palestinians in the Middle East celebrating the attack, however: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp (which I thought was an unrelated celebration erroneously shown, but according to Snopes it's legit).
It is not news that plenty of Palestinians hate the United States :P
Though they certainly would not have done that if they thought we would ever see it. It was a different world back in 2001, less paranoia about camera phones.
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2016, 02:20:34 PM
Though they certainly would not have done that if they thought we would ever see it. It was a different world back in 2001, less paranoia about camera phones.
Guess they weren't paying attention to the Rodney King hoopla.
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2016, 12:53:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2016, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2016, 12:46:27 PM
So Flemish teacher's class had his students cheering the attacks and then his tweet about it had him harassed by the cops in some fashion? Is that what is going on there?
That's what the dude said.
Ok just checking. The translation was a bit rough.
:huh: "If I now prefer no longer want to do..." is very clear. Just ask DerSpeiss.
Quote from: Jacob on March 24, 2016, 02:18:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
Actually it did happen, according to news reports at the time. Just possibly not as widespread as Trump seemed to claim.
You have a different understanding of that than I do. As I understand it news reports at the time did indeed report, but there was never any actual evidence provided.
Snopes has the status of cheering down as being debunked: http://www.snopes.com/2015/11/22/donald-trump-cheering-911/ (http://www.snopes.com/2015/11/22/donald-trump-cheering-911/)
More on debunked "they were cheering": http://www.snopes.com/rumors/dunkin.asp (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/dunkin.asp)
There was images of Palestinians in the Middle East celebrating the attack, however: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp) (which I thought was an unrelated celebration erroneously shown, but according to Snopes it's legit).
There was supposedly some videos floating around conservative sites that showed this, but they such poor quality you'd think they were trying to film Bigfoot.
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 24, 2016, 02:06:59 PM
Same reason Muslims in New Jersey were cheering in the streets to celebrate the 9/11 attacks.
... except, of course, that didn't actually happen in spite of it being widely reported in the media at the time.
Actually it did happen, according to news reports at the time. Just possibly not as widespread as Trump seemed to claim.
No, no it did not happen, and not even according to news reports at the time--especially considering the non-stop live television coverage by all 4 networks' news divisions for 96 consecutive hours. None. Nothing. Nada--other than a minor and unsubstantiated mention of how I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another that you've been messing around with celebrations on WCBS-TV.
Now, there were some issues in Gaza and West Bank regarding some celebrations; however, despite their many similarities, in the end Gaza is not New Jersey.
So knock it off with the bullshit.
I don't think we should let concerns over whether it actually happened or not interfere with the compelling story of how it really did happen...
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
Just possibly not as widespread as Trump seemed to claim.
"Possibly"? "Seemed"? Could you be any more of a weasel? Yeah, yeah, I know, you're "kidding"/"exaggerating"/"trolling", sure thing.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 23, 2016, 09:48:38 AM
Regarding the statistics on muslim support for terrorism, found this research from the Pew Research Center:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/05/23/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world/
It's about 10 years old (pre-ISIS), so possibly not up to date.
It notes that support for suicide bombings and the killing of civilians had declined, but in all countries those that said that violence against civilians is often/sometimes justified is always in the double digits (all the way up to 57% in Jordan).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 23, 2016, 12:40:13 AM
Syrian civil war was caused by famine which was caused by drought which was caused by global warming. So all the combat, attrocities, refugees and terrorist attacks that have occured as a result of that conflict all can be traced to global warming.
The Syrian Civil War stems from the Arab Spring.
The overthrow of the Tunisian dictator encouraged the populations of other states to try to bring down their oppressive regimes.
In Syria, there was the fear that al-Assad would have enough support to keep them down, as most of the revolts were benefitting Turkey, who happened to have a deal with Iran to keep the Alawites (a shia sect) of Assad in power in exchange for no Iranian interference in the affairs of Sunni states to the West of Iraq.
But when the West intervened in Lybia - and by this I especially mean France, who went forward without telling her partners and basically forced most of NATO to follow suit - the Syrian sunnis believed they could get western support if they rose against the Allawites, so a uprising started to take place.
There was never a unified command, so things got dicey, with hundreds of rebel groups getting support from several sources, including France and Saudi Arabia, though not as the direct military intervention the initial rebels had hoped, so the situation turned into a stalemate (this is what Assad has been referring to when he denounces/threatens 'foreign support for terrorists').
Surprising no one, Silva and Despeiss are wrong. In the beginning the protests were about aid to farmers that the government was only giving to Alawites because it just couldn't afford to help everyone. Why couldn't it afford to help everyone? Because the country was being hammered by the worst drought in 900 years.
https://news.vice.com/article/the-drought-that-preceded-syrias-civil-war-was-likely-the-worst-in-900-years
Quote
The Drought That Preceded Syria's Civil War Was Likely the Worst in 900 Years
By Elaisha Stokes
March 4, 2016 | 1:05 am
VICE News is closely tracking global environmental change. Check out the Tipping Point blog here.
Syria's civil war has left 250,000 people dead, according to the latest UN count, and millions more are either displaced within the country's borders or have sought refuge abroad. And, while the proximate causes were largely political — primarily grievances with President Bashar al Assad, new scientific research adds support to the argument that climate change helped to trigger Syria's descent into violence.
Researchers from NASA and the University of Arizona studied tree rings — a reliable proxy for measuring precipitation — going back several centuries and found that the recent Syrian drought was likely the worst in at least the past 900 years and almost definitely the worst in 500 years.
"We wanted to know how the current drought compared to past droughts," said Benjamin Cook, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the lead author of the study. The current drought, which has lasted about 15 years "really is the worst, far outside of natural climate cycles."
Cook and his colleagues found that mega-droughts — those that last thirty years or longer — were absent from the tree ring record. The last major drought began in 1807 and lasted fourteen years.
"We are starting to push the [climate] system outside of what it would normally do," said Cook. "That really points to climate change playing a role. The big uncertainty is how we will deal with the amplified stresses.
The drought caused 75 percent of Syria's farms to fail and 85 percent of livestock to die between 2006 and 2011, according to the United Nations. The collapse in crop yields forced as many as 1.5 million Syrians to migrate to urban centers, like Homs and Damascus.
The drought had displaced Syrians long before the conflict began," said Francesco Femia, president of the Center for Climate Security. "And what is frightening is that analysts who study the region completely missed it."
More hungry and homeless families in Syria's big cities created stress, said Femia. "There are only so many resources to go around."
Abeer Etefa, a communications officer with the United Nation's World Food Program, said the agency was concerned about the country prior to the outbreak of war.
"The situation was already bad," he said. "We had an operation in 2010 for farmers that were suffering from the drought."
The World Food Program is currently providing food aid to over 300,000 Syrians in the country's northeast, which is the epicenter of agricultural production. Grain yields last year were half of what they were in 2011.
The Pentagon has long identified climate change as a "threat magnifier," a factor that can aggravate already existing political fault lines. And the G7 issued a report in June warning that climate change "will aggravate already fragile situations and may contribute to social upheaval and even violent conflict."
In this way the Syrian civil war and the hundreds of thousands of displaced, who are seeking refuge in Turkey and Europe, could be seen as a foreshadowing of a much more alarming humanitarian situation should nation's fail to keep global temperature rise under control.
Christian Parenti, author of Tropic of Chaos, a book that examines the links between climate change and violence around the world, said that nations need to address climate change, but improved energy and environmental policies, however important for avoiding future conflicts, won't help Syria's growing ranks of displaced and undernourished.
"By emphasizing regime change, US foreign policy has helped to produce this disaster," he said. " From the Iraq invasions, to the Libyan war, to aiding Salafist rebels in Syria, US-sponsored violence has made it harder for people to adapt to a warmer, drier Middle East. But, without a peace settlement in Syria, there will only be more refugees headed to Europe."
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2016, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: Maladict on March 24, 2016, 01:30:48 PM
Fwiw I've heard similar stories second hand from a school near The Hague. Kids went round going "isn't it great what happened on Paris?". Just parroting their fathers of course, but still chilling.
It seems hard to believe people would be happy about something so dangerous for them personally. A lot of terrorist attacks is something almost 100% likely to put those people and their families in danger. So why would they be happy about that? :hmm: The idea of right wing nationalists winning elections all over Europe is appealing to them?
These people are the young and stupid who know nothing of life outside their bubble.
In time they will know better.
Tim, this is a really silly argument.
Even if the drought was a contributing factor to the Syrian civil war and the resulting terrorism wave, so what? This is an irrelevant factoid that should not substantially inform our policy about either global warming or terrorism. It's like arguing that the 1930s global crisis and the Versailles treaty contributed to the rise of nazis and the Holocaust - this may be true, but we did not put French diplomats on trial in Nurnberg nor carpet bomb Wall Street (perhaps we should have?).
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2016, 10:09:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
Just possibly not as widespread as Trump seemed to claim.
"Possibly"? "Seemed"? Could you be any more of a weasel? Yeah, yeah, I know, you're "kidding"/"exaggerating"/"trolling", sure thing.
Why are you so sure it didn't happen? We have eyewitness testimony that it did. :P
That's really interesting Timmy. Thanks. And yeah, that fact has been mostly absent from major media coverage of the region and conflict.
A colleague of mine is from Belgium and splits his time between Brussels and Atlanta - he has an office here. We are writing on his door well wishes--he was in the airport when the bombs went off. Does anyone have a nice french phrase I could write?
Something along the lines of "We are glad you are safe - welcome back!"
Quote from: alfred russel on March 25, 2016, 01:18:41 PM
A colleague of mine is from Belgium and splits his time between Brussels and Atlanta - he has an office here. We are writing on his door well wishes--he was in the airport when the bombs went off. Does anyone have a nice french phrase I could write?
Something along the lines of "We are glad you are safe - welcome back!"
maybe he's dutchspeaking. :p.
anyways: here's my attempt: "Nous sommes heureux que tu es/vous êtes en sécurité - bon retour!". My French is not that good though.
on the offchance you'd need the Dutch: "We zijn blij dat je/u veilig bent - welkom terug!"
in both cases: [familiar]/[polite], chose as appropriate
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 25, 2016, 02:12:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 25, 2016, 01:18:41 PM
A colleague of mine is from Belgium and splits his time between Brussels and Atlanta - he has an office here. We are writing on his door well wishes--he was in the airport when the bombs went off. Does anyone have a nice french phrase I could write?
Something along the lines of "We are glad you are safe - welcome back!"
maybe he's dutchspeaking. :p.
anyways: here's my attempt: "Nous sommes heureux que tu es/vous êtes en sécurité - bon retour!". My French is not that good though.
on the offchance you'd need the Dutch: "We zijn blij dat je/u veilig bent - welkom terug!"
in both cases: [familiar]/[polite], chose as appropriate
Thanks! He is French speaking.
So he sound and look like Hercule Poirot?
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2016, 02:33:09 PM
So he sound and look like Hercule Poirot?
No on both counts. :P
Someone wrote on his door, "vive la france! vive la (foreign word for belgium)!"
Any failure of language is probably my failure to remember the exact phrasing on the door. My point is, it seems odd to include france.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 25, 2016, 01:18:41 PM
A colleague of mine is from Belgium and splits his time between Brussels and Atlanta - he has an office here. We are writing on his door well wishes--he was in the airport when the bombs went off. Does anyone have a nice french phrase I could write?
Something along the lines of "We are glad you are safe - welcome back!"
I believe the direct translation of that phrase is "voulez vous coucher avec moi ce soir?" :frog:
"bonne merde" :frog:
Archy and ET are proven to be jackasses by babelfish. :)
You can translate it best as "break a leg"
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2016, 10:09:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
Just possibly not as widespread as Trump seemed to claim.
"Possibly"? "Seemed"? Could you be any more of a weasel? Yeah, yeah, I know, you're "kidding"/"exaggerating"/"trolling", sure thing.
I missed my stalker :hug:
The true villain is revealed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FixasaoR.jpg&hash=98c637f0cf667ced9999115a74ba79216f18d983)
Piers Morgan? I think his wretchedness has been known for quite a while now.
I bet the world will not remember that in one weeks time...
"When Belgium was knocked to it's knees"?
Europe's decline over the last century is kind of sad. After what the country went through in late 1914, Belgium still stood tall against the invaders. Now they're on their knees, apparently, over 26 dead.
Belgium is only on its knees according to some guy trying to make stupid anti-Obama memes, I think Europe's ok.
I think the point is when has Belgium not been on its knees? I mean, I liked living in Brussels, but this is historically one of the most spineless countries in Europe. Unless you are a Congolese slave and they need your gum, they immediately surrender to any threat.
Hell, it's the only nazi-occupied country that had two local Waffen SS divisions - because its citizens, while eager to join in on some genocide, just hated each other too much to form just one. It's really hard to think of a nation being more shitty.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 26, 2016, 07:39:12 AM
Belgium is only on its knees according to some guy trying to make stupid anti-Obama memes, I think Europe's ok.
:yes:
I don't think Europe is ok, at least not all of it. There is a part of liberal left that just gets its willies from seeing their own culture fucked by a foreign one - hence the term "kind and sensitive person" or "cuckold", as the "kind and sensitive person porn" is a very nice metaphor of that attitude.
There are problems sure, but Europe is not "on its knees" and it's not about to collapse. That's just Russian propaganda. Of course, Poland has been steadily turning itself into Russia lately. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 26, 2016, 07:39:12 AM
Belgium is only on its knees according to some guy trying to make stupid anti-Obama memes, I think Europe's ok.
Marti's on his knees at least 3 times weekly, and he's doing fine.
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2016, 11:43:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2016, 10:09:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
Just possibly not as widespread as Trump seemed to claim.
"Possibly"? "Seemed"? Could you be any more of a weasel? Yeah, yeah, I know, you're "kidding"/"exaggerating"/"trolling", sure thing.
I missed my stalker :hug:
:jaron:
An "anti-fear" march cancelled in Brussels because Belgian authorities feared they cannot sufficiently protect the marchers.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/27/europe/brussels-investigation-main/
:bleeding:
CNN reports that a "nationalist" protest was held instead, with the "neonazis" sporting such apparently fascist slogans as "FCK ISIS", "Casuals Against Terrorism" and "We are at home". :hmm:
"I am the State." - Margaret Thatcher.
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2016, 03:27:17 PM
CNN reports that a "nationalist" protest was held instead, with the "neonazis" sporting such apparently fascist slogans as "FCK ISIS", "Casuals Against Terrorism" and "We are at home". :hmm:
These extreme right wing wackos have gone too far Marty.
lol, Belgian neo-Nazis. Surprised they found the time to log off of Red Orchestra.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2016, 07:39:59 PM
lol, Belgian neo-Nazis. Surprised they found the time to log off of Red Orchestra.
Walloon and Langemarck FTW.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 27, 2016, 07:55:35 PM
Walloon and Langemarck FTW.
Piss on Europe's shitty little ethnic bullshit. Fuck them and their hangups. Fucking hypocritical monkeys.
LOL, Wiki on the "Walloon Diaspora"
Quote
Walloon diaspora
Argentina
Bergen County, New Jersey
Brazil
Département des Ardennes
Mexico
Perry County, Indiana
Quebec and other parts of Canada
Sweden
United Kingdom
Wisconsin
I can't figure out whether to file "Walloon Diaspora" under S for "Seriously?", R for "Really?" or O for "Oh, Come Now"
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-missionaries-injured-belgium-explosion
Mormon casualties. :(
Quote from: Jaron on March 27, 2016, 09:34:01 PM
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-missionaries-injured-belgium-explosion
Mormon casualties. :(
On the good side, they can baptize the suicide bombers that died trying to kill them, declare their mission a success, and return home early. :)
When are you going to stop pretending to be a Mormon?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2016, 09:51:13 PM
When are you going to stop pretending to be a Mormon?
What makes you declare me pretender?
1 Your past history of adopting poses for comic value
2 I like to think you have too much sense for that
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2016, 10:01:16 PM
1 Your past history of adopting poses for comic value
2 I like to think you have too much sense for that
1 True
2 As I get older and closer to death, I let fear of non existence overwhelm my logical side and accept that since I can't disprove God then perhaps I should listen to the message of his standard bearers. And with the Mormons, I like what I hear. They're non smokers, like me. They hate loud parties like me. They don't drink and I don't drink. Their women are hot AF. What's not to like? I totally opt out of that 10% of my income shiz though.
I've heard that there is an abundance of mormon women vs. mormon men because going on a mission sucks so lots of guys ditch the religion when they become adults.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 27, 2016, 10:27:13 PM
I've heard that there is an abundance of mormon women vs. mormon men because going on a mission sucks so lots of guys ditch the religion when they become adults.
I don't know if that's true. They go on a mission around 19, come back at 21 and get ALL the young ladies lined up. I have heard its nice for guys in that age range who don't go on missions though because for awhile they have a monopoly on the late teen/early 20 something demographic.
I do not get the relevance of the drinking/smoking/partying thing. Even if those things are not BANNED BECAUSE GOD you generally do not do those things when carrying out the religion :P
But the women being hot thing, well that is all you needed to say dude.
Generally I do not like religions that claim they have all the answers and it is run by a secret committee of assholes. But hey the hot chicks thing makes up for that.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2016, 10:30:47 PM
I do not get the relevance of the drinking/smoking/partying thing. Even if those things are not BANNED BECAUSE GOD you generally do not do those things when carrying out the religion :P
But the women being hot thing, well that is all you needed to say dude.
Generally I do not like religions that claim they have all the answers and it is run by a secret committee of assholes. But hey the hot chicks thing makes up for that.
I mean you can drink and be a catholic. You can smoke and be a protestant. I don't like doing those things or feeling pressured to.
I like the focus of the Mormons on the purity of soul and body. IF we ever formed our own militias again, we'd be formidable opponents. We have enough guns and food stored to last centuries.
Quote from: Jaron on March 27, 2016, 10:35:49 PM
I mean you can drink and be a catholic. You can smoke and be a protestant. I don't like doing those things or feeling pressured to.
I like the focus of the Mormons on the purity of soul and body. IF we ever formed our own militias again, we'd be formidable opponents. We have enough guns and food stored to last centuries.
How is allowing others to do so being pressured to do so? Why do you need everybody to be forbidden from doing something?
Sure focusing on clean living is nice. But logic and common sense show you that plenty of very spiritual and noble people drink and smoke and God is not smiting them down as impure. Just a committee of jerks who run Mormonism claims so.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2016, 10:39:11 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 27, 2016, 10:35:49 PM
I mean you can drink and be a catholic. You can smoke and be a protestant. I don't like doing those things or feeling pressured to.
I like the focus of the Mormons on the purity of soul and body. IF we ever formed our own militias again, we'd be formidable opponents. We have enough guns and food stored to last centuries.
How is allowing others to do so being pressured to do so? Why do you need everybody to be forbidden from doing something?
Sure focusing on clean living is nice. But logic and common sense show you that plenty of very spiritual and noble people drink and smoke and God is not smiting them down as impure. Just a committee of jerks who run Mormonism claims so.
Its not really about forbidding. Its about being with a group you fit in with. A culture that has the same morals as you do. I don't care if others drink or smoke, but its nice to have friends and comrades who like to throw some dice or play board games with you and not want to hit the clubs or bars. I stick out like a sore thumb there.
Catholicism is the best. You can smoke, and drinking is from a cultural standpoint basically mandatory. You just can't eat meat on Fridays, use contraception, have abortions, or have sex outside of marriage*.
*You can do all these things, but you have to go to confession afterward**.
**No one goes to confession. Proceed as you see fit. Just don't talk too loudly about the abortions you had or financed.
I believe Utah also has high levels of fraud by US standards - especially trolling phone scams. :alberta:
Quote from: alfred russel on March 27, 2016, 10:58:07 PM
Catholicism is the best...You just can't eat meat on Fridays
:huh:
An interesting story about one of the suspects:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/27/belgian-police-dna-role-faycal-cheffou-brussels-airport-attacks
QuoteCheffou was known to police. Aged 18, he served a prison sentence in 2003 for criminal association and complicity to murder, Reuters reported. The Belgian website SudInfo reported that in the case a weapon found at Cheffou's house by a friend had led to an incident in which another friend was killed.
Cheffou had reportedly become increasingly radicalised in recent years and had been flagged up by charities working with asylum seekers in Brussels late last year after he had attempted to recruit asylum seekers from a park where they were sheltering in tents.
The Brussels mayor, Yvan Mayer, said authorities had stopped Cheffou several times when he was trying to encourage young men camping in the park to turn to radical extremism. The mayor said he was a dangerous man and had eventually been banned from visiting the park.
Former volunteers who worked with asylum seekers in the park described Cheffou to the Belgian paper Le Soir as "aggressive" and someone who "liked power".
QuoteThe Belgian newspaper La Capitale reported that in 2002 Cheffou's brother, Karim, was shot dead by Schaerbeek police while they attempted to arrest him. Karim had been wanted for several robberies, and a search of his home revealed a Kalashnikov and a bag full of grenades.
Wow, if this is true, Belgium is a fat joke. But then I suspect other Western European countries would have probably not deported the guy either, fearing they might appear "somewhat racist".
Where, exactly, would you suggest a country should deport its own citizens?
Australia.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 28, 2016, 07:45:36 AM
Where, exactly, would you suggest a country should deport its own citizens?
There must a solution for that, surely. Something final that could please him
Quote from: Solmyr on March 28, 2016, 07:45:36 AM
Where, exactly, would you suggest a country should deport its own citizens?
Phantom Zone.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 28, 2016, 07:45:36 AM
Where, exactly, would you suggest a country should deport its own citizens?
Australia?
I'm in Munich.
Can't believe how many niqabs I'm seeing. Is....Munich just way more chaotic than Vienna? It's, well, obviously a lot tackier but it seems way more different than I thought it would be. Vienna has migrants but they tend to, well, look like they belong there. This is quite startling.
Where did you see them in Munich? The ones in the expensive inner city shopping district are often tourists. Munich has a massive medical tourism from Arab states ongoing and they combine that with shopping apparently.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-27/gulf-tourists-flock-to-munich-s-luxury-lifestyle-as-paris-fades
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2016, 07:18:42 AM
Wow, if this is true, Belgium is a fat joke. But then I suspect other Western European countries would have probably not deported the guy either, fearing they might appear "somewhat racist".
They let him go for lack of evidence.
A German speaker could translate this more, but apparently Merkel is gaining popularity again: http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Merkel-wieder-beliebt-wie-vor-Fluechtlingskrise-article17331966.html
Hardly surprising, she was and now again is the most popular politician in Germany by a wide margin. She'll be reelected for four more years in September 2017.
Quote from: Zanza on March 30, 2016, 06:06:55 AM
Hardly surprising, she was and now again is the most popular politician in Germany by a wide margin. She'll be reelected for four more years in September 2017.
Explain it to me: is she that good of an administrator that Germans think it would be dumb to get someone else just because she's been there long enough, is she a ruthless political operator that only gains ever more power with administrative resources at her disposal, or are Germans just too apathetic to ever think of changing her out until biology does that for them?
Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 06:21:38 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 30, 2016, 06:06:55 AM
Hardly surprising, she was and now again is the most popular politician in Germany by a wide margin. She'll be reelected for four more years in September 2017.
Explain it to me: is she that good of an administrator that Germans think it would be dumb to get someone else just because she's been there long enough, is she a ruthless political operator that only gains ever more power with administrative resources at her disposal, or are Germans just too apathetic to ever think of changing her out until biology does that for them?
Yes.
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2016, 06:40:38 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 06:21:38 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 30, 2016, 06:06:55 AM
Hardly surprising, she was and now again is the most popular politician in Germany by a wide margin. She'll be reelected for four more years in September 2017.
Explain it to me: is she that good of an administrator that Germans think it would be dumb to get someone else just because she's been there long enough, is she a ruthless political operator that only gains ever more power with administrative resources at her disposal, or are Germans just too apathetic to ever think of changing her out until biology does that for them?
Yes.
Marti said it. It's a combination of all three factors.
Grallons everywhere agree
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/03/charlie_hebdo_acceptance_of_practicing_muslims_contributes_to_terrorism.html
Quote
Charlie Hebdo: Acceptance of Practicing Muslims in Society Contributes to Terrorism
By Daniel Politi
Satirical French publication Charlie Hebdo is coming under fire for an English-language editorial that seems to at least partly blame practicing, and peaceful, Muslims for terrorist attacks. A little more than a week after 35 people were killed in Brussels, the newspaper wonders, "How did we end up here?"* The newspaper that suffered a terrorist attack of its own last year says that "the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale."
To make its point, Charlie Hebdo uses three examples: Tariq Ramadan, an Islamic scholar, a nameless woman in a burqa, and a baker who is a Muslim. Ramadan, who, incidentally condemned the attack against Charlie, has devoted his life to defending Islam. "His task, under cover of debate, is to dissuade people criticizing his religion in any way," notes the editorial. He effectively makes "little dents" in secularism by imposing "a fear of criticising lest they appear Islamophobic." The editorial then goes on to sarcastically dismiss concerns that a woman wearing a burqa may be hiding a bomb. And finally there is the baker who stops selling ham, and everyone simply shrugs and accepts it because "there are plenty of other options on offer."
The editorial then goes on to mention the Brussels attackers, noting that while no one in the three examples really did anything wrong, the terrorist attack can't happen "without everyone's contribution." The enforced silence to not criticize someone who is different or holds different beliefs means that "it is secularism which is being forced into retreat." The editorial concludes:
The first task of the guilty is to blame the innocent. It's an almost perfect inversion of culpability. From the bakery that forbids you to eat what you like, to the woman who forbids you to admit that you are troubled by her veil, we are submerged in guilt for permitting ourselves such thoughts. And that is where and when fear has started its sapping, undermining work. And the way is marked for all that will follow.
Criticism of the editorial came fast and furious on Twitter.
[numerous tweets]
...
Writer Teju Cole took to Facebook to write what is perhaps the most extensive, and reasoned, criticism of the editorial, saying "the people of Charlie ... finally step away from the mask of 'it's satire and you don't get it' to state clearly that Muslims, all of them, no matter how integrated, are the enemy." Charlie seems to want to defend "the wish to discriminate freely against Muslims without having to be called out on it" and somehow characterizing the whole exercise as brave and speaking truth to power. "This is precisely the logic also of the masses who praise Trump for his 'honesty'—as though only ugliness could be honest, as though moral incontinence were any more noble than physical incontinence," writes Cole.
Charlie had already come under fire this past week for its front page about the Brussels attacks.
I wish someone shot up the editorial office of Slate.
QuoteBelgium's security problem
No Poirots
Belgian police are flummoxed by IS
Apr 2nd 2016 | BRUSSELS AND PARIS | From the print edition
Timekeeper
THE response of the Belgian police to the terrorist attacks that claimed 32 lives in Brussels on March 22nd has displayed elements of farce. Two days after the bombings, officers arrested Fayçal Cheffou, a freelance journalist and Islamist agitator, as he loitered with several other men outside the federal prosecutor's office. He was identified as the "man in the hat" seen on security footage at Brussels' airport next to the two suicide-bombers. Four days later Mr Cheffou was released due to lack of evidence. Mobile-phone tracking placed him at home during the bombings, and his DNA was not found in the apartment where the bombs were made.
"Belgium is the weakest link in the European Union's [security] network," says one EU diplomat. Salah Abdeslam, a suspect in the attacks in Paris in November whose arrest seems to have triggered the Brussels bombings, evaded police for four months before he was arrested in Molenbeek, the Brussels suburb where he grew up. Raids leading to his arrest turned up components of explosives, yet security at vulnerable locations was not beefed up. The Belgians had even been warned by foreign intelligence agencies that leaders of Islamic State (IS) in Syria had sent instructions to bomb the airport and a metro station.
Meanwhile, Turkey said it had deported Ibrahim el-Bakraoui to Belgium in July 2015 and told the authorities that he was suspected of jihadist activity. Yet no criminal proceedings were opened. Mr el-Bakraoui is thought to have been one of the airport bombers. (The other, Najim Laachraoui, is suspected of making the bombs used in Paris and Brussels.) Khalid, his brother, is believed to have been responsible for the metro bombing.
One reason for the bumbling is poor co-ordination between government agencies. The Turkish warning was passed to Belgium's federal police, part of the interior ministry; the justice ministry's state prosecution office, which could have ordered criminal proceedings, was not notified. The federal police division responsible for counter-terrorism is set up mainly to fight organised crime, while the state security service concentrates on foiling spying by foreign states.
"Much of the information was there in advance, but the pipelines are clogged," says Jan Nolf, a legal journalist and former judge. "As a small country with limited resources, we simply can't deal with all the responsibilities of being the headquarters of the European institutions and of NATO."
French police seem to be doing better. Two days after the Brussels attacks they thwarted an "advanced" terrorist plot near Paris, arresting Reda Kriket, a French citizen, and seizing weapons and explosives in his flat. Three suspected accomplices were arrested in Belgium, and Dutch police arrested a fourth in Rotterdam.
Molenbeek, meanwhile, has been known to be a hotspot of IS activity ever since the Paris bombings. Yet security forces have failed to penetrate its jihadist networks. Molenbeek's mayor, Françoise Schepmans, blames laws barring raids on apartments at night and holding terror suspects without charge for over 24 hours, as well as local politics. "When radicals began preaching in the mosques here, it was convenient for local politicians to do nothing," Ms Schepmans says. "Even now, since the Paris attacks, when everyone realises that nothing can be the same again, wehaven't received more resources."
Sadly, I fear that combination like this of incompetence and multi-culti political correctness is what will spell the end of the Schengen and might even spell the end of the EU.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2016, 01:53:11 AM
Grallons everywhere agree
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/03/charlie_hebdo_acceptance_of_practicing_muslims_contributes_to_terrorism.html
Charlie Hebdo: Acceptance of Practicing Muslims in Society Contributes to Terrorism
So Grallon is some kind of far left/anarcho/'68er tard whatever type now? :blink:
As for Tariq Ramadan, this al-master of Taqqiya was even exposed by Sarko once (moratorium for stoning cheating women: yes or no?). So :x
fyi
after 12 days. Passenger part of the airport started again with extra controls. Before you were advised to be at the airport 2 hours in front now it changed to 3 hours. One of the new rules is that only passengers after control may go into the checkin area. Causing quees before the entrance of the checking area. If they wanted the target for the terrorists was just moved outside. This thanks to the police union, who asked for these measures since their members otherwise didn't feel save enough. Seems to only give a false sens of security to me.
Quote from: Archy on April 04, 2016, 05:40:31 AM
fyi
after 12 days. Passenger part of the airport started again with extra controls. Before you were advised to be at the airport 2 hours in front now it changed to 3 hours. One of the new rules is that only passengers after control may go into the checkin area. Causing quees before the entrance of the checking area. If they wanted the target for the terrorists was just moved outside. This thanks to the police union, who asked for these measures since their members otherwise didn't feel save enough. Seems to only give a false sens of security to me.
Well, if the police officers are inside, and the queue (to be targeted) is on the outside, it does make it safer for the officers. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2016, 01:53:11 AM
Grallons everywhere agree
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/03/charlie_hebdo_acceptance_of_practicing_muslims_contributes_to_terrorism.html
Quote
Charlie Hebdo: Acceptance of Practicing Muslims in Society Contributes to Terrorism
By Daniel Politi
Satirical French publication Charlie Hebdo is coming under fire for an English-language editorial that seems to at least partly blame practicing, and peaceful, Muslims for terrorist attacks. A little more than a week after 35 people were killed in Brussels, the newspaper wonders, "How did we end up here?"* The newspaper that suffered a terrorist attack of its own last year says that "the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale."
To make its point, Charlie Hebdo uses three examples: Tariq Ramadan, an Islamic scholar, a nameless woman in a burqa, and a baker who is a Muslim. Ramadan, who, incidentally condemned the attack against Charlie, has devoted his life to defending Islam. "His task, under cover of debate, is to dissuade people criticizing his religion in any way," notes the editorial. He effectively makes "little dents" in secularism by imposing "a fear of criticising lest they appear Islamophobic." The editorial then goes on to sarcastically dismiss concerns that a woman wearing a burqa may be hiding a bomb. And finally there is the baker who stops selling ham, and everyone simply shrugs and accepts it because "there are plenty of other options on offer."
The editorial then goes on to mention the Brussels attackers, noting that while no one in the three examples really did anything wrong, the terrorist attack can't happen "without everyone's contribution." The enforced silence to not criticize someone who is different or holds different beliefs means that "it is secularism which is being forced into retreat." The editorial concludes:
The first task of the guilty is to blame the innocent. It's an almost perfect inversion of culpability. From the bakery that forbids you to eat what you like, to the woman who forbids you to admit that you are troubled by her veil, we are submerged in guilt for permitting ourselves such thoughts. And that is where and when fear has started its sapping, undermining work. And the way is marked for all that will follow.
Criticism of the editorial came fast and furious on Twitter.
[numerous tweets]
...
Writer Teju Cole took to Facebook to write what is perhaps the most extensive, and reasoned, criticism of the editorial, saying "the people of Charlie ... finally step away from the mask of 'it's satire and you don't get it' to state clearly that Muslims, all of them, no matter how integrated, are the enemy." Charlie seems to want to defend "the wish to discriminate freely against Muslims without having to be called out on it" and somehow characterizing the whole exercise as brave and speaking truth to power. "This is precisely the logic also of the masses who praise Trump for his 'honesty'—as though only ugliness could be honest, as though moral incontinence were any more noble than physical incontinence," writes Cole.
Charlie had already come under fire this past week for its front page about the Brussels attacks.
they are mostly right. Secularims is being pushed back in many countries and it's a disturbing fact, to say the least. As for Tariq Ramadan, well, he is a radical and he makes ample use of a double discourse, depending whom he talks to. So yeah, people like him are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
However, I disagree that a single bakery should be forced to serve ham. So long as there are no rule or undue pressure to prevent the sale of ham, if some choose not to carry a specific product, it ain't a problem to me. If we see sharia police attacking muslim owned stores selling ham, it is a problem. If we see increase social pressure against muslim commerce selling pork products, it is a problem. One man refusing to serve ham is not, no more than my butcher not providing kosher meat.
I am also against bakeries being required to sell ham - or in fact any meat. :P
But in all seriousness - I agree, but we need to apply the principle equally to all faiths and world views. So if a Christian bakery refuses to prepare a wedding cake with figurines of two men on it, they should also have a right to do so. It seems Google, Coca Cola and Disney disagree.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 10:12:29 AM
But in all seriousness - I agree, but we need to apply the principle equally to all faiths and world views. So if a Christian bakery refuses to prepare a wedding cake with figurines of two men on it, they should also have a right to do so. It seems Google, Coca Cola and Disney disagree.
I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone is getting successfully sued because they won't put two men on a cake they are baking. Some have been successfully sued because they won't sell the same product to certain customers that they offer to the general public.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 04, 2016, 10:59:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 10:12:29 AM
But in all seriousness - I agree, but we need to apply the principle equally to all faiths and world views. So if a Christian bakery refuses to prepare a wedding cake with figurines of two men on it, they should also have a right to do so. It seems Google, Coca Cola and Disney disagree.
I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone is getting successfully sued because they won't put two men on a cake they are baking. Some have been successfully sued because they won't sell the same product to certain customers that they offer to the general public.
I think you are wrong - otherwise how would they even know they cater to a gay wedding?
Quote from: Archy on April 04, 2016, 05:40:31 AM
fyi
after 12 days. Passenger part of the airport started again with extra controls. Before you were advised to be at the airport 2 hours in front now it changed to 3 hours. One of the new rules is that only passengers after control may go into the checkin area. Causing quees before the entrance of the checking area. If they wanted the target for the terrorists was just moved outside. This thanks to the police union, who asked for these measures since their members otherwise didn't feel save enough. Seems to only give a false sens of security to me.
It seems like such a measure is just for show. You can't guard and protect every spot in a big city where a bomb could kill 20 people as there must be thousands of spots like this. If you increase security in one spot, a terrorist can just go for another area with lots of people. The only effective way is to stop the terrorists before they pull the trigger.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 10:10:55 AM
I am also against bakeries being required to sell ham - or in fact any meat. :P
croissant-jambon.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 10:12:29 AM
But in all seriousness - I agree, but we need to apply the principle equally to all faiths and world views. So if a Christian bakery refuses to prepare a wedding cake with figurines of two men on it, they should also have a right to do so. It seems Google, Coca Cola and Disney disagree.
The bakery with the wedding cake refuses to serve customers specifically for what they are, gays. That is discrimination.
It's like a business that refuses to serve black people. Or someone inventing a religious reason not to show black figurines on the cake.
A butchery that does not sell kosher meat and proposes various pork products is not anti-semitic by nature. We do not ask GM dealers to carry Ford products.
A bakery that does not offer ham croissant, I don't see this as a big threat to secularism. Said bakery refusing to serve non muslims, or requiring something that would make sure no Christians would buy there without officially discriminating against them, that would be a problem.
But offering some products and not offering others is another thing. Ideally, there wouldn't be cultural ghettos in big cities, but I suppose that can't be avoided. You'd expect a muslim butcher in a muslim neighbourhood to not offer pork since there is so little demand for it.
Suddenly Charlie Hebdo isn't a satire magazine, but a news magazine?
if they say these silly things, i suspect that they are not meaning to be taken seriously.
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2016, 01:52:30 PM
Suddenly Charlie Hebdo isn't a satire magazine, but a news magazine?
if they say these silly things, i suspect that they are not meaning to be taken seriously.
I don't think you understand how such magazines work in France.
Grumbler knows how magazines work; he was one of the founders of Punch after all.
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 11:07:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2016, 01:52:30 PM
Suddenly Charlie Hebdo isn't a satire magazine, but a news magazine?
if they say these silly things, i suspect that they are not meaning to be taken seriously.
I don't think you understand how such magazines work in France.
Actually, I don't know either. Perhaps you could explain it to us.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2016, 11:40:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 11:07:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2016, 01:52:30 PM
Suddenly Charlie Hebdo isn't a satire magazine, but a news magazine?
if they say these silly things, i suspect that they are not meaning to be taken seriously.
I don't think you understand how such magazines work in France.
Actually, I don't know either. Perhaps you could explain it to us.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=satire+in+french+political+journalism
Okay, so you don't know either.
Karl Popper said, "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Quote from: Siege on April 11, 2016, 04:22:26 AM
Karl Popper said, "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
:hug:
Quote from: Siege on April 11, 2016, 04:22:26 AM
Karl Popper said, "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Well, paint me as pleasantly surprised that you have been reading Karl Popper. I think you may be misapplying it here, (he was talking about philosophers not Muslims), and may have even gotten it reversed, but at least you are trying!
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2016, 06:13:48 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 11, 2016, 04:22:26 AM
Karl Popper said, "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Well, paint me as pleasantly surprised that you have been reading Karl Popper. I think you may be misapplying it here, (he was talking about philosophers not Muslims), and may have even gotten it reversed, but at least you are trying!
Uhm, no, he was talking about any groups that espouse ideology or philosophy that is contrary to open liberal society and wants to abolish it. In his time, such group were the nazis, but right now, at least in Western Europe, the most prominent group espousing such ideology are Muslims. Siegy used this quote perfectly a propos.
Incidentally, it's funny how you constantly shit on and are condescending to plenty of people here, while being possibly the most useless, parasitic and unproductive Languishite in real life. Say what you want about Siegy, at least he has done something for the society and/or country outside of his father's basement.
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2016, 06:32:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2016, 06:13:48 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 11, 2016, 04:22:26 AM
Karl Popper said, "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Well, paint me as pleasantly surprised that you have been reading Karl Popper. I think you may be misapplying it here, (he was talking about philosophers not Muslims), and may have even gotten it reversed, but at least you are trying!
Uhm, no, he was talking about any groups that espouse ideology or philosophy that is contrary to open liberal society and wants to abolish it. In his time, such group were the nazis, but right now, at least in Western Europe, the most prominent group espousing such ideology are Muslims. Siegy used this quote perfectly a propos.
Incidentally, it's funny how you constantly shit on and are condescending to plenty of people here, while being possibly the most useless, parasitic and unproductive Languishite in real life. Say what you want about Siegy, at least he has done something for the society and/or country outside of his father's basement.
No, I'm sorry it does not. Popper was talking about a group that wanted to eliminate certain ethnic groups that were widely seen as alien and destructive to society. But let's see, who are the most prominent groups espousing such ideologies in Europe today? Is ISIS beating out the National Front in France? Are they about to take over the government there? What about Poland? How many people want to impose Sharia law in that country? Is it comparable to those who want to force the Muslims outside the country? You were complaining last year that the majority party in your country was trying to undermine the constitution? Were they all Muslims?
You make the same mistake as all bigoted right wingers. You make the jump from the belief that the government shouldn't harass a certain group of people to the idea that not harassing those people is being sympathetic to all the aims of that group. You make the same stupid arguments that people in this country make when they talk about "the gay agenda", and how we must come down hard on homosexuals because they are plotting to destroy our free society.
Quote
A man who killed a commuter and injured three others in a knife attack at a railway station near Munich suffered from psychological problems and drug addiction, state officials say.
The man attacked four people shortly before 05:00 (03:00 GMT) on Tuesday at Grafing station. One of the victims died of his wounds in hospital.
A 27-year-old German man was eventually overpowered by police and arrested.
Some witnesses said he shouted "Allahu akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic).
But a spokesman for Bavaria state's interior ministry said that "so far we have no evidence for an Islamist motive".
:hmm:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36254513 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36254513)
Looks like the man is seriously mentally disturbed and may not even be muslim. Nevertheless, police is currently checking if there is any hint of him converting recently.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcUwIGyM.png&hash=413efa78ff2f724e7fa32344a9b9855999fa8e55)
Quote from: Malicious Intent on May 10, 2016, 10:01:15 AM
Looks like the man is seriously mentally disturbed and may not even be muslim. Nevertheless, police is currently checking if there is any hint of him converting recently.
That's what the authorities said following some "isolated" cases in December 2014.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/24/france-s-wave-of-crazy-terror-christmas-attacks.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/24/france-s-wave-of-crazy-terror-christmas-attacks.html)
QuoteFrance's Wave of Crazy-Terror Christmas Attacks
The French government would like people to believe that insanity and terrorism are mutually exclusive. But as we are seeing all over the world, one can serve the other.
PARIS—Three attacks in three towns in three days have spread terror across France. But were they the acts of terrorists? French President François Hollande is telling the French people they should "not lump them together." Prime Minister Manuel Valls says that two of the three incidents were the work of deranged copycats, but don't fit into a "classic terrorist logic." And an adviser to the French government, speaking privately, tells The Daily Beast, "These are not lone wolves, they are crazy wolves."
Later on, Valls changed his tune and declared France was at war...
I am well aware of the risk of militant islamists in Germany. Just recently some radicalized girl stabbed a police officer in Hannover.
This new case does not really fit the islamist motive though. The killer is German, has no muslim background, is unemployed and a regular drug user. He was psychiatrically interned on Sunday, but left on Monday and then traveled from Hesse to Bavaria, where the attack happened.