Paris implications continued

[Shryke]

Or not letting groups prone to radicalization into your country?  Seems like that would be stopping the problem before it even starts.  

So don't let anyone in? And kick the people already in out as well.

Cause, like, the entire assumption of your post here is that it's the groups coming in that are the problem when, as has been pointed out already, later generations are just as susceptible. Being american I would have thought you would be familiar with white extremists but I guess that would involve some reflection on your silly position here.

 

ETA:  It's amazing to me the amount of time and energy we devote to not hurting peoples feelings, and coming up with reasons not to blame the muslim extremists.  It seems to me that this will happen even amongst privileged muslim men raised in a well off environment.  Some people are just drawn to that, and unfortunately parts of Islam are great fuel for their anger. 

It's amazing to me the amount of time and energy you devote to a position in opposition to something no one is saying. But I guess the racist assumptions that are the foundation of this whole post of yours here kinda explain that. Assuming you are arguing against the PC police trying to excuse muslim extremists is to the only way you can regurgitate this crap into the thread.

[peterbound]

 

So don't let anyone in? And kick the people already in out as well.

Cause, like, the entire assumption of your post here is that it's the groups coming in that are the problem when, as has been pointed out already, later generations are just as susceptible. Being american I would have thought you would be familiar with white extremists but I guess that would involve some reflection on your silly position here.

 

It's amazing to me the amount of time and energy you devote to a position in opposition to something no one is saying. But I guess the racist assumptions that are the foundation of this whole post of yours here kinda explain that. Assuming you are arguing against the PC police trying to excuse muslim extremists is to the only way you can regurgitate this crap into the thread.

Now I'm a racist?  Egads man!  That's a stretch.  

This is the problem.  I can't take a position you disagree with without you either calling me a bigot, intolerant, or a racist.  I'm not a fan of white supremacist either, and if I could have found the faucet they all came from, I would have turned that off as well.  

And Shryke, you've pretty much said that it's France's (and probably America's fault as well) for having violence perpetrated on them.  Rather than hold those that committed the act accountable, you search for reasons to blame the system, the state, or any figure you perceive as 'the other side' for the crimes committed against them.  It's backwards logic, and your absolute refusal to discuss it in a way that allows for disagreement does your argument even more of a disservice.  

[peterbound]

Oh gods, what is going to be done about Muslim gun owners? This will be a nation ending constitutional paradox.

No doubt leftist judicial activism will overturn the People with Turbans Registration Act - sub-title "What do you mean Sikh? that's just Indian for Muslim isn't it?...no I mean Indian from India, not American Indian." Never mind that it would probably be a Supreme court with majority Republican appointed judges. But I wonder if it would still be a 5-4 split.

No doubt there would be a constitutional amendment proposed: When the constitution was written enshrining freedom of religion, it actually only meant Christians. All other religions are from a false god, therefore they cannot be accorded the right to freedom of religion, because they are not religions...Hindus? What? That's just Indian for Indian isn't it?...no I mean Indian from India, not American Indian. What? Jews you say? err well umm, OK, Abrahamic religions are OK...What? Islam is Abrahamic? FUCK! This is sooo hard! Why can't everyone be Christian!?!

Abrahamic /and/ cool with the Jesus.  

Not so cool with other faiths outside of 'the book'.  Hell even those that choose to practice those faiths (and aren't murdered for them) are required to pay a tax just to have the right to practice.  Islam, not the most tolerant of religions, liberal lifestyles, or social progress in really any manner.  Yet, that's the pony you're backing.  Wild. 

[The Anti-Targ]

 

 

If a restaurant refused to serve halal, or kosher options, would you be alright with that?

 

Or would you want them to provide it?

Most restaurants don't provide Halal options. Or rather if you're Halal observant you have to be vegetarian or piscitarian in most places. People definitely get more incensed about not having vegetarian options than not having Halal options. Indeed none of my Muslim friends and colleagues have ever complained about not being able to order Halal meat dishes. They are just used to having to be vegetarian when they are out in public. Indeed all of the delegations we've hosted from Malaysia, Indonesia and Egypt have all eaten strictly vegetarian for the entire time they've been in the country and have never once insisted on being given an Halal meat meal. The one thing we do avoid is ordering pork dishes for our local staff for catered meals. I think there was only one occasion where one member of a delegation insisted that we find a restaurant that does not serve pork. That was very hard to accomplish.

I don't think there is a single restaurant in the country that does kosher. Indeed Kosher methods of slaughter are very controversial here because they are in breach of our animal welfare codes (Halal methods are not) so there is a Bill of Rights conflict with our Animal Welfare Act. 

You're blaming the victims here.  It's like saying a girl deserved to get raped because she wore suggestive clothing. 

 

And how did france 'treat them like shit'?  By allowing free speech?  The banning of the hajib?  I'm not following here.  

Isn't the more apt comparison that of a battered wife reaching breaking point and killing her husband? There are two victims. On the one hand there is an insidious pattern of cruel treatment, and on the other hand there is a sudden act of extreme violence. The history of cruel treatment does not justify the murder, but it is a leading cause. In the case of battered wife syndrome the history of cruel treatment is often legally recognised as a mitigating factor. So the question here is whether the mal-treatment of Muslims in many European countries is a mitigating factor or not. There's not much debate that the mal-treatment is a causal link to why European born Muslims can be radicalised into violent actions.

[The Anti-Targ]

Abrahamic /and/ cool with the Jesus.  

Not so cool with other faiths outside of 'the book'.  Hell even those that choose to practice those faiths (and aren't murdered for them) are required to pay a tax just to have the right to practice.  Islam, not the most tolerant of religions, liberal lifestyles, or social progress in really any manner.  Yet, that's the pony you're backing.  Wild. 

What pony do you imagine I'm backing?

I know better than most what the sharp end of Muslim religious persecution looks like. But that doesn't mean I advocate for the retributive persecution of the Muslim religion.

[peterbound]

Most restaurants don't provide Halal options. Or rather if you're Halal observant you have to be vegetarian or piscitarian in most places. People definitely get more incensed about not having vegetarian options than not having Halal options. Indeed none of my Muslim friends and colleagues have ever complained about not being able to order Halal meat dishes. They are just used to having to be vegetarian when they are out in public. Indeed all of the delegations we've hosted from Malaysia, Indonesia and Egypt have all eaten strictly vegetarian for the entire time they've been in the country and have never once insisted on being given an Halal meat meal. The one thing we do avoid is ordering pork dishes for our local staff for catered meals. I think there was only one occasion where one member of a delegation insisted that we find a restaurant that does not serve pork. That was very hard to accomplish.

I don't think there is a single restaurant in the country that does kosher. Indeed Kosher methods of slaughter are very controversial here because they are in breach of our animal welfare codes (Halal methods are not) so there is a Bill of Rights conflict with our Animal Welfare Act. 

Isn't the more apt comparison that of a battered wife reaching breaking point and killing her husband? There are two victims. On the one hand there is an insidious pattern of cruel treatment, and on the other hand there is a sudden act of extreme violence. The history of cruel treatment does not justify the murder, but it is a leading cause. In the case of battered wife syndrome the history of cruel treatment is often legally recognised as a mitigating factor. So the question here is whether the mal-treatment of Muslims in many European countries is a mitigating factor or not. There's not much debate that the mal-treatment is a causal link to why European born Muslims can be radicalised into violent actions.

Great info on the dining options.  

 

As for the analogy, yes, that is a better one.  However, you could make the argument that Islam has been beating the shit out of Europe long before the current troubles we are experiencing.  Also, again, if you are saying that some harsh words and a law intended to protect the welfare of the nation at large justifies murder we may not be able to have an understand here.  

 

We have to point our fingers at the right people here.  Islamic extremists.  Not the country they live in.  Not America for going to Saudi Arabia (on the princes request). Not someone for drawing a cartoon.  A FUCKING CARTOON, of their prophet.  No, the accountability has to be held by those committing the crimes.  I know we are quickly becoming a world of shifting the blame, but the problem land squarely on the shoulders of the terrorists, and we cannot change the way we operate as a world to accommodate their medieval world view. 

[TrueMetis]

 

Great info on the dining options.  

 

As for the analogy, yes, that is a better one.  However, you could make the argument that Islam has been beating the shit out of Europe long before the current troubles we are experiencing.  Also, again, if you are saying that some harsh words and a law intended to protect the welfare of the nation at large justifies murder we may not be able to have an understand here.  

When? It's not Middle Eastern Countries invading Europe and supporting dictators.

[peterbound]

When? It's not Middle Eastern Countries invading Europe and supporting dictators.

come on man, the west has been at odds with islam since it's inception.  The two can't seem to coexist peacefully.  What you are seeing is centuries of hate, war, and confusion on both sides.  This didn't start post WWII.  Hell, the US has been going at it with islamic extremist since the fucking barbary coast (luckily we worked that one out).  

[TrueMetis]

come on man, the west has been at odds with islam since it's inception.  The two can't seem to coexist peacefully.  What you are seeing is centuries of hate, war, and confusion on both sides.  This didn't start post WWII.  Hell, the US has been going at it with islamic extremist since the fucking barbary coast (luckily we worked that one out).  

This is a rather different statement than your "Islam has been beating the shit out of Europe long before the current troubles we are experiencing." statement, which implies a one sided antagonism when it is decidedly both ways.

[peterbound]

This is a rather different statement than you're "Islam has been beating the shit out of Europe long before the current troubles we are experiencing." statement, which implies a one sided antagonism when it is decidedly both ways.

Agreed.  

 

I guess the big difference is that in the long game we've (the west) seem to have won out.  This leaves the extremist in the underdog camp, and that's one that the very left loves to champion or try to understand.  In reality it's not that hard.  They want to destroy our way of life, and force us to live in a world that hasn't moved past the middle ages.    

[Bonesy]

Kindly stop quoting entire multi-paragraph posts.

Anyone actually participating with integrity has read them.

[peterbound]

Ha, I'm just lazy and hit the quote button.  

[Bonesy]

That was a general request, not targeted.

As a point of style, the portions of a quote under contention were in turn selectively quoted and addressed.

This digital space is free for the users, but it costs money to run.

[Free Northman Reborn]

So the House has overwhelmingly rejected Obama's refugee policy, despite his veto threat.

With generous Democrat support, they easily exceeded the two thirds needed to override any attempted veto from the autocrat.

[TheKitttenGuard]

So the House has overwhelmingly rejected Obama's refugee policy, despite his veto threat.

With generous Democrat support, they easily exceeded the two thirds needed to override any attempted veto from the autocrat.

Doubtful they get 2/3 of the Senate. Schumer had came out against it and he is a nice way to judge anything odious has a chance.

You still have to vote to override the veto and it is not uncommon for votes to change. May be a big enough cushion to get 2/3 but that will depend on events.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

We have to point our fingers at the right people here.  Islamic extremists.  Not the country they live in.  Not America for going to Saudi Arabia (on the princes request). Not someone for drawing a cartoon.  A FUCKING CARTOON, of their prophet.  No, the accountability has to be held by those committing the crimes.  I know we are quickly becoming a world of shifting the blame, but the problem land squarely on the shoulders of the terrorists, and we cannot change the way we operate as a world to accommodate their medieval world view. 

Good grief.

No-one is saying that the fault isn't with Islamic Extremists. I repeat - no-one is saying that the fault isn't with Islamic Extremists.

What people are trying to come up with is a way of combating Islamic Extremists that doesn't amount to "let's bomb the hell out of Syria/Iraq/insert relevant country" (because that only creates more Islamic Extremists), "let's kick all the brown people out of our countries" (because that only creates more Islamic Extremists), or "let's enforce Western Christian values on everyone" (because there's enough far-right nutters pushing that already).

[The Marquis de Leech]

Or not letting groups prone to radicalization into your country?  Seems like that would be stopping the problem before it even starts.  

OK, so America retrospectively forbids those of Irish descent from settling there (where do you think the IRA got its funding?).

[Chaircat Meow]

When? It's not Middle Eastern Countries invading Europe and supporting dictators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Byzantine_wars

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

 

[Fez]

So the House has overwhelmingly rejected Obama's refugee policy, despite his veto threat.

With generous Democrat support, they easily exceeded the two thirds needed to override any attempted veto from the autocrat.

'Easily' is one hell of a stretch. Technically, the actual vote was one 1 vote SHORT of a veto-proof majority, but two Republicans didn't vote; so assuming they don't break from their party, and everyone else stays the same, the veto override will occur with a 1 vote margin.

This may seem pedantic, but seriously, there's no excuse of getting basic facts like this wrong.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Maybe it's a little bit schmaltzy, but I teared up watching the video embedded in this article about a Muslim man who stood blindfolded in Paris with his arms outstretched inviting bystanders to give him a hug. Everyone will take what they want from the video, but I definitely see it as a meditation on the shared humanity between the vast majority of Muslims living on this planet and "the rest of us." It looks like a lot of Parisians were touched by it too.