European Politics

Perun said:
What kind of people are susceptible for indoctrination? Religious fundamentalism, as has been shown by sociologists for decades now, is something that doesn't just exist. It flourishes because it gives people something they lack in life. People join fundamentalist groups because they lead terrible lives that they want to escape from.
Click to expand...


If it were not joining fundamental Islam, it would be fundamental something else
SixesAlltheway said:
Prison is a big breeding ground as well. in Europe at least..Probably also in the states.
Click to expand...

For sure in the states ... possibly the biggest breeding ground for racial separation and hatred (Mexicans v Blacks v Whites v Asians v etc, etc, etc, etc)
 
If it ever will change, to better many of these lives, takes years, or decades. Can a country, these days, afford to take that time (without doing anything else)?

By the way, right now there's a live debate in our parliament, on what goes on in Paris, and on the safety of the Netherlands. Of course restrictions on freedoms is a major issue as well. (Wilders comes on now :eek:)

"Breeding ground" is not in US law, so this is not an issue. ;)
 
Forostar said:
If it ever will change, to better many of these lives, takes years, or decades. Can a country, these days, afford to take that time?

By the way, right now there's a live debate in our parliament. Of course restrictions on freedoms is a major issue as well.

"Breeding ground" is not in US law, so this is not an issue. ;)
Click to expand...

Nope and ideally it never will be
 
One of the reasons I don't mind the Charlie Hebdo attackers were killed by SWAT is that at least now they won't have the chance to go to a normal European prison with the freedom they have there and influence younger weaker minds....
 
I don't know what the proper reaction to fight terrorism, the symptom, is. So many seem to think that killing the terrorist is the right option that I'm shying away from arguing against it, although I can't make friends with that idea.
 
SixesAlltheway said:
One of the reasons I don't mind the Charlie Hebdo attackers were killed by SWAT is that at least now they won't have the chance to go to a normal European prison with the freedom they have there and influence younger weaker minds....
Click to expand...


... death seems the proper penalty for those crimes (the ones that actually did the killing) as there is no doubt they would do it again.
 
Perun said:
I don't know what the proper reaction to fight terrorism, the symptom, is. So many seem to think that killing the terrorist is the right option that I'm shying away from arguing against it, although I can't make friends with that idea.
Click to expand...

Well, France is definitely getting involved now because of this...
http://rt.com/news/222647-hollande-aircraft-carrier-islamic-state/

"The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is the flagship of the French fleet, and is currently cruising off France’s southern coast in the Mediterranean.

The carrier is the largest Western European warship currently in commission, and is France’s only nuclear-powered surface vessel. The ship can carry 20 to 25 aircraft, including Super Etendard strike fighter jets, Rafale M multirole fighter jets and Aster missiles."
 
SixesAlltheway said:
Well, France is definitely getting involved now because of this...
http://rt.com/news/222647-hollande-aircraft-carrier-islamic-state/

"The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is the flagship of the French fleet, and is currently cruising off France’s southern coast in the Mediterranean.

The carrier is the largest Western European warship currently in commission, and is France’s only nuclear-powered surface vessel. The ship can carry 20 to 25 aircraft, including Super Etendard strike fighter jets, Rafale M multirole fighter jets and Aster missiles."
Click to expand...
Hell, even the French fishermen wear army uniform (or the army is only fishing).
 
Perun said:
I don't know what the proper reaction to fight terrorism, the symptom, is. So many seem to think that killing the terrorist is the right option that I'm shying away from arguing against it, although I can't make friends with that idea.
Click to expand...
If a terrorist has a gun pointed at innocents, or a bomb ready to go off, or an airliner ready to crash, you kill them if you have to kill them. You have to protect today. And if there are terrorists ready to attack tomorrow, you have to be ready to kill them. Hell, you might even have to pre-emptively kill them.

I hate this reality, but it is true. You fight the enemy and reduce their ability to attack. This helps you today, it helps you tomorrow. It does not help you in 10 years.

It does not, as Charlie Hebdo proves, help you with the next terrorists. The original Al Qaeda is all but destroyed. New Al Qaedas are springing up, finding new ways to attack. We can slow them down with bombs. We can't stop them all.

The only way to win is to play the short game with our sword, and the long game with the outreached hand of civility and friendship.
 
A MP from the government party said "The 90 year commercial break of the Ottoman Empire is over. Thanks to the brilliant mind of our president."

They're not even trying to obscure their ideologies anymore. Modern Turkey is declining in a rapid speed.
 
LooseCannon said:
If a terrorist has a gun pointed at innocents, or a bomb ready to go off, or an airliner ready to crash, you kill them if you have to kill them. You have to protect today. And if there are terrorists ready to attack tomorrow, you have to be ready to kill them. Hell, you might even have to pre-emptively kill them.

I hate this reality, but it is true. You fight the enemy and reduce their ability to attack. This helps you today, it helps you tomorrow. It does not help you in 10 years.
Click to expand...

Yes and this just happened:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/15/world/belgium-anti-terror-operation/index.html

Job well done.
 
Very sad that the numbers are so high.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Charlie-Hebdo-Prophet-Mohammed-cartoons.html


More than four out of 10 French people believe Charlie Hebdo was wrong to publish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed because they offend Muslims.

France is deeply divided over the controversial cartoons, which have prompted a national debate about the limits of free speech.

A poll released on Sunday by the Journal du Dimanche newspaper showed 42 per cent of respondents find the cartoons unacceptable, while 57 per cent believe the satirical magazine was right to disregard the opinions of Muslims who find them offensive.

Three-quarters of far-Left supporters agree with Charlie Hebdo’s no-holds-barred approach to poking fun at religion, while 51 per cent of those who back the centre-right party of the former president, Nicolas Sarkozy, think the magazine went too far.

The poll revealed that women and people under 35 were most sensitive to Muslims’ concerns.
 
bearfan said:
Very sad that the numbers are so high.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Charlie-Hebdo-Prophet-Mohammed-cartoons.html


More than four out of 10 French people believe Charlie Hebdo was wrong to publish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed because they offend Muslims.

France is deeply divided over the controversial cartoons, which have prompted a national debate about the limits of free speech.

A poll released on Sunday by the Journal du Dimanche newspaper showed 42 per cent of respondents find the cartoons unacceptable, while 57 per cent believe the satirical magazine was right to disregard the opinions of Muslims who find them offensive.

Three-quarters of far-Left supporters agree with Charlie Hebdo’s no-holds-barred approach to poking fun at religion, while 51 per cent of those who back the centre-right party of the former president, Nicolas Sarkozy, think the magazine went too far.

The poll revealed that women and people under 35 were most sensitive to Muslims’ concerns.
Click to expand...
What's so sad about this?

To play devil's advocate for a second, what's wrong or worrying about people being "sensitive to Muslims' concerns"? Is this not a pretty fair-minded position to take? The phrase(s) "was wrong to publish", "unacceptable", and "went too far" are open to quite a lot of interpretation. (Looking past, for a second, the timing of being asked this, for a start.) So they personally think it was wrong/unacceptable/went-too-far? This doesn't equate, necessarily, to them being opposed to freedom of speech (if that's what you're edging towards suggesting), or thinking that publishing these pictures should have been then, or should be now, banned or made illegal. Maybe they question the purpose of these cartoons? What point is Charlie Hebdo, generally, making? I've no idea, personally, as I haven't read their publication & have no desire to read it now either.

As an atheist/agnostic & someone pretty dogmatically opposed to the whole idea of religion generally, I still find the "sticks-and-stones" defence (that words [& images we might add] cause no harm), in these circumstances, not something I can wholeheartedly support, to be honest. But, as I said, I haven't seen the offending images; and not being a Muslim, I have no idea how offensive they are.
 
Last edited:
It is sad when we come to the point when someone thinks offending someone is worth withholding publication or the expression of an idea. The idea itself really does not matter nor the motives behind the idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top