French mag Charlie Hebdo attacked by gunmen, 12 dead

  On 1/13/2015 at 9:44 PM, Lane Visitor said:

And yes, of course the U.S. has made many mistakes and it's foreign policy is all over the place, and its definitely not black and white but I think it has, in the grand scheme of things, acted more out of good intention and effort than bad.

aw bless

lol

  On 1/13/2015 at 8:48 AM, chenGOD said:

So for all you calling for moderate muslims to speak up more:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/12/muslim-mayor-of-rotterdam-tells-islamists-to-f-off-on-live-television/

ok but who or what is this guy actually talking about, if it's only a super small minority of muslims who are extremists and who are a problem in the first place?

"The Moroccan-born mayor of Rotterdam has said Muslim immigrants who do not appreciate the way of life in Western civilisations can 'f*** off'."

is he only referring to the extremists who plot to commit terror attacks, which many in this thread seem to be suggesting is an almost non-existent group, or is some other group included in that? and do you agree with/support what he's saying? that article says that:

In 2004, Aboutaleb told Muslims if they didn’t subscribe to Dutch values they should “catch the first plane out”.

was he only referring to terrorists? if the reality is this binary where terroristy muslims are such a tiny miniscule minority, and all the others are totally peaceful, what is this guy even talking about? it seems like his statements are... more general. are we supposed to agree with what he's saying here? would a non-muslim person saying what he said be labeled as xenophobic?

^ what the fuck are you even asking about, really? it's pretty fucking obvious what that little exchange was about.

is it obvious? he doesn't seem to be specifying that he's only talking about terrorist types/extremists to me. he's saying that muslim immigrants should accept dutch values. he didn't say that muslim extremists should accept dutch values. why didn't he specify? if a non-muslim flat out said 'muslims should accept our values' wouldn't they be labelled xenophobes? why are his comments so general? we have a lot of people saying that you only have a few extremists, and then all the others are peaceful, its just two groups with nothing in the middle. but his comments seem to be talking about more than just extremists to me. am i wrong? is my xenophobia causing me to misinterpret his referring to them as immigrants instead of terrorists/extremists?

you ask too many pointless/redundant/shit-stirring questions, my friend.

  On 1/14/2015 at 1:59 AM, MisterE said:

is it obvious? he doesn't seem to be specifying that he's only talking about terrorist types/extremists to me. he's saying that muslim immigrants should accept dutch values. he didn't say that muslim extremists should accept dutch values. why didn't he specify? if a non-muslim flat out said 'muslims should accept our values' wouldn't they be labelled xenophobes? why are his comments so general? we have a lot of people saying that you only have a few extremists, and then all the others are peaceful, its just two groups with nothing in the middle. but his comments seem to be talking about more than just extremists to me. am i wrong? is my xenophobia causing me to misinterpret his referring to them as immigrants instead of terrorists/extremists?

Why does it matter if he was talking about extremists or generalizing?

It makes no difference as far as I can see. I don't think saying "accept our values" is in the least bit xenophobic.

  On 1/13/2015 at 11:47 PM, Berk said:

I'm not sure if the idea that a state provides safety is an illusion. If it fails in doing that - perhaps even by taking disproportional measures like invading people's privacy to a ridiculous extent for "safety" - it is not a proper state in my opinion. Also think about Hobbes' state of war etc.

Yeah, I mean obviously there are certain levels that can be provided, but I think many of those protections are more determined by prosperity, community, culture, and the organization of a society. Less so because of the threat of the state enforcing laws. I'm not some crazy libertarian though. I think government can actually function properly and benefit people. I think the internet is basically the start of the ability of people to fix large scale power imbalances, so we have a lot of work to do in the first half of this century. As far as the safety being provided currently by the state. Well, most of it is an illusion. The actions carried out by the USA right now are endangering the lives of generations of Americans. The police, the prisons, the military. It's all more of a threat to our safety than extremists would have been before the government began large scale massacres and invasions.

  On 1/13/2015 at 11:53 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

has anyone in this thread checked out James Risen's new book 'Pay Any Price'? It's one of the most slam dunk cases of how the war on terror is absolute bullshit I've ever read and does not fall into the paradigm of being preachy or political like stuff by Glenn Greenwald or Chris Hedges. One of the main premises of the book that he proves repeatedly in almost every chapter, is that the security industry that exploded after 9/11 does not actually literally increase our safety and it's illusory.

No, I haven't, but that sounds completely plausible.

  On 1/14/2015 at 1:59 AM, MisterE said:

is it obvious? he doesn't seem to be specifying that he's only talking about terrorist types/extremists to me. he's saying that muslim immigrants should accept dutch values. he didn't say that muslim extremists should accept dutch values. why didn't he specify? if a non-muslim flat out said 'muslims should accept our values' wouldn't they be labelled xenophobes? why are his comments so general? we have a lot of people saying that you only have a few extremists, and then all the others are peaceful, its just two groups with nothing in the middle. but his comments seem to be talking about more than just extremists to me. am i wrong? is my xenophobia causing me to misinterpret his referring to them as immigrants instead of terrorists/extremists?

seems like he is saying that extremists have no place in their society.

what im getting at, is that if there is only this binary of 2 groups, peaceful good citizen muslims, and extremists/terrorists (which may not actually exist and may be false flags), which group did the people participating in this belong to: ?[youtubehd]b5iqOu_s71o[/youtubehd]

you can see lots of comments in and about the videos showing that, interpreting it as a showing of strength. was that intentional? if not, didn't they think that maybe it would be interpreted that way? how about the people involved in this? are they peaceful? most media reports of that talk about the 'terrorist group' Ansar al-Sunna, but i've seen other reports saying that the streets there are being patrolled by sharia law enforcers. is everyone involved in that or supporting it an actual 'terrorist'? strangely googling that only seems to bring up wacko right winger blog type articles instead of anything mainstream. weird. but there are videos of incidents in oslo on youtube so there must be something going on there.

but unless i'm mistaken this is the kind of stuff that spurred charlie hebdo on to do what they do. meanwhile not many of those other millions of charlie hebdos seem to have a whole lot of a problem with it. however, it sounds to me like some of these things are also what Ahmed Aboutaleb is talking about. maybe i'm wrong.

  On 1/14/2015 at 2:28 AM, MisterE said:

what im getting at, is that if there is only this binary of 2 groups, peaceful good citizen muslims, and extremists/terrorists (which may not actually exist and may be false flags), which group did the people participating in this belong to: ?[youtubehd]b5iqOu_s71o[/youtubehd]

 

you can see lots of comments in and about the videos showing that, interpreting it as a showing of strength. was that intentional? if not, didn't they think that maybe it would be interpreted that way? how about the people involved in this? are they peaceful? most media reports of that talk about the 'terrorist group' Ansar al-Sunna, but i've seen other reports saying that the streets there are being patrolled by sharia law enforcers. is everyone involved in that or supporting it an actual 'terrorist'? strangely googling that only seems to bring up wacko right winger blog type articles instead of anything mainstream. weird. but there are videos of incidents in oslo on youtube so there must be something going on there.

 

but unless i'm mistaken this is the kind of stuff that spurred charlie hebdo on to do what they do. meanwhile not many of those other millions of charlie hebdos seem to have a whole lot of a problem with it. however, it sounds to me like some of these things are also what Ahmed Aboutaleb is talking about. maybe i'm wrong.

Is this extremist behavior?

I believe it is lol

haha, wow. you really think those two things compare to one another? sure.

lets see, one is done on private property. the other shut down a portion of a city. which, any honest, sane person would have to wonder if that was actually the point. or really, just basically assume that it was if you're being 100% honest. has anyone questioned if the bible camp thing is a showing of power? are you really trying here?

It is extremism because it is the holding of extreme religious views. That is the definition of extremism. Literal and extreme interpretation of a religious text.

Are you even trying here?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+extremism

you didn't actually answer any of my questions. i never asked for the definition of extremism, smart guy.

does a group of foreign immigrants deciding that it's OK for them to just shut down a portion of a city they have immigrated into, and apparently expecting that nobody would have a problem with it, or that if they did, wouldn't bother to do anything about it, does that count as extremism to you? and if not, does it count as being peaceful? is it in any way troubling that they thought to do that? or are you absolutely sure that no significant % of that group had any intention of making some kind of ominous statement by doing that? and again, lots of people seem to have perceived it as a statement, so shouldn't they have thought about that before doing it, if they didn't intend for it to be one?

what would happen if those christians immigrated into and went and had their crazy little bible camp shindig right in the middle of the streets of some city in turkey, or egypt, etc, and would we call that them obviously making some kind of statement, or wouldn't we?

Adieu asked if it was extremism and I said yes I believe it is.

There is no gray area here. It's not hard to understand.

You can do it. I believe in you.

but you were replying to me and telling me what extremism is, and i never asked. i did ask some other questions, which have so far all been ignored, or just passed over with accusations that im shit stirring. meanwhile the inevitable mentions of false flags mostly get a free pass.

I dunno. You responded right under me without quoting anyone. That made it look like you were addressing me. When I was just answering adieu.

Use the quote button meng

heh yeah i mean, to me it seems like thats what you did. i took your 'are you trying' right after my post to mean that you were addressing me. but whatever, u have my sincere apologies stephen

edit- yeah the thing about if those 2 things compare was at adieu, i thought it was kind of obvious..

  On 1/14/2015 at 2:57 AM, MisterE said:

haha, wow. you really think those two things compare to one another? sure.

Well, you've not offered any reasonable source for the Sharia Law in Oslo thing. I don't believe it. It doesn't really line up with what I understand about Norway. As far as extremism is concerned. I find what you showed in that video to be a million times less scary than what I showed you in the video I linked. Religion is inherently able to be perverted. The religious texts of both Christianity and Islam are disgusting, medieval, and they should be amended. There is a reason that our country was founded on the principle that religion should be separated from the government. They were smart dudes.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/Hull-pa-en-storre-byll-7046590.html&prev=search

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2009/01/13/outcry-over-oslos-ownmuslim-morality-police/

  On 1/14/2015 at 1:26 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 8:48 AM, chenGOD said:

So for all you calling for moderate muslims to speak up more:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/12/muslim-mayor-of-rotterdam-tells-islamists-to-f-off-on-live-television/

ok but who or what is this guy actually talking about, if it's only a super small minority of muslims who are extremists and who are a problem in the first place?

 

"The Moroccan-born mayor of Rotterdam has said Muslim immigrants who do not appreciate the way of life in Western civilisations can 'f*** off'."

is he only referring to the extremists who plot to commit terror attacks, which many in this thread seem to be suggesting is an almost non-existent group, or is some other group included in that? and do you agree with/support what he's saying? that article says that:

In 2004, Aboutaleb told Muslims if they didn’t subscribe to Dutch values they should “catch the first plane out”.

 

was he only referring to terrorists? if the reality is this binary where terroristy muslims are such a tiny miniscule minority, and all the others are totally peaceful, what is this guy even talking about? it seems like his statements are... more general. are we supposed to agree with what he's saying here? would a non-muslim person saying what he said be labeled as xenophobic?

 

I believe, but correct me if you think this is too wild a stab in the dark, that he is talking to Muslims who have failed to adapt to their new homes. I came to this startling conclusion by reading the first paragraph of the article, where it says: "Mayor Aboutaleb became angered by the failure of some Muslims to adapt to their new homes, as he himself had done." I then extrapolate further and assume he is talking about the extremists who would perpetrate acts of violence (like killing newspapermen) by reading down to the fourth paragraph where he says "And if you do not like it here because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off."

Still don't think those sources are very reliable. Regardless, there are heavily dominated areas of the US that live under their own religious (insert religion here) guidelines.

Norway Muslims rally against ISIS

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/08/27/norways-muslims-rally-against-isis

The one about Muslims calling for sharia law is from 2012 (might be older but that's as far back as I've found in my brief googling), it gets spewed forth on all these stormfront type sites, and is not backed up by anything with a basis in reality (ie Gronland is not controlled by Sharia Law).

That article MisterE linked talks about crime rates - here are some much more recent numbers from the police force in Oslo:

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/07/04/dramatic-drop-in-oslo-crime-figures/

And here's something from the US state department detailing how much safer Norway is than the US:

https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=13644

  On 1/14/2015 at 4:42 AM, chenGOD said:

I believe, but correct me if you think this is too wild a stab in the dark, that he is talking to Muslims who have failed to adapt to their new homes. I came to this startling conclusion by reading the first paragraph of the article, where it says: "Mayor Aboutaleb became angered by the failure of some Muslims to adapt to their new homes, as he himself had done." I then extrapolate further and assume he is talking about the extremists who would perpetrate acts of violence (like killing newspapermen) by reading down to the fourth paragraph where he says "And if you do not like it here because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off."

i think yeah the one sentence he said about extremists who would perpetrate violent acts, is pretty clear that he is talking about extremists who would perpetrate violent acts. but that other sentence he said about muslims who failed to adapt to their homes, doesn't seem to have any indicators qualifying that he's also exclusively talking about extremists who commit violent acts, rather, it seems to indicate that hes talking about 'muslims who failed to adapt to their new homes', whatever that actually means.

but if we were to assume that you were correct, and that he says 'muslims who fail to adapt to their new homes' to describe 'extremists who commit violent acts', then wouldn't that mean that he's saying muslims typically commit violent acts in their home lands, such as killing people they disagree with, and need to learn to adapt to not doing that? that's what you're saying he meant? that seems pretty wacky.

  On 1/14/2015 at 4:42 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Still don't think those sources are very reliable. Regardless, there are heavily dominated areas of the US that live under their own religious (insert religion here) guidelines.

yeah the one is only the biggest newspaper in norway, and based in oslo, probably not very credible, definitely not as credible as your opinion on what norway is. the other one doesn't seem to have any real cred either. ur right, not believable. sorry i wasted evry1's time guys

I don't understand your point thought MisterE.

Why does someone have to be an extremist to have to adapt to their new home? We have religions pushing their ideals on us here in Canada, on non-participants.

For example a muslim in Ontario was recently afforded the right to not work with females in his university class because it was against his beliefs. When in actuality treating women as equals is part of Canadian culture and he as an immigrant should be forced to adapt to that.

I would consider this person to be a moderate, not extremist.