12 dead in attack on Paris newspaper; France goes on alert

[Morch]

Of course far right wing true haters of diversity in all its forms will be strengthened by this news.

But, how to process events like this can be especially challenging to the liberal and tolerant. Is intolerance of intolerance intolerance?

This is a question not only for Europe.

There is something Islamic in these terror events. Does it help to deny that obvious truth?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/01/europe_s_confused_debate_about_islam_and_terrorism_europeans_are_both_too.html

You identify an important issue for liberals. I do think that some people have difficulty in separating genuine commentary or criticism from stereotyping. I am a huge fan of Bill Maher and I understand what he says about the Muslim thing but I wonder if he too is stereotyping. Or if not stereotyping, then I am not able to distinguish genuine commentary from bigotry. I look forward to his return on Friday evening US time as he will surely have more to say and I want to hear it and think about it.

There is a difference between statements like 'Islam cannot exist in or is incompatible with a Democracy' (which I have had thrown at me) and 'I do not support the ban on women drivers in Saudi Arabia'. Apart from the social, political and cultural contexts, I think the first is clearly an over generalisation and easily disproved (i.e. Indonesia etc) and to me represents bigotry. The 2nd statement is more specific and can be dissected and argued.

The other concern is general ignorance, including mine. I have not read the texts. I don't know what Sharia Law says. I think many people do not. Some people claim they do but clearly get the information from ideologically driven sources that presents that information accordingly. I have no access to information channels that convey the latest in Islamic thought, the latest Fatwas or interpretation of scripture. I am told by non Muslims that such interpretation is forbidden anyway. In fact almost all my information does from non Muslims. I would prefer to hear comments from a Muslim woman on the face covering issue than on some old white Christian male.

Many, most if not all these terror events have some connection to Islam. I wonder about the meaning of such connections. I wonder about the causation of the events and the role of other, political mainly but also possibly social and economic, issues. How to deal with this? Information. Respect. Engagement. The alternatives are to horrible to contemplate.

Allow me to wonder, again, why is it that calls for "Information. Respect. Engagement." are almost universally directed (whether by Westerners or Muslims) at the West?

It seems like an acknowledgment that Western culture is (relatively, at least) more capable of accommodating foreign notions, and it is somehow implied that this attribute makes it the responsibility of the West to make head-ways toward Muslims. Another thing implied is that these attempts are not being made, or that efforts made are not enough. Accepting immigrants and refugees would seem like an indication of good intentions to begin with. Allowances made to cultural, social and religious needs are way beyond anything on offer elsewhere in the world. What exactly is missing? Were other immigrant communities afforded better attitudes and conditions?

It is not that there are no instances of the "Information. Respect. Engagement." approach among Muslims, mostly to do with those living in Western countries. But can these be said to be a true representation of their communities? Would "Information. Respect. Engagement." be an accurate description of general Muslim attitudes?

One response could be to follow the idea of the 'moral high ground' but this could be dangerous and bring up issues of cultural and moral equivalency with which I am not equipped to deal. Plus it is possibly a little pompous.

I was exploring the issue of separating legitimate commentary from the general noise of hate speech against Muslims and my focus is on how to 'deal' with muslim populations resident in Western liberal democracies. I don't touch on immigration as I don't think it appropriate on this type of thread. But anti-muslim sentiment is rife. So my issue is the practicality of what to do with those migrant muslim populations that already reside in our home countries. I do not subscribe to the kill them all school of non thinking. Nor with the send them all back him mob who ridiculously ignore the fact that the terrorists in Paris were French nationals.

So how to adopt a liberal approach to living with muslim immigrant populations or their descendants? Information. Respect. Engagement. I propose these as practical strategies. I am extremely proud of Australian culture. But I am not a chauvinist and I don't believe assimilation is a one way street. Bot the host and immigrant culture changes through engagement. This is my experience anyway with how multiculturalism in Australia has worked and been quite successful.

So my thoughts are mere suggestions for strategies to address the integration issue. It need not require people to subjugate themselves to others or give up closely held ideals and principles but it may provide some way of allowing different people with different ideals to live together.

As posted elsewhere, my doubts are not with regard to the merit of finding ways for communities to reach better understanding and harmony through dialogue. Obviously, there are elements which could be engaged and reasoned with.

The issues are more to do with how representative these elements are, and how much sociopolitical weight they carry. There could be different takes on that, and even if these voices do not represent a widely accepted attitude of "Information. Respect. Engagement." it does not mean that efforts should be dropped. Nurturing and supporting whatever forces of reason existing is worthwhile in itself. But it needs to be said that information is not very likely to be publicly available in communities that resist criticism and free speech, respect denied when not reciprocated, and that engagement requires willing partners.

In short, while the notion presented is worthy enough, it seems to ignore that "Information. Respect. Engagement." works if it is indeed a two-way street. Directing the burden of appeals for acceptance and accommodation toward one party, which is already exhibiting these attitudes to a greater degree does not always sound reasonable.

Rather than "how to adopt a liberal approach to living with Muslim immigrant populations or their descendants?" shouldn't it be Muslims immigrant populations (or their descendants) be the ones making greater efforts to live with the native population?

[zydeco]

12 people murdered by radical muslims. Whatever race or religion they were. It is another hate filled attack by muslims against the West. No other way of dressing it up.

No need too....It is as you say murder.

Same as the collateral thousands killed on a regular basis elsewhere in the countries pounded by drones etc.

They obviously feel no need to dress it up. They just know they lost family & it probably feels like

some form of hate to them too.

And with this post, we get the outright justification for Islamic terror attacks. Just knew the apologists would eventually work up to that point.

[mrtoad]

12 people murdered by radical muslims. Whatever race or religion they were. It is another hate filled attack by muslims against the West. No other way of dressing it up.

No need too....It is as you say murder.

Same as the collateral thousands killed on a regular basis elsewhere in the countries pounded by drones etc.

They obviously feel no need to dress it up. They just know they lost family & it probably feels like

some form of hate to them too.

And with this post, we get the outright justification for Islamic terror attacks. Just knew the apologists would eventually work up to that point.

Highly predictable wasn't it?

[mania]

And with this post, we get the outright justification for Islamic terror attacks. Just knew the apologists would eventually work up to that point.

Oh come now you can do better that that??

I have a wealth of no idea as to how it will all end.

I do not like it one bit....none of it.

But I also have my eyes & mind open & see it is not as simplistic

as a caveman would like it to be.

Wrong is wrong...murder is murder...yes

But it is not one sided.

[slipperylobster]

12 people murdered by radical muslims. Whatever race or religion they were. It is another hate filled attack by muslims against the West. No other way of dressing it up.

No need too....It is as you say murder.

Same as the collateral thousands killed on a regular basis elsewhere in the countries pounded by drones etc.

They obviously feel no need to dress it up. They just know they lost family & it probably feels like

some form of hate to them too.

need more drones...

[zydeco]

And with this post, we get the outright justification for Islamic terror attacks. Just knew the apologists would eventually work up to that point.

Oh come now you can do better that that??

I have a wealth of no idea as to how it will all end.

I do not like it one bit....none of it.

But I also have my eyes & mind open & see it is not as simplistic

as a caveman would like it to be.

Wrong is wrong...murder is murder...yes

But it is not one sided.

Do better? Actually, I have condemned the drone attacks on this very forum. I think they are shortsighted and do, in fact, create an expected backlash. And I'm not all that interested in even intervening at all in muslim countries. It has been a mistake, in my view, and, of course, I can't prove it, but it has been a position I have held since before 9/11.

That said, if the West is best to leave muslim lands to muslims, then I also think it best for the West to separate ourselves from the muslims in our midst. No, not by deporting them or killing them but simply by enforcing our own nations' traditions and culture and not giving one inch or centimeter for them to move into our cultural space. Nothing. And immediately stop immigration into Western countries from muslim ones--no family reunification, no economic settlement, no refugees. None. Zero. Essentially eliminate their ability to recreate their anarchic, murderous societies within ours.

[mania]

And with this post, we get the outright justification for Islamic terror attacks. Just knew the apologists would eventually work up to that point.

Oh come now you can do better that that??

I have a wealth of no idea as to how it will all end.

I do not like it one bit....none of it.

But I also have my eyes & mind open & see it is not as simplistic

as a caveman would like it to be.

Wrong is wrong...murder is murder...yes

But it is not one sided.

Do better? Actually, I have condemned the drone attacks on this very forum. I think they are shortsighted and do, in fact, create an expected backlash. And I'm not all that interested in even intervening at all in muslim countries. It has been a mistake, in my view, and, of course, I can't prove it, but it has been a position I have held since before 9/11.

That said, if the West is best to leave muslim lands to muslims, then I also think it best for the West to separate ourselves from the muslims in our midst. No, not by deporting them or killing them but simply by enforcing our own nations' traditions and culture and not giving one inch or centimeter for them to move into our cultural space. Nothing. And immediately stop immigration into Western countries from muslim ones--no family reunification, no economic settlement, no refugees. None. Zero. Essentially eliminate their ability to recreate their anarchic, murderous societies within ours.

Fair enough & a fair good answer.....

But I would hope if the first part is carried out as you stated the 2nd part may heal a lot on its own.

Also of course & goes without saying enforcing a nations rules is fair play within its own borders.

The immigration parts I would not say need be totalitarian/segregationist/separatism but again abide by the rules of the hosts

Edited January 11, 2015 by mania

[Credo]

Leaving the Muslims to it in their own land is not a workable solution. First of all, we don't live in that kind of a world. We don't live where isolation works well. It's a fast moving world with airplanes and the internet.

From a demographic point of view, the Muslim lands are usually rocky, arid, relatively unproductive regions that cannot feed themselves in light of the massive population growth they experience. Even huge numbers leaving and emigrating elsewhere along with some of the most deadly wars (Iran-Iraq war, for example) do not dent this huge growth.

In many of the countries now experiencing tension, and I do mean tension, because not all of them are a major conflict area, the population growth is very unequal between Muslims and other religions.

Some of the root problems have to be addressed. Either an understanding of how to live together or a harsher approach. Neither side feels particularly inclined to leave each other alone. We aren't set to leave the ME alone (support for Israel by the US and support for Palestine by countries from the EU) and they aren't inclined to leave us alone as we are infidels.

I think until there is a large reduction of human numbers, we are in for a protracted problem.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Credo

[i claudius]

Bigotry is the real sickness.

You are right ,and muslims seem to have it in spades ,in fact all around the world they seem to have it. ,now it looks as if they are infecting us with it.

[zydeco]

Leaving the Muslims to it in their own land is not a workable solution. First of all, we don't live in that kind of a world. We don't live where isolation works well. It's a fast moving world with airplanes and the internet.

From a demographic point of view, the Muslim lands are usually rocky, arid, relatively unproductive regions that cannot feed themselves in light of the massive population growth they experience. Even huge numbers leaving and emigrating elsewhere along with some of the most deadly wars (Iran-Iraq war, for example) do not dent this huge growth.

In many of the countries now experiencing tension, and I do mean tension, because not all of them are a major conflict area, the population growth is very unequal between Muslims and other religions.

Some of the root problems have to be addressed. Either an understanding of how to live together or a harsher approach. Neither side feels particularly inclined to leave each other alone. We aren't set to leave the ME alone (support for Israel by the US and support for Palestine by countries from the EU) and they aren't inclined to leave us alone as we are infidels.

I think until there is a large reduction of human numbers, we are in for a protracted problem.

But, as you say, here, the Muslims are creating their own problem with overpopulation. The rest of the world cannot be made responsible for their spoilage of their own land. Remember, much of the Middle East used to be known as the Fertile Crescent. Why isn't that the case anymore? Because its inhabitants have turned it into a desert. I don't want them doing the same thing to my country.

[JOC]

Bigotry is the real sickness.

You are right ,and muslims seem to have it in spades ,in fact all around the world they seem to have it. ,now it looks as if they are infecting us with it.

Spot on!!

Our liberal governments are in name of "humanity" importing a problem, which is creating tensions in the host-countries, not only between the immigrants and the locals, but amongst their own voters.

High time to rethink, before it boils over!!

[MrTee]

Bigotry is the real sickness.

You are right ,and muslims seem to have it in spades ,in fact all around the world they seem to have it. ,now it looks as if they are infecting us with it.

Bigotry begats bigotry and round and round it goes

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed, this is not about gun violence in the US.

[Steely Dan]

Anjem Choudary . . .

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3976707999001/radical-imam-anjem-choudary-on-charlie-hebdo-attack/?#sp=show-clips

This guy is shocking......the arrogance....only about....SELF....pity that the interviewer was biassed as.....he should have let the guy talk and talk......listening through the veneer....

?

I get an ad for a tablet. ...

Swallow it.

[slipperylobster]

Bigotry is the real sickness.

You are right ,and muslims seem to have it in spades ,in fact all around the world they seem to have it. ,now it looks as if they are infecting us with it.

Spot on!!

Our liberal governments are in name of "humanity" importing a problem, which is creating tensions in the host-countries, not only between the immigrants and the locals, but amongst their own voters.

High time to rethink, before it boils over!!

Imagine...inviting these "people" in to a liberal country, then having them setup independent sectors within that country that are governed by radical laws. (Sharia).

This is increasing...exponentially. Additionally, they still say we are stifling their religion....by grouping "Normal" muslims with "Weirdo" type muslims.

[i claudius]

Choudary needs to be shot talk about bigotry,the man is a bigot of the first degree" do as we want or take the consequences"

Edited January 11, 2015 by i claudius

[mrtoad]

Choudary needs to be shot talk about bigotry,the man is a bigot of the first degree" do as we want or take the consequences"

Agreed. Far cheaper than putting him in jail.

[micmichd]

Actually you're not worth it, but I pity you.

It's the economy, stupid.

Your population is dying away, and you permanently need new immigrants to keep up the illusion of a welfare state.

When 1st generation immigrants come to Northern Europe, they are maybe allowed to pay taxes and contributions to social security systems. But if they need something in return (welfare) they immediately get deported. Those who are allowed to stay face a decrease in fertility, usually 2nd or 3rd generation, up to date no one really knows why.

But it's statistical fact, with consequences:

In order to keep the base of your welfare system (ie. a stable population), you permanently need "fresh blood" from Southern populations.

That's why immigration will (and must) permanently increase, whether you like it or not. Yours is to teach tolerance, by giving a good example, not to force it. It is impossible to force tolerance.

[micmichd]

Choudary needs to be shot talk about bigotry,the man is a bigot of the first degree" do as we want or take the consequences"

Agreed. Far cheaper than putting him in jail.

That's exactly how you escalate war, and YOU might be the next victim.

[Thorgal]

R.I.P. to those that fell and quick recoveries to the others who survived.

In 1801, when Thomas Jefferson was the U.S. president, the Pasha (Muslim Leader) of Tripoli suddenly demanded a massive payment from the United States, along with an increased annual tribute, in order to secure safe passage for American ships through the Mediterranean.

Jefferson refused the demands of the Pasha, and instead of sending more money and acquiescing to the angry and demanding Muslims, he sent naval warships bearing the newly created U.S. Marine Corps.

This was the first war by the American nation on foreign soil, and is where the line “to the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Corps hymn comes from. It is also believed that the term “Leathernecks,” which refers to Marines, comes from the thick leather neck coverings that the Marines wore to protect themselves from being beheaded by the giant swords wielded by the Barbary pirates.

Thomas Jefferson showed how a U.S. president should respond to threats from radical Islamists, and that is by confronting and defeating them.

All Administrations could certainly stand to learn a lesson from Jefferson.

And the U.S. Marine Corps...

Ooh Rah

Wasn't one of the terrorist brothers in Paris using the stories of Abu Ghraib and or Guantanamo as his motive for killing people ?

Aren't or weren't these historical and 'free speech' places in Iraq and Cuba under supervision of the USMC ?

Ooh Bah !

[Morch]

I saw this - wondered what other posters may think

Ahmed the policeman died in the line of duty.

I have no idea if he was a devout Muslim or what were his opinions on the civilians he was tasked to keep safe.

Actually think it is a bit low to use such a manipulation (but willing to take it back if there is something to show otherwise).

Basically the above is painting Ahmed the policeman along the lines of the stereotypical generic Muslim image - religiously devout, culturally rooted in a foreign land. Doesn't sound like a good multicultural point of view. For all I know (and again, could be wrong, of course) Ahmed the policeman could have led rather sacrilegious life, was more interested in things French than wherever his family originated from and might have even sniggered at the cartoons drawn by the people he guarded.

Is the tweeter guy who posted this family, close friend, fellow police officer?

Edited January 11, 2015 by Morch

[micmichd]

According to former German secretary of state, Mr Schäuble, terrorists were *produced* by the US in Guantanamo, tthat's why Germany refused to take some converts from there.

And, yes, from my very personal experience I can confirm that:

Once you experience you are in a terroristic situation, you become a terrorist yourself if you get in contact with your enemy.

[Morch]

Following a phone conversation between the police and the two fugitives, they said "we want to die in martyr !"

Smells bad...

Too bad, a quick death is too good for them.

The police should not be releasing those conversations and giving them a voice.

One consideration in releasing these would be to minimize possible claims that they were "executed" by police.

Not that this would stop those wishing to believe so, but still..

[Thorgal]

I saw this - wondered what other posters may think

Ahmed the policeman died in the line of duty.

I have no idea if he was a devout Muslim or what were his opinions on the civilians he was tasked to keep safe.

Actually think it is a bit low to use such a manipulation (but willing to take it back if there is something to show otherwise).

Basically the above is painting Ahmed the policeman along the lines of the stereotypical generic Muslim image - religiously devout, culturally rooted in a foreign land. Doesn't sound like a good multicultural point of view. For all I know (and again, could be wrong, of course) Ahmed the policeman could have led rather sacrilegious life, was more interested in things French than wherever his family originated from and might have even sniggered at the cartoons drawn by the people he guarded.

Is the tweeter guy who posted this family, close friend, fellow police officer?

No, he's a well known Belgian-Lebanese political activist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyab_Abou_Jahjah

With his typical controversial quotes he became once Belgian public enemy nr. 1.

Perhaps he can't draw a cartoon, but he's to the point in his quote you've posted...

You can put him on the same shelf were you can place a Tariq Ramadan.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan

Edited January 11, 2015 by Thorgal

[Credo]

According to former German secretary of state, Mr Schäuble, terrorists were *produced* by the US in Guantanamo, tthat's why Germany refused to take some converts from there.

And, yes, from my very personal experience I can confirm that:

Once you experience you are in a terroristic situation, you become a terrorist yourself if you get in contact with your enemy.

I think the people that were sent to Guantanamo had been in contact with terrorists prior to their incarceration. You seem to want to derail this topic and take it in a different direction. I hope the Mod's are noticing.

[i claudius]

Choudary needs to be shot talk about bigotry,the man is a bigot of the first degree" do as we want or take the consequences"

Agreed. Far cheaper than putting him in jail.

That's exactly how you escalate war, and YOU might be the next victim.

Well let's do nothing then get your wife a nice burka,and you can get ready to pray 5 times a day

[micmichd]

If I would be a political advisor I would try non-terroristic counter-terroristic activities, eg by someone who speaks the lingo of those about to become a menace to the public, and able to manipulate them. Like a social psychologist with experience in "lowlife" fields (as you would like to call it)

[Morch]

Why is it that all these terrorists invariably are very well known to and have a close association with the authorities?

What close associations did these terrorists have with the authorities?

Being know to authorities is quite a different matter, anyone with a criminal record or on some sort of watch list due to demographics would be considered "known".

[keemapoot]

This whole issue is being debated to death by experts from all points of view. Aljazeera has pretty much been nonstop analysis, discussion, etc., both by those in France and around the world, and this was for merely 12 deaths, not the mass numbers and spectacular horrid tragedy of 9/11.

I don't see anything new in any debates.

[micmichd]

According to former German secretary of state, Mr Schäuble, terrorists were *produced* by the US in Guantanamo, tthat's why Germany refused to take some converts from there.

And, yes, from my very personal experience I can confirm that:

Once you experience you are in a terroristic situation, you become a terrorist yourself if you get in contact with your enemy.

I think the people that were sent to Guantanamo had been in contact with terrorists prior to their incarceration. You seem to want to derail this topic and take it in a different direction. I hope the Mod's are noticing.

I'm posting about the ice-cold logic of terrorism.

Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong, I'm far from being perfect. But don't hide behind authorities again.