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

[mania]

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.

It might have been the same if naturalized second generation Western immigrants in Afghanistan (example) would be carrying attacks on their fellow countrymen. That's without getting into further differences, like current attack essentially directed at what would was termed in the post above as "collateral" damage.

Yes I was never one of the many taking the whole immigrants are the problem tack.

My references were always based on actions & reactions

I never thought even now it was an immigration problem.

Just simple action & reaction

Even this very case does not give a lot of info but did point out these brothers were

upset? by some reports of Gitmo treatment etc.

I think I mentioned in another post the word sympathizers

These need not always be the same race/religion etc. Folks at times get upset

at what they perceive as grave injustices. Same in other things like USA in house policies & we see so many other nationalities upset

or Israel & Palestine is never confined to Palestinian & Israeli anger/reaction etc.

It need not be residents etc who may at some point want to take up a form of revenge.

Two wrongs never make a right of course but ............Angry people are unpredictable

EDIT: My mistake it was not Gitmo mentioned

It was Abu Ghraib

Kouachi, who had been working as a pizza delivery driver, told the court that he had been motivated to travel to

Iraq by images of atrocities committed by US troops in Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Edited January 11, 2015 by mania

[MrTee]

The issue of Sharia courts in the UK has previously been declared off topic here by the mods and posts about it deleted.

So instead of replying here, I refer you to this topic, where it has been discussed at length.

I will say, though, that Beth Din, the Jewish equivalent, have been operating in the UK, in the same way as Sharia now does, for well over 100 years and is very similar; particularly in the treatment of women: Scandal of women trapped in marriages by Jewish courts

Meanwhile; will you, or anyone, answer the question: in which European countries is Sharia law being imposed on the general population?

If its off topic why do you keep mentioning it then ?

I asked a question of someone who claimed it is being imposed across Europe.

Why dont you try answering a question Mohammed ?

Too close to home for you ?

I have discussed Sharia law in the UK at length in the topic linked to; and will happily discuss it further with you there if you wish to do so.

Will you answer the question "In which European countries is Sharia law being imposed on the general population?"

No, you wont; because the answer is "None."

"Sharia law in the UK" yeah something that exists in your mind. not even muslims want this - they tried and failed..

Please send me a link to a BNP site stating otherwise

Apologies 7by7 not an attack on your comments but rather at those that try and play this card

Edited January 11, 2015 by MrTee

[JockPieandBeans]

Why dont you try answering a question Mohammed ?

Too close to home for you ?

I have discussed Sharia law in the UK at length in the topic linked to; and will happily discuss it further with you there if you wish to do so.

Will you answer the question "In which European countries is Sharia law being imposed on the general population?"

No, you wont; because the answer is "None."

How sweet. You cut out the important part of my post.

Here is the important part again

Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.

Under guidance produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to compose Islamic wills that refuse women an equal share of inheritances and discount non-believers entirely, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from discrimination authorised on the basis of religion, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, told the Sunday Telegraph it was a “deeply disturbing” development.

And she pledged to raise the issue with ministers. “This violates everything that we stand for,” she said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/islamic-law-to-be-enshrined-in-british-law-as-solicitors-get-guidelines-on-sharia-compliant-wills-9210682.html

This is the start.

[7by7]

As far as we presently know this crime was not committed with the authorisation or pre knowledge of any Muslim organisation but by individuals acting on their own. It was not committed on behalf of Islam; no matter what the perpetrators may have said.

BBC News

Ahead of the rally, a video emerged appearing to show supermarket gunman Amedy Coulibaly pledging allegiance to militant group Islamic State.[/size]

In the video he says was working with the Charlie Hebdo attackers, saying: "We have split our team into two... to increase the impact of our actions."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30765824

Authorisation or pre-knowledge ? This was well orchestrated with far more than those executed involved.

That he pledged allegiance to ISIS, and that ISIS subsequently supported this attack after the event, does not prove it was orchestrated by ISIS.

If it was, why have they only declared support for it, but not responsibility?

As ISIS itself has been condemned as un Islamic by Muslim leaders across the world, even if it was organised by or committed with the pre knowledge of ISIS, it was not committed on behalf of Islam.

But all this is currently conjecture, and hopefully the French police investigation will produce the actual facts.

Will you accept the result of that investigation? I will.

[JockPieandBeans]

As far as we presently know this crime was not committed with the authorisation or pre knowledge of any Muslim organisation but by individuals acting on their own. It was not committed on behalf of Islam; no matter what the perpetrators may have said.

BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30765824

Authorisation or pre-knowledge ? This was well orchestrated with far more than those executed involved.

That he pledged allegiance to ISIS, and that ISIS subsequently supported this attack after the event, does not prove it was orchestrated by ISIS.

If it was, why have they only declared support for it, but not responsibility?

As ISIS itself has been condemned as un Islamic by Muslim leaders across the world, even if it was organised by or committed with the pre knowledge of ISIS, it was not committed on behalf of Islam.

But all this is currently conjecture, and hopefully the French police investigation will produce the actual facts.

Will you accept the result of that investigation? I will.

As far as we presently know this crime was not committed with the authorisation or pre knowledge of any Muslim organisation but by individuals acting on their own. It was not committed on behalf of Islam; no matter what the perpetrators may have said.

You were the one making assumptions

[7by7]

How sweet. You cut out the important part of my post.

Here is the important part again

Those quotes were removed by me from my quote of your post to save space and to comply with the forum software which limits the number of quotes in a post. I have cut the quotes again here for the same reasons.

I assume you when you frequently only quote part of a post in a reply that it is for the same reasons.

Those quotes have been discussed at length in the topic previously linked to.

Why do you insist on attempting to drag this one off topic to discuss Sharia law in the UK?

I will not be responding to any further posts about Sharia law in the UK here; but, as already said, will happily discuss it with you in the relevant topic.

[lannarebirth]

As far as we presently know this crime was not committed with the authorisation or pre knowledge of any Muslim organisation but by individuals acting on their own. It was not committed on behalf of Islam; no matter what the perpetrators may have said.

BBC News

Ahead of the rally, a video emerged appearing to show supermarket gunman Amedy Coulibaly pledging allegiance to militant group Islamic State.[/size]

In the video he says was working with the Charlie Hebdo attackers, saying: "We have split our team into two... to increase the impact of our actions."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30765824

Authorisation or pre-knowledge ? This was well orchestrated with far more than those executed involved.

That he pledged allegiance to ISIS, and that ISIS subsequently supported this attack after the event, does not prove it was orchestrated by ISIS.

If it was, why have they only declared support for it, but not responsibility?

As ISIS itself has been condemned as un Islamic by Muslim leaders across the world, even if it was organised by or committed with the pre knowledge of ISIS, it was not committed on behalf of Islam.

But all this is currently conjecture, and hopefully the French police investigation will produce the actual facts.

Will you accept the result of that investigation? I will.

This recent poll by a very reputable pollster concludes that better than 30% of those polled over a wide swath of the Muslim world approve of extremism to include suicide bombings.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/09/11/2602361/poll-majority-muslims-worldwide-reject-extremism/

It's rather disingenuous to conclude there is not a serious problem with extremism in the Islamic world just because 55%-70% say they reject it. That leaves 400 million to 600 million who don't.

Edited January 11, 2015 by lannarebirth

[JockPieandBeans]

How sweet. You cut out the important part of my post.

Here is the important part again

Those quotes were removed by me from my quote of your post to save space and to comply with the forum software which limits the number of quotes in a post. I have cut the quotes again here for the same reasons.

I assume you when you frequently only quote part of a post in a reply that it is for the same reasons.

Those quotes have been discussed at length in the topic previously linked to.

Why do you insist on attempting to drag this one off topic to discuss Sharia law in the UK?

I will not be responding to any further posts about Sharia law in the UK here; but, as already said, will happily discuss it with you in the relevant topic.

How can the links and quotes I provided, that you insist on cutting, have been discussed in a previous thread ?

It is being reported in TODAY's Independent.

But as usual, you revert to type, DENY, DEFLECT and IGNORE everything that you do not like.

[MJP]

No one ever listens to old MJP do they?

I'm going to pull all the posts 'aving a row now.

[7by7]

How sweet. You cut out the important part of my post.

Here is the important part again

Those quotes were removed by me from my quote of your post to save space and to comply with the forum software which limits the number of quotes in a post. I have cut the quotes again here for the same reasons.

I assume you when you frequently only quote part of a post in a reply that it is for the same reasons.

Those quotes have been discussed at length in the topic previously linked to.

Why do you insist on attempting to drag this one off topic to discuss Sharia law in the UK?

I will not be responding to any further posts about Sharia law in the UK here; but, as already said, will happily discuss it with you in the relevant topic.

How can the links and quotes I provided, that you insist on cutting, have been discussed in a previous thread ?

It is being reported in TODAY's Independent.

But as usual, you revert to type, DENY, DEFLECT and IGNORE everything that you do not like.

Not today's paper, look at the date of the article itself.

The article was originally published on Sunday 23 March 2014!

You've got the facts wrong; yet again.

[dragonfly94]

It is allowed; you only have to look at the activities of people like Tommy Robinson and Pat Condell to see that!

Yes, free speech is one of the cornerstones of Western democracy.

"I abhor what you have to say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." (Original source unknown, but often attributed to Voltaire.)

Nothing at all to do with Voltaire, but from a book about him published in 1907, it's another made up 'fact' pa rotted by people who like to sound profound and as if they know what they are talking about. Sound familiar?

Edited January 11, 2015 by dragonfly94

[MJP]

Right, thread clean up done.

I'm leaving in the brewing storm between 7x7 and old JockyPie, because that's the stuff popcorn's made of . . .

[Tep]

My attention was mainly taken by your last comment, so let me respond bottom up.

If an immigrant population lives within the confines of the law of the host country, what further requirement is there for them to 'fit in'?

Let's see.

How about not creating muslim only no go areas and patrolling theses area to make sure locals follow Islamic traditions while physically attacking any that refuse, not raping hundred of local children, not expecting halal food to be served in schools, restaurants and supermarkets, not taking over schools in the Midlands and instituting strict Islamic rules, not murdering daughters in 'honor' killings if they refuse a forced/arranged marriage, not mutilating pre pubescent girls with FGM etc. etc.?

That is why I specifically stated that as a first principle, the migrant populations must act within the law. Such laws should be non discriminatory and apply to all. Within that context they should be free to express their cultural identity. What then is your purpose in citing examples of extra-legal or illegal activities? Anyone committing such criminal acts should be arrested, charged, convicted and punished. Australian legal and criminal justice institutions seemed to work a few months ago when that terrorist plot was uncovered and people arrested.

Are you saying these things happen only where muslim communities exist or that being muslim results in these things happening. Clearly you do not expect me to agree to that idea.

You throw Rotherham at a community that is living within the confines of the law of their host country. A provocative and hostile act. The pathology of those who committed those crimes is so far beyond the religious war that you are fighting that to ignore such pathology is extremely dangerous. Let the experts deal with that one otherwise things like that will happen again. And that is as far as I will go discussing that perverted and disgusting situation with you or anyone on a 'muslim' related thread.

Halal food. Really. This is what pushes your buttons? Let them eat ham? I and my kids eat pork related products. If we lived in our home country we would continue to eat port related products. If companies want halal certification to do business in muslim countries, then more power to them. If some places don't sell port related products because of commercial reasons related to local demographics then fine, we will look elsewhere. Halal certification and the murder of political satirists are in now way connected or related in this universe.

Midlands schools? I am not from the UK. I will take your word for it. So some muslim communities have schools that reflect their ideology and cultural values. We shouldn't allow this? We should shut down church run or international schools in Thailand? You assume muslim ideology is violent and illiberal so you assume these schools are designed to indoctrinate children into that world view. I assume that muslim migrant communities respect the law of their host country. If you think that the institutions of the host country are not strong enough to detect if the laws are not being followed, then that is another issue. I assume these muslim schools are inspected, like all UK schools by the regulator and they would be bound to take action if laws are being broken.

Arranged marriages, honour killings and female genital mutilation. So 2 of these 3 things are illegal in Australia and I would assume most other western democracies. You blame these things on the religion. I blame these things on the culture. Arranged marriages? I grew up with the children of immigrants from the Southern Mediterranean. If marriages were't arranged, they were strongly 'suggested'. It was a common topic of discussion and worry for these bicultural kids. Nothing muslim about that. Happens everywhere.

So what about all these things? I don't see the point in you hurling a long list of criminal acts at my argument that muslim migrant communities should be allowed to lives their lives according to their cultural and religious beliefs in their host countries as long as this is within the law. It kind of proves my point I think.

I don't discuss no go zones. I think these are apocrypha. I read your Fox News link on the subject and hold to my views. There are zones in all large Western urban areas that are under policed, usually because of socio-economic issues. I think the coincidence of muslim migrant areas being also low socio-economic areas is one factor in this idea of a 'no go zone'. I do not subscribe that there are zones that are unequivocably outside the law as a separate culturally based administrative unit in any city. The actuality is far more complex and more worrying. But the concept grabs attention and adds to the general hysteria. Of all the things on your long list of horrors, most of which are easily dismissed, the no-go zone idea is one that I think requires investigation and consideration. I think the idea of these zones may be a contributing factor to radicalisation. And to me the idea of these zones is based on socio-economic, not cultural or religious factors.

[JockPieandBeans]

How sweet. You cut out the important part of my post.

Here is the important part again

Those quotes were removed by me from my quote of your post to save space and to comply with the forum software which limits the number of quotes in a post. I have cut the quotes again here for the same reasons.

I assume you when you frequently only quote part of a post in a reply that it is for the same reasons.

Those quotes have been discussed at length in the topic previously linked to.

Why do you insist on attempting to drag this one off topic to discuss Sharia law in the UK?

I will not be responding to any further posts about Sharia law in the UK here; but, as already said, will happily discuss it with you in the relevant topic.

How can the links and quotes I provided, that you insist on cutting, have been discussed in a previous thread ?

It is being reported in TODAY's Independent.

But as usual, you revert to type, DENY, DEFLECT and IGNORE everything that you do not like.

Not today's paper, look at the date of the article itself.

The article was originally published on Sunday 23 March 2014!

You've got the facts wrong; yet again.

I might have been busy on the 23 March 2014, I will consult my secretary when I get back to Thailand.

I took the article from todays independent,

The actual date has nothing to do with the facts. The facts are not wrong yet again.

The facts are there, in black and white, and as I previously said, this is just the start.

[MJP]

Pulled a few stragglers. Replies to removed. Don't anyone be offended.

[Mosha]

Are these true Muslims? I guess they know more about the koran than some experts here.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jihadi-johns-british-terror-ring-4721424

[MrTee]

Right, thread clean up done.

I'm leaving in the brewing storm between 7x7 and old JockyPie, because that's the stuff popcorn's made of . . .

#

nothing wrong with a good battle of words and opinions.. that is exactly what separates us from the monkeys.

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry If I am being dumb but this article is about making "wills".

It is about Islamic law being effectively enshrined in the British legal system and they are both right. It is in todays paper and the article was written a few months ago. Has anything changed since then?

[MrTee]

Sorry If I am being dumb but this article is about making "wills".

It is about Islamic law being effectively enshrined in the British legal system and they are both right. It is in todays paper and the article was written a few months ago. Has anything changed since then?

yeah some muslim died and left his unemployment benefit to his 29 children.. I'm outraged - i hope you are too

[7by7]

(Some nested quotes removed to comply with forum software)

Not today's paper, look at the date of the article itself.

The article was originally published on Sunday 23 March 2014!

You've got the facts wrong; yet again.

I might have been busy on the 23 March 2014, I will consult my secretary when I get back to Thailand.

I took the article from todays independent,

The actual date has nothing to do with the facts. The facts are not wrong yet again.

The facts are there, in black and white, and as I previously said, this is just the start.

You did not take the article from today's Independent; you took it from their website.

That webpage has today's date; go there tomorrow and it will have tomorrows date.

The article itself was published on the 23rd March 2014; as the date of the article on the webpage clearly shows.

Antonia Molloy Sunday 23 March 2014

As for the contents of the article; as said it's been discussed at length elsewhere and if you want to continue that discussion in that topic I will be happy to do so.

See you in that topic?

[MrTee]

Look guys we are all on the same side..
Terrorist atrocities have to stop..

we differ on opinions on how to make that work..
Let not hate each other, we all love bacon!

Edited January 11, 2015 by MrTee

[MJP]

Right, I've cleared the breakfast table and hopefully lightened the mood a little, albeit on a dreadfully sad topic.

Let's all try and get along.

[Opl]

[MrTee]

MJP gets my vote for Mod of the week! (Including but not exceeding breakfast )

Edited January 11, 2015 by MrTee

[Tep]

Sorry If I am being dumb but this article is about making "wills".

It is about Islamic law being effectively enshrined in the British legal system and they are both right. It is in todays paper and the article was written a few months ago. Has anything changed since then?

yeah some muslim died and left his unemployment benefit to his 29 children.. I'm outraged - i hope you are too

Would it not be hilarious if, after an open and non-hostile discussion that Baroness Cox gets UK muslim clerics to accept equal treatment of women in sharia law for inheritance purposes in exchange for this element of sharia law being written into the 'Guidance'?

Isn't it wonderful that those old white men are so concerned about the inheritance rights of muslim women.

I have never subscribed to domino theories. Not for the Reds in SE Asia. Nor for alleged cultural infiltration by migrant populations.

[MrTee]

Sorry If I am being dumb but this article is about making "wills".

It is about Islamic law being effectively enshrined in the British legal system and they are both right. It is in todays paper and the article was written a few months ago. Has anything changed since then?

yeah some muslim died and left his unemployment benefit to his 29 children.. I'm outraged - i hope you are too

Would it not be hilarious if, after an open and non-hostile discussion that Baroness Cox gets UK muslim clerics to accept equal treatment of women in sharia law for inheritance purposes in exchange for this element of sharia law being written into the 'Guidance'?

Isn't it wonderful that those old white men are so concerned about the inheritance rights of muslim women.

I have never subscribed to domino theories. Not for the Reds in SE Asia. Nor for alleged cultural infiltration by migrant populations.

Tep, do not try to explain how these things are actually a benefit and are convergent with exactly the same principles we all hold dear. All my days!

[Morch]

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?

My attention was mainly taken by your last comment, so let me respond bottom up.

If an immigrant population lives within the confines of the law of the host country, what further requirement is there for them to 'fit in'? Politically driven emigration has a long history from the Huguenots to UK, North America and South Africa to the 17th & 18th Century; the Puritans to North America in the 17th C; and the German Lutherans to my home state of South Australia in the 1830's. These immigrants specifically wanted to find a new home to worship and live according to their traditions. Clearly beyond the first generation, these immigrants were changed by their new environment but they also made significant impacts on their host culture from the 'Puritan Work Ethic' and industrial might of north east US in 19th Century to the world class wines from Penfolds and other wineries from the Barossa Valley made from grapes first cultivated by the Germans. This requirement to fit in seems to only be required of the muslim populations. Other ethnic ghettoes became tourist attractions or food destinations over time but it is the muslim populations that have to change their habits.

I wonder what 'fit in' means? Is it limited to the superficial like clothing? For some this is a big issue. Or is it more integral like having to adopt the symbols and traditions of their host country as their own. Surely this is down to individual choice? If the clothing or dietary choices or ideological principles of the immigrant populations are confrontational to the host population, then this is more an issue for the host populations to to deal with since the immigrant populations surely have the right to their beliefs and practices as long as they act within the law.

It is interesting that we look at the concept of Information from diametrically opposed points of view. My view on this issue is the need for non Muslims to have more credible information about Muslim beliefs and practices if they want to engage appropriately with Muslim populations. A bunch of posters on these threads talk a lot about Muslim beliefs and practices and quote scriptures. With few exceptions, I pay very little attention to this. I doubt the credibility and certainly the motivation behind the information they provide. You see the word applying to the need for the Muslim populations to allow the free exchange of ideas in what you view as an intellectually hidebound culture. You may well be right although it is dangerous to generalise and stereotype and I do not disagree with your point of view. I think it strengthens my choice of Information as a relevant strategy.

Finally you make statements about engagement and ask whether the people with whom you engage are the right ones to facilitate change. I think experience has shown that integration is both a formal and informal process. Researching the immigration of people from the Caribbean to the UK post WWII, I saw that proactive government programs were required to address the racial and socio-economic issues generated by this immigration. So your point is well taken when it comes to formal, policy driven initiatives to facilitate integration and acceptance. It is on this point that I was actually reflecting when I proposed the words Respect and Engagement. If you scream obscenities at a person based on their ideology, then you are not going to get far in trying to influence them. Again, I come back to my initial comment on what is required to fit in? Are they allowed to eat their food in their homes as long as they wear 'normal' clothes outside? Are they allowed to follow their religion as long as they don't build their mosques too high?

The word radicalisation is used a lot these days to refer to the creation of terrorists. I think there are many elements to this concept. Host populations confusing the idea of integration with assimilation and the expression of resentment when this does not happen in the manner or timescale desired may well be a contributing factor. Are we not seeing some of these 'home grown' terrorists coming from the 2nd generation of immigrants? Clearly there are some failures. To me the marginalisation of immigrant populations that have been unable to integrate into an underclass is a contributing factor in radicalisation. To me that is an outcome of the Assimilationist Approach. The American Melting Pot ideal I think is fixed in time and place and its time has long passed.

*posts removed to allow reply*

Well, one would have to swallow the implication that there were no issues at all with Muslim immigrant communities and them confines of the law. Taking the latest duo of law abiding citizens as representing the whole of Muslims immigrant communities is naturally misguided. Taking them as representing an element of Muslim immigrant communities, is not. We could then go on into debate regarding the role this element plays within Muslim immigrant communities and its effect on the relationship with the host majority. I would venture that this role is being downplayed - by certain media outlets, political interest groups, and by Muslims as well.

Obeying the laws of the land is indeed a minimal requirement for "fitting in". The same applies to changes regarding dress code and culinary choices. There would be instances where these would collide with host culture, and if a satisfactory solution which allows the minority to uphold its traditions without infringing on the host culture and rules - more power to both. The issues are more evident when "not fitting in" is involved - hanging on to cultural practices and traditions which are at odds with the host's, or attempting to limit host population freedoms and rights in favor of minority cultural practices will lead to friction. These attempts need not even be successful in order to cause issues, merely repeated and offensive. Muslims are not required nor asked to drop all of their cultural and religious ideas, just the bits that do not conform to host countries' standards of acceptable social conduct. This was something which, I believe, was applied in turn to any immigrant group.

Immigrant communities may become tourist attractions and culinary destination if and when they embrace the notion of capitalizing on their ethnicity by engaging the host population. Standoffish or isolationist communities will not fare as well on this department.

Whether a community leans toward integration or assimilation is not that important, as long as certain niceties are observed. Upholding cultural and religious traditions can be achieved (at least for some minorities) with lesser amounts of antagonism, confrontation and animosity.

I do not think that our views on the issue of information are that opposed. In agreement that many Westerners do not really know a whole lot about Islam and Muslims. This could be equally applied without much prejudice as to opinion regarding Islam and Muslims, more a general thing. On the same note, it could be said that many Muslims lack accurate information (or as some may put it - "simply don't get") regarding Western culture, practices, religions and values. The difference is that whereas I see the lack of information as being exhibited by all relevant parties, the appeal made in your post seems to be directed at Western societies.

The question of engaging Muslims goes a bit further than whether the "right people" are engaged. It is also a question regarding the general willingness exhibited by Muslims to engage Westerns in general and host populations specifically. It could be suggested that "If it is indeed true that "If you scream obscenities at a person based on their ideology, then you are not going to get far in trying to influence them" is a correct observation, but that it cuts both ways. There are loud voices heard against Islam and Muslims, there are loud Muslim voices against Western values and Westerners. Respect cannot be a one way street.

Immigrants, especially those coming from poorer quarters of the world, those with different appearance, and markedly different cultural habits are sometimes treated badly by officials and populations of host countries. This is not unique to Muslims, rather a sad reality worldwide. It could be said that relative to other countries (not to mention Muslim immigrants countries of origin) this is less of an issue in modern day Western countries. This is not imply that things are perfect, but offered an opinion that Muslims are not generally treated worse than other minorities (the beginning of the post may serve as a qualifying statement).

There could be many factors contributing to either "radicalization" (which could mean a whole lot of things) or "creation of terrorists" (a somewhat more straightforward concept). The whole gamut of social, economical and psychological factors could be dropped in and there will be room for more. Failures by authorities are a given as well. All this does not quite answer why do Muslims exhibit a greater tendency to turn to terrorism compared with other minorities facing similar difficulties.

[Morch]

All of the sudden the guy from Alqaida proposing you a free trip to Syria sounds cool

A trip to murder innocent people and probably end up dead themselves, would never sound good to rational Westerners. Only wackos and complete losers join these groups.

Umm...*ducks*

[Morch]

What I do wonder about is how much public support among Muslim communities and nations do these statements represent? Westerners are quite at home denying that their leader's statements conform to their own views (this can be evident in about any semi-political topic on TVF). Would it not be the same for Muslims?

When people feel strongly about issues, there is often a public display of their discontent - be it demonstrations, marches, strikes and what not (limiting the reference to relatively non-violent means of expression), or nowadays, social media campaigns. There is relatively less public outrage expressed by Muslims over Islam-related terrorist attacks than one could have expected, going by some of the claims repeatedly raised. If these statements indeed represent a majority, then this majority either feels less than directly involved or threatened, is either passive or restricted in its reactions.

Of course. Certain posters keep trying to claim that small numbers of Muslims condemning these terrorists attacks represent the majority, but I just don't buy that. In fact, I wonder how many of them do it only for political reasons and don't even mean it - although, some do, of course.

I would compare them to many posters on Thai Visa who constantly make excuses and rationalizations for the acts of Islamic terrorist groups, but are careful to always throw in a disclaimer about how they do not support terrorism. Frankly, after reading their posts every day, I am very suspicious about their sincerity.

Yeah, but then again, isn't the same true of the pitchfork brigade's "all Muslims", or assertions that the majority of Muslims are implicated by support (tacit or overt), or that if not that at least through sympathy?

[H1w4yR1da]

Is it funny that the pigs that unleashed this atrocity are no different from the pigs now calling for the murder of all muslims? ?

And who's 'calling for the murder of all muslims' exactly?

More libtard hyperbole BS of yours perhaps?