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

[nontabury]

They said the same about Harlem, NYC, in the 79ies.

Im pale-skinned, was in Harlem then, and no trouble at all.

Your no-go zones are an invention of your paranoia.

I'd be surprised if you know where Oldham is, let alone ever been there.

[Tep]

Muslims come from varied ethnic background, so ethnicity would obviously not be the issue anyway. Rather, as you described, this could be attributed to a mixture of economic, social, historical, cultural and religious factors (with the last probably playing a special role).

Engaging, or attempting to engage Muslims is not futile nor a mistake. On the other hand, dogmatically clinging to liberal values (and to be clear, this is a general comment, not a personal one) seem to be somewhat off mark.

Processes whereby culture and religion evolve are lengthy, often requiring decades, generations, centuries. Engagement may speed up these processes to a degree, but expectations ought to remain realistic. Islam will not make an about face and will probably not even become visibly more moderate in our lifetimes. Advances can be made locally, or on specific issues, perhaps.

Could be wrong, but many of the claims to the effect that Muslims could be engaged with relatively swift and noticeable positive outcomes strike me as underlying assumption regarding the superiority of the liberal position vs. Islamic (or Muslim) views (and, naturally, vs. conservative views as well). Are Muslims interested in engagement? Do Muslims who are interested in engaging Western values represent significant element and influence of their societies? What does engagement mean from a Muslim point of view? It is not that I have an answer to these questions, nor do I expect them to be answered - just points to ponder.

Another thing quite often noticed when inspecting liberal views on these matters is the existence of a working assumption, which postulates that liberal humanistic values are universal, even within a multicultural framework. That apparent differences could be overcome, with views finally converging on this point of view (or close enough). Other than being both missionary and superior in nature, this is not necessarily always supported by reality. Given the time frames cited above, it could not be ruled out, but this is neither here nor there, history seen eras where different sets of values were common.

The main complaint against the liberal approach would be its apparent lack of moderation and self-criticism. Engaging Muslims is all fine and well. When it becomes the goal itself, rather than a means, things go awry. This could manifest itself by reluctance to apply some measures and actions vs. Muslim elements not interested in engagement, by overdoing PC to a point interfering with constructive criticism, by making over-allowances as overtures, and by using existing engagement efforts as fig leafs whenever things do not go according to plan.

So, by all means, engagement efforts ought to be carried out and can certainly play a positive role. This would go down much better all around if taken with a realistic approach, moderation and while allowing legitimate criticism.

As you pointed out, even with engagement it might take lifetimes before any measurable moderation in Islam is visible. This is why as a conservative I argue there are no Liberal solutions (at least not on a timeframe that is practical). At last count there were 750 officially designated no go zones in France, where the police are reluctant to go and are essentially self-governed. In these zones approximately four million Muslims are living.

We can argue all day on likely future demographics, but even at present levels there is a huge problem, which it appears we are finally waking up to. Without radical changes to influence demographics, assimilation etc the future looks more likely to resemble the Balkans than post war Western Europe.

I debated with myself about whether to reply to the post with the additional comment. I am not trying to advance any cause with these postings. Essentially I am testing the limits of my belief in liberalism in a heated environment. The poster uses some strong language in an attempt to stigmatise and taint the discussion points. I do not subscribe to the concept of no go zone in the context in which their boosters advocate. If this becomes another round of ideological ping pong, then I will bow out. I do respond however because the poster elaborates on some themes that you addressed. The timing issue is something I had not considered. Since i read history, I am accustomed to thinking in terms of long term, generational change. This could be seen as unsatisfying to those who want to see immediate and significant change towards their positions.

Another idea from the post that also stirs my thinking is the notion of alternative concepts to the liberal approach. What is the opposite to liberalism. Not conservatism I think. I believe that illiberalism is the appropriate opposite. So then I have to think in terms of alternatives rather than opposites. Is not Conservatism too general a term? Does not the poster mean Republicanism in the US context of socio-political theory? I have learned that the origins of Republicanism in the early days of the US were rooted in the Greco-Roman republican ideals of civic duty. If not the subjugation of the individual to the needs of the State or Community, then certainly a heavy burden on the individual to serve the needs of the community. While defence of constitutional freedoms is a hallmark of modern US republican thought, you can still see the manifestation of the idea of civic duty in Republican thought as expressed variously in the current world. So this argues for a more robust and confrontational approach to the issue of Engagement? I think that that notion would have significant support among those who identify as 'Conservative' on this issue.

What about your commentary on liberalism? Are liberal ideals universal and reflective of the pinnacle of human achievement so need not be reviewed or moderated? I guess that is why we are called Elites or at least Elitist. I am guilty as charged. Having rejected religious ideology, i am forced to be a Humanist and hold humanism as an ideal. Liberalism is bound with the idea of the rights of and respect for the individual. How can this not be universal except if you are taking a religious position holding another more supreme being as greater than the individual? I do not do research ahead of doing these posts as I am trying to test the limits of my own beliefs and knowledge but I did review the UN Declaration of Human Rights. While not all rights are universally adopted, there are some rights that must surely be argued as Universal, most specifically the First Article that establishes the right of each person to be free and equal in dignity. The Declaration is a liberal document. It is also a humanist document. It is a 20th Century and a political document. Individual claims of particular rights could be debated and could evolve over time but I do subscribe to the notion that some rights are universal and may not be abridged. With such inflexibility then, your accusation of not being open to moderation or review is well taken. I look forward with interest to any points that can be made against the universality of basic human rights.

So the elitist view would hold that those with illiberal views (i.e. radical Muslims) must change in order to fit in with liberal societies. Liberals would engage on the basis that these 'truths' will become self evident in time. So restrictions on women under the Muslim faith would conflict with liberal societies. The culture of women enjoying and expressing those freedoms would not be abridged for the sake of the illiberal group so they would have to change. Since the illiberal group also contains women, they can be educated and made aware of the benefits of free expression and they can assist change from within. This is how a liberal would see the process, over time. I don't have a problem with that notion and see it as eminently logical.

Two of my favourite philosophers are Abraham Mazlow who proposed his Hierarchy of Needs in the 1940's, actually he was a psychologist and Georg Hegel, one of the more impenetrable 18th Centurey German Philosophers (but not as incomprehensible as Wittgenstein, whom I repeatedly fail to understand). To me Mazlow's model captures the essence of human expression and Hegel captures the essence of human progress. The Hegelian Dialectic is very simple - Thesis Antithesis Synthesis i.e. two opposites are synthesised into a new entity. Maybe I am too idealistic but I believe liberalism can facilitate this synthesis. It did so for the Christian religions despite the 'Conservative' led counter reformation. it does so for modern political differences within liberal democracies and it will do so for the Muslim issue given time and effort.

I like your photo. I am a huge Star Trek and Patrick Stewart fan. Could you get anyone more liberal than Gene Rodenberry?

[micmichd]

They said the same about Harlem, NYC, in the 70ies.

Im pale-skinned, was in Harlem then, and no trouble at all.

Your no-go zones are an invention of your paranoia.

I'd be surprised if you know where Oldham is, let alone ever been there.

You mean Oldham Mumps, a contagious disease?

[micmichd]

@Tep:

Both, Mazlow and Gene Rodenberry, postulate an ultimate goal which is not free from assumptions in itself. Namely, you have to live to achieve an identity or 'self'. If you are a materialist and don't believe in transcendental life (in heaven or hell or a future to be beamed into) you have to do your living here and now. Still you know you know your personal life is not endless, you will die one day. But you also know someone will live after you, and you wish your ideas will survive, and, of course, you want a good life. Not a maximum of material goods, but a fair share that doesn't create greed from others, welfare theorists call it Pareto optimum. It finally ends up with a life for your family.

I am not about the spreading of my genes, I adopted a girl who is not my own as my own daughter, from a different culture (I'm Farang, she and her mother are Thai) I am not about to produce a child of my own, simply because I don't have enough money to guarantee a good life for two children. I adapted to Theravada Buddhism because you are left alone there, and my Thai gf adapted to Western liberalism - both a bit, I think Thais would say 'nit noy' My gf's daughter was eeducated in Surin (Issan) and will go to university in Pattaya soon, so she will be educated by two half-westerners in the east.

That should work, culturally my gf and me (and in the future: our daughter) will locally live in the middle of nowhere, BKK airport as a meeting point. In the time dimension we will of course move into the same direction, more or less, not completely synchronically, but we meet from time to time to see what we made out of life so far and what to do next. We cannot know the future, and you know what? It would be completely boring if we knew everything in advance.

We have a common language, we always had it. It's the language of bodies, the grammar of soul, it's called Music.

We live a rhythmic life.

And, yes Wittgenstein was right. You can talk about much, put it all in bits and bytes, and maybe stash it in some lingo database after having it digitalized. But I don't think it's possible to digitalize analogue media without a loss of information, and you cannot calculate further strategies just from extrapolation. There's more possible moves in a game of chess than there is atoms in the universe, and you better not try to recite them all.

Muslims as compared to Christians have a better feeling for textures and rhythms, I think. Yes I know, no Music allowed in some Islamic countries, they put their rhythmic feelings into poems instead, and in my ears it's music, too.

I don't know if this is understable in typed letters, following Wittgenstein, I better shut up.

[lannarebirth]

Yes, I would rather count on something like Euro-Islam (like Sarajewo) than surrender to mutual warfare again.

And then I could be proud to be Farang again, whether in Europe or Thailand.

Let's just hope it doesn't snow.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-saudi-cleric-condemns-snowmen-as-anti-islamic-2015-1

[Kitsune]

Some French Muslim kids at school refuse to participate in moment of silence for terror victims.

http://therightscoop.com/french-muslim-children-refused-to-participate-in-schools-moment-of-silence-for-terror-victims/

[Mossfinn]

Some Brits probably want to ban Condell because he's Irish.

Please stop assuming things. Brits, Irish? Assumptions do not help your opinions

Sorry, since we all have nicknames here I can only guess or assume the nationality behind. As I learned from another topic, Brits and Irish don't like each other too much (moderately said), hence my assumption.

Shall I rephrase that for you, as you are guessing and assuming:

Certain British Nationals do not like certain Irish Nationals, some of those Irish Nationals, could be British Nationals, some of those Irish Nationals, who could be British Nationals, don't like the British Nationals. However, those that don't understand this rather strange phenomenon, lump all other Nationals together, so al all Muslims are to blame.

And of course Hitler was a Christian and the second world war was fought because of the Jews, if any of you are so stupid to believe this, please pick up a book, at this point, any book, but hopefully a good one on history and politics, if you want me to recommend one, I will gladly oblige.

[Kitsune]

Some Brits probably want to ban Condell because he's Irish.

Please stop assuming things. Brits, Irish? Assumptions do not help your opinions

Sorry, since we all have nicknames here I can only guess or assume the nationality behind. As I learned from another topic, Brits and Irish don't like each other too much (moderately said), hence my assumption.

Shall I rephrase that for you, as you are guessing and assuming:

Certain British Nationals do not like certain Irish Nationals, some of those Irish Nationals, could be British Nationals, some of those Irish Nationals, who could be British Nationals, don't like the British Nationals. However, those that don't understand this rather strange phenomenon, lump all other Nationals together, so al all Muslims are to blame.

And of course Hitler was a Christian and the second world war was fought because of the Jews, if any of you are so stupid to believe this, please pick up a book, at this point, any book, but hopefully a good one on history and politics, if you want me to recommend one, I will gladly oblige.

British, Irish, Hitler?

What has this got to do with Charlie???

[Mossfinn]

Would you like me to read the thread to you, in simple phrases of course.

[JDGRUEN]

Inheritance laws should be standard and identical for all citizens of a country ... no consideration for any so called religion ... and no different law of Inheritance for men or women

[MJP]

Charlie Hebdo's latest edition to depict Prophet Muhammad

The cover of the latest edition of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been published in French media, and depicts the Prophet Muhammad.

The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading "I am Charlie", below the words "all is forgiven"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30786211

Edited January 12, 2015 by MJP

[dragonfly94]

Charlie Hebdo's latest edition to depict Prophet Muhammad

The cover of the latest edition of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been published in French media, and depicts the Prophet Muhammad.

The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading "I am Charlie", below the words "all is forgiven"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30786211

Seems like the terrorists have defeated both the BBC and the Daily mail as neither dared published this very mild cover, gutless.

[H1w4yR1da]

That is ridiculous. Condell has nothing in common with Choudary

He does if you're a habitual Muslim apologist desperately needing to switch the onus onto non-muslims.

[micmichd]

Sure, only some Brits hate the Irish and vice versa. But when people get paranoid, thosd extremists are the loudest to shout, and there's always the danger they attract some moderate people which in turn then become extremists. The spirit seems to be stronger than the individual minds, at least terroristic ideas published in media. I watched this effect last week in the TVF about British national Tommy Diver in Thailand.

Hitler was a born Christian, yes, but he tried to make himself a secohnd god. He was a terrorist himself, and - worse - he calculated about terrorism as an instrument for terror. His idea to make Jews responsible for everything and then offer a final solution was based on falsified common believe that inherited Christian belief about the pestilence in Europe, he would probably put the blame on Moslems today. There was no more pestilence in Germany anymore but a severe economic crisis and a political vacuum.

Ever since the 30ies, economic crises produce scapegoats. Farang countries are in a deep economic crisis, it's the capitalistic logic that produces more and more terror. You should be aware that if everyone would claim their property back from banks atvthe same time, they would only be able to pay off some 5 pct. When everybody knows that, and everybody acts accordingly, then the economic crisis will be produced: self fulfilling prophecy.

If Farang countries would try to get rid of all Moslems right now, then those Moslems would take their property with them, and if they would all try so at the same time, your sacred economy would collapse. Good luck for your pensions then.

My pensions come in EUR and are paid to a THB bank account, so it's good to take a look at currency exchange rates sometimes. The EUR to THB conversion rate has declined by 10 pct in 1 year, my pensions get less and less in THB, and might fall below the limits soon. This would surely happen if all Moslems would be deported from Europe and if they would take their property away.

Moslems might in return refuse to supply you with oil. You might freeze to death, and no more traffic to escape. Remember the oil crisis in the 70ies? Do you want that again in Winter time?

No, like it or not: You called for your Moslems, now they are there, and you need them to survive. Your propaganda is suicide. Please stop it.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[Steely Dan]

@Tep, I don't think using the phrase no go zone is being overly reactionary, especially if you are Jewish, gay or a woman in western dress. Not forgetting of course the police or the fire services. Then you have 1000 burned out cars each New Year's Eve. As a personal anecdote I worked in Brussels 93-95 a girl from my office remarked that she got off the tram at the wrong place having fallen asleep and as she walked old and middle aged men started throwing stones at her, presumably due to her attire. The minority who are actually the tip of a large culturally alien iceberg, which will not budge an inch itself, but expects everyone else to defer to it's norms. This is colonization pure and simple.

Returning to Liberalism, I thought it was supposed to entail equal rights and freedoms for all, so what do,you,do when one group asserts it has the right to curtail the rights of others whilst demanding preferential treatment itself. I would argue that rights come with responsibilities and the law should be scrupulously even handed to all at all times. Not too much to ask surely?

[annabel]

http://pontiactribune.com/censored-footage-paris-terror-attack-raises-serious-questions-video/

As I said there are always things that are hidden and not divulged to the public....

[micmichd]

By "no go zones" you probably mean ghettos. How many Moslems live in those ghettos, and do you want their percentage to increase?

[Morch]

Muslims come from varied ethnic background, so ethnicity would obviously not be the issue anyway. Rather, as you described, this could be attributed to a mixture of economic, social, historical, cultural and religious factors (with the last probably playing a special role).

Engaging, or attempting to engage Muslims is not futile nor a mistake. On the other hand, dogmatically clinging to liberal values (and to be clear, this is a general comment, not a personal one) seem to be somewhat off mark.

Processes whereby culture and religion evolve are lengthy, often requiring decades, generations, centuries. Engagement may speed up these processes to a degree, but expectations ought to remain realistic. Islam will not make an about face and will probably not even become visibly more moderate in our lifetimes. Advances can be made locally, or on specific issues, perhaps.

Could be wrong, but many of the claims to the effect that Muslims could be engaged with relatively swift and noticeable positive outcomes strike me as underlying assumption regarding the superiority of the liberal position vs. Islamic (or Muslim) views (and, naturally, vs. conservative views as well). Are Muslims interested in engagement? Do Muslims who are interested in engaging Western values represent significant element and influence of their societies? What does engagement mean from a Muslim point of view? It is not that I have an answer to these questions, nor do I expect them to be answered - just points to ponder.

Another thing quite often noticed when inspecting liberal views on these matters is the existence of a working assumption, which postulates that liberal humanistic values are universal, even within a multicultural framework. That apparent differences could be overcome, with views finally converging on this point of view (or close enough). Other than being both missionary and superior in nature, this is not necessarily always supported by reality. Given the time frames cited above, it could not be ruled out, but this is neither here nor there, history seen eras where different sets of values were common.

The main complaint against the liberal approach would be its apparent lack of moderation and self-criticism. Engaging Muslims is all fine and well. When it becomes the goal itself, rather than a means, things go awry. This could manifest itself by reluctance to apply some measures and actions vs. Muslim elements not interested in engagement, by overdoing PC to a point interfering with constructive criticism, by making over-allowances as overtures, and by using existing engagement efforts as fig leafs whenever things do not go according to plan.

So, by all means, engagement efforts ought to be carried out and can certainly play a positive role. This would go down much better all around if taken with a realistic approach, moderation and while allowing legitimate criticism.

As you pointed out, even with engagement it might take lifetimes before any measurable moderation in Islam is visible. This is why as a conservative I argue there are no Liberal solutions (at least not on a timeframe that is practical). At last count there were 750 officially designated no go zones in France, where the police are reluctant to go and are essentially self-governed. In these zones approximately four million Muslims are living.

We can argue all day on likely future demographics, but even at present levels there is a huge problem, which it appears we are finally waking up to. Without radical changes to influence demographics, assimilation etc the future looks more likely to resemble the Balkans than post war Western Europe.

I debated with myself about whether to reply to the post with the additional comment. I am not trying to advance any cause with these postings. Essentially I am testing the limits of my belief in liberalism in a heated environment. The poster uses some strong language in an attempt to stigmatise and taint the discussion points. I do not subscribe to the concept of no go zone in the context in which their boosters advocate. If this becomes another round of ideological ping pong, then I will bow out. I do respond however because the poster elaborates on some themes that you addressed. The timing issue is something I had not considered. Since i read history, I am accustomed to thinking in terms of long term, generational change. This could be seen as unsatisfying to those who want to see immediate and significant change towards their positions.

Another idea from the post that also stirs my thinking is the notion of alternative concepts to the liberal approach. What is the opposite to liberalism. Not conservatism I think. I believe that illiberalism is the appropriate opposite. So then I have to think in terms of alternatives rather than opposites. Is not Conservatism too general a term? Does not the poster mean Republicanism in the US context of socio-political theory? I have learned that the origins of Republicanism in the early days of the US were rooted in the Greco-Roman republican ideals of civic duty. If not the subjugation of the individual to the needs of the State or Community, then certainly a heavy burden on the individual to serve the needs of the community. While defence of constitutional freedoms is a hallmark of modern US republican thought, you can still see the manifestation of the idea of civic duty in Republican thought as expressed variously in the current world. So this argues for a more robust and confrontational approach to the issue of Engagement? I think that that notion would have significant support among those who identify as 'Conservative' on this issue.

What about your commentary on liberalism? Are liberal ideals universal and reflective of the pinnacle of human achievement so need not be reviewed or moderated? I guess that is why we are called Elites or at least Elitist. I am guilty as charged. Having rejected religious ideology, i am forced to be a Humanist and hold humanism as an ideal. Liberalism is bound with the idea of the rights of and respect for the individual. How can this not be universal except if you are taking a religious position holding another more supreme being as greater than the individual? I do not do research ahead of doing these posts as I am trying to test the limits of my own beliefs and knowledge but I did review the UN Declaration of Human Rights. While not all rights are universally adopted, there are some rights that must surely be argued as Universal, most specifically the First Article that establishes the right of each person to be free and equal in dignity. The Declaration is a liberal document. It is also a humanist document. It is a 20th Century and a political document. Individual claims of particular rights could be debated and could evolve over time but I do subscribe to the notion that some rights are universal and may not be abridged. With such inflexibility then, your accusation of not being open to moderation or review is well taken. I look forward with interest to any points that can be made against the universality of basic human rights.

So the elitist view would hold that those with illiberal views (i.e. radical Muslims) must change in order to fit in with liberal societies. Liberals would engage on the basis that these 'truths' will become self evident in time. So restrictions on women under the Muslim faith would conflict with liberal societies. The culture of women enjoying and expressing those freedoms would not be abridged for the sake of the illiberal group so they would have to change. Since the illiberal group also contains women, they can be educated and made aware of the benefits of free expression and they can assist change from within. This is how a liberal would see the process, over time. I don't have a problem with that notion and see it as eminently logical.

Two of my favourite philosophers are Abraham Mazlow who proposed his Hierarchy of Needs in the 1940's, actually he was a psychologist and Georg Hegel, one of the more impenetrable 18th Centurey German Philosophers (but not as incomprehensible as Wittgenstein, whom I repeatedly fail to understand). To me Mazlow's model captures the essence of human expression and Hegel captures the essence of human progress. The Hegelian Dialectic is very simple - Thesis Antithesis Synthesis i.e. two opposites are synthesised into a new entity. Maybe I am too idealistic but I believe liberalism can facilitate this synthesis. It did so for the Christian religions despite the 'Conservative' led counter reformation. it does so for modern political differences within liberal democracies and it will do so for the Muslim issue given time and effort.

I like your photo. I am a huge Star Trek and Patrick Stewart fan. Could you get anyone more liberal than Gene Rodenberry?

A bit confusing, at least for me, as sometimes seems your response incorporates my post with SD's. In case it was missed, here is my previous comment on SD's reply - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/789984-12-dead-in-attack-on-paris-newspaper;-france-goes-on-alert/?p=8928207

I tend to find defining the exact -isms as not being a germane, so apologies for avoiding getting entangled in definitions. Often seem too restrictive for application. If, however, some are needed to anchor my thoughts, then perhaps pragmatism, or realism, would temporarily serve.

The UN is a fine notion, and probably the precursor of things to come (Hopefully, in my opinion. Other options less alluring). But at the same time, the UN is not as yet quite what it was envisaged to be, nor quite resembling what is suggested by its name. The UN is a construct of Western ideals and values, which came about as a result of the West having a position of prominence (achieved through less than liberal means, one might add). There was no universal debate and inclusion of alternative views, but rather presupposition of Western ideals taking their rightful place. Many reasons for this being accepted as the nominal global standard, most do not have much to do with the values represented by the ideals themselves. It is a simple matter of reality to check just how many members of the UN practice these ideals or to what extent misbehaving members get sanctioned by the UN. Even worse, how many Western members fully live up to these ideals or even to their own national versions of them?

The point is that ideals, even when put on a fancy paper, are...well...ideals. They are something to strive toward in a reality that is less than perfect. History teaches us that confusion between ideals and reality (whether in economic, political, social or religious context) can lead to some pretty adverse outcomes. Off the top of my head - communism, post-colonial anywhere, the Khmer Rouge. And yes, may want to add hardcore interpretation and application of Islam to the list (as as side note, well aware that issues can be found with specific examples, but I think the idea is clear enough). Granted, It could be somewhat harder to apply the above with regards to modern Western ideals, although, perhaps more a matter of the degree in respect to adverse outcomes than invalidating the principal.

It would seem that rather than there being a genuine global acceptance regarding the superiority of Western ideals, they are in fact made global (at least on a superficial level) by a tacit exertion of might. This is more along the lines of asserting that some ideals ought to be generally accepted as a standard and postulating that in time, whether through coercion or conviction - they will be. If putting it this way is somewhat reminiscent of certain Islamic preaching, well...yeah. It essentially boils down to "my way or the highway".

To be clear, I do not have much issues with the suggested view: ideologies, countries, civilizations, religions all used the same mechanism for ages. Identifying with these ideals (even if not necessarily with all of their actual imperfect manifestations) makes it easier to accept it as favorable, but does not preclude acknowledgment that it is basically a sales pitch. I'm still buying, surely if considering the alternatives.

What is the liberal reaction, then, to Muslims not willing to change their set of ideals as they "must"? How do things apply with regards to Muslims asserting that it is the West who needs to adjust to their point of view? How to remain true to Western ideals and treat Muslims hanging on to their belief systems in their own countries? Do these fall under that "must" as well? As the good captain might have said.....(note Naam in the back, ready to pounce):

Maslow's pyramid could be interpreted in less than complimenting ways regarding human beings, when applied to real world situations. Furthermore, acceptance of the model does not exclude the possibility of different meanings (thinking culturally or religiously originated) attached to the nominal steps in the hierarchy. It could also be suggested that certain cultural, religious or ideologies may cause people to construct alternative orders (consider a suicide bomber).

Been a while since I read Hegel, so could be wrong on this - if memory serves, "Thesis Antithesis Synthesis" does not postulate the nature of the outcome or the relative part of each former concept in it. Also, does the notion of progress necessarily mean advancement? I seem to recall (but again, been a while and not a favorite) at least one interpretation which sees it more by way of change, without necessarily qualifying further. Even assuming that liberalism can facilitate the synthesis itself, does it mean that it will survive the outcome?

Guess I'm seeing it pretty much the way I see global warming issues (and for the love of all that is sacred, let us not go there):

Human actions have an effect, Human counter-efforts got an effect. In the overall scheme of things, it remains doubtful what is their relative weight in relation to something which is essentially an independent and wider scope process. Doesn't mean that no action should be taken, just that we recognize the proportions of possible effects. On the other hand, willing to concede that the negative effects are easier to notice (relevant to the current discussion, this would be avoiding engagement with Muslims).

[micmichd]

Law:

There is nothing wrong to submit to *civil* Sharia law if both sides agree.

For some cases (banking, compensations) I would probably prefer Sharia to Western law. I would also prefer US law to German law for compensation claims, because compensatios in USA are higher than in Germany, and it's easier to find a lawyer who is willing to work on a success base.

Criminal cases are different for clinical reasons, I wouldn't like to get butchered if I were a thief, or stoned for extramarital sex affairs.

I would draw the border exactly between criminal and civil law.

[7by7]

(

What I actually posted was

"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.)

I've highlighted the relevant part in the hope that you understand it this time. If you are still incapable of understanding the highlighted part, find someone to explain it to you.

This was after you posted it some months ago attributing it to Voltaire. If you had bothered to look it up you would know who actually wrote the quote in 1907. This would be trivial if it were somebody else, but you are the poster who always claims his 'facts' are indisputable, clearly they are not. Nothing to do with a smear, just pointing out facts as you are so fond of them

What I said, and proved, was that the pre conditions for the formal talks were ironed out at informal talks with no preconditions.

No. That is what you tried to claim AFTER it was proved that there WERE preconditions for the negotiations - more silly spin. It is not what you said to start with. At least the security expert manned up and admitted his mistake.

Pathetic that you both want to yet again drag this important thread off topic so you can have your childish digs at me!

Ulysses G even claims to know more about the Northern Ireland peace process than those actually involved; like Peter Brooke, the Northern Ireland Secretary when the informal, and secret at the time, talks began between the UK government and Sinn Fein/IRA in 1990! (See here)

Still, I suppose I should be flattered that you not only pay so much attention to my posts, but also have no other way of refuting them!

Edited January 13, 2015 by 7by7

[7by7]

That is ridiculous. Condell has nothing in common with Choudary

He does if you're a habitual Muslim apologist desperately needing to switch the onus onto non-muslims.

I suggest that you both, and those who liked your posts, actually read what I said in full instead of your usual ploy of taking one sentence out of context.

Then find someone to explain it to you.

[dragonfly94]

Pathetic that you both want to yet again drag this important thread off topic so you can have your childish digs at me!

Ulysses G even claims to know more about the Northern Ireland peace process than those actually involved; like Peter Brooke, the Northern Ireland Secretary when the informal, and secret at the time, talks began between the UK government and Sinn Fein/IRA in 1990! (See here)

Still, I suppose I should be flattered that you not only pay so much attention to my posts, but also have no other way of refuting them!

It is not necessary to refute facts which you make up and when you mis quote famous writers, merely to point out that you are incorrect. Some humility on your part when it comes to this might mean you do not attract so much attention.

[7by7]

Pathetic that you both want to yet again drag this important thread off topic so you can have your childish digs at me!

Ulysses G even claims to know more about the Northern Ireland peace process than those actually involved; like Peter Brooke, the Northern Ireland Secretary when the informal, and secret at the time, talks began between the UK government and Sinn Fein/IRA in 1990! (See here)

Still, I suppose I should be flattered that you not only pay so much attention to my posts, but also have no other way of refuting them!

It is not necessary to refute facts which you make up and when you mis quote famous writers, merely to point out that you are incorrect. Some humility on your part when it comes to this might mean you do not attract so much attention.

Except you don't correct the facts I post; you simply say they are wrong and offer no evidence with which to support your statement.

When I make a mistake, and I do, I know I am not perfect, I admit it and accept it. But you and your mate ignore those corrections and simply concentrate on the original error.

Which is rather hypocritical of you considering that you both post many statements claiming them to be true, rarely provide evidence to back up that claim and never acknowledge you were wrong when corrected.

Enough of you and your childish slanders; they have never been of interest to anyone else and are to me no longer.

I, for one, will let this thread get back on topic. Though no doubt you or your mate will want the last word; you can have it.

[dragonfly94]

Pathetic that you both want to yet again drag this important thread off topic so you can have your childish digs at me!

Ulysses G even claims to know more about the Northern Ireland peace process than those actually involved; like Peter Brooke, the Northern Ireland Secretary when the informal, and secret at the time, talks began between the UK government and Sinn Fein/IRA in 1990! (See here)

Still, I suppose I should be flattered that you not only pay so much attention to my posts, but also have no other way of refuting them!

It is not necessary to refute facts which you make up and when you mis quote famous writers, merely to point out that you are incorrect. Some humility on your part when it comes to this might mean you do not attract so much attention.

Except you don't correct the facts I post; you simply say they are wrong and offer no evidence with which to support your statement.

When I make a mistake, and I do, I know I am not perfect, I admit it and accept it. But you and your mate ignore those corrections and simply concentrate on the original error.

Which is rather hypocritical of you considering that you both post many statements claiming them to be true, rarely provide evidence to back up that claim and never acknowledge you were wrong when corrected.

Enough of you and your childish slanders; they have never been of interest to anyone else and are to me no longer.

I, for one, will let this thread get back on topic. Though no doubt you or your mate will want the last word; you can have it.

When have you ever admitted a mistake, have a link for that 'fact' as well? On the Bible quotes you claimed about wife beating and then could not produce as they did not exist you never admitted a mistake. What you did was try to wriggle out of it and claimed people could not prove the Bible was not against wife beating, clearly a nonsense argument. It's impossible to correct facts when the facts you produce never existed in the first place. Glad to hear you will let the thread get back on topic.

[Ulysses G.]

Ulysses G even claims to know more about the Northern Ireland peace process than those actually involved; like Peter Brooke, the Northern Ireland Secretary when the informal, and secret at the time, talks began between the UK government and Sinn Fein/IRA in 1990!

Your link says nothing about no preconditions for the IRA negotiations as you have claimed repeatedly. The Spinmeister is at it yet again.

[Tep]

@Tep, I don't think using the phrase no go zone is being overly reactionary, especially if you are Jewish, gay or a woman in western dress. Not forgetting of course the police or the fire services. Then you have 1000 burned out cars each New Year's Eve. As a personal anecdote I worked in Brussels 93-95 a girl from my office remarked that she got off the tram at the wrong place having fallen asleep and as she walked old and middle aged men started throwing stones at her, presumably due to her attire. The minority who are actually the tip of a large culturally alien iceberg, which will not budge an inch itself, but expects everyone else to defer to it's norms. This is colonization pure and simple.

Returning to Liberalism, I thought it was supposed to entail equal rights and freedoms for all, so what do,you,do when one group asserts it has the right to curtail the rights of others whilst demanding preferential treatment itself. I would argue that rights come with responsibilities and the law should be scrupulously even handed to all at all times. Not too much to ask surely?

I am not sure about the merits of the phrase no go zone in honest and objective debate about the issues. It is being used to stigmatise and support people proselytising the anti-muslim (as opposed to the anti-terrorist or anti-muslim terrorist) notion. Many times I see the phrase used in a way to make the reader deliberately infer that there are 'independent self administrating enclaves' where the rule of national law does not reach. If you are talking about no go zones as what you might also describe as 'culturally enriched' zones, then I would agree with you that such places do exist.

What then are the implications of these no go zones? I believe that leaders have a responsibility to lead. Leaders at all levels are expected to provide direction, have ideas, have the ability to make decisions to keep forward movement of ideas, programs and issues. There are leaders in the no go zones. Engagement should start with them to assert the rules and values of the society in which the migrant populations live and interact with.

People argue that laws are not enforced in these zones and police too scared to enter them. I don't subscribe to that. I believe in many cases, police are obliged to act in a way that recognises the cultural sensitivities of these areas. Whether that is good or bad is another debate but I do not automatically say that this is a complete abrogation of the responsibility of law enforcement to enforce the laws.

Your anecdote is interesting and useful. It provides context. It provides scope for speculation, discussion and the exchange of ideas without stigmatising anyone. Clearly that girl was not being treated with dignity, the first of the UN Charter of Human Rights. Those who don't like her dress can object and protest but that should not deny her the natural dignity to which she is entitled. They also cannot prohibit her or others from having the freedom of movement or association because they object to her dress. Clearly there is no leadership in this context. No leaders have taken the time or effort to engage with groups in a way that communicates and reinforces the values of that host society.

I once saw a documentary, a few decades ago now and a journalist was driving a car through ultra-orthodox areas of Jerusalem on a Friday I think. I am not familiar with Jewish traditions. There are many in Australia but not in my state. They tend to have taken up residence in other states, so I had practically no experience of them. So forgive me if my recollections are hazy. Apparently on the sabbath, the Friday (?), all forms of work are forbidden by the ultra-orthodox including driving a car. So these guys in the suits and hats and representative hair styes were chasing this journalist and throwing stones at the car. I was quite fascinated by all this as I had almost no experience of such things in my protected rural idyll when growing up. I also read and saw documentaries about the no go zones for white people in Harlem and saw it referenced in the first Roger Moore James Bond movie Live and Let Die. Of course, I have since travelled to many places and seen for myself but the idea of no go zones are not new.

I think the idea of the muslim no go zone provides an opportunity for understanding and engagement but it is being used to taint the argument and this why I object to it.

I agree with you comment about the relationship between rights and responsibilities. I think this is inherent in my statements about leadership also. I don't think liberalism argues against responsibilities but I have referenced the notions of pro to-republicanism regarding civic duty in previous discussion. I will think further however about your question on how does liberalism deal with illiberalism.

I will also think further about your claim of colonisation. It is difficult to sort through the noise generated by fear and loathing. Islamic migrant populations will have an impact on their host cultures and the impact will be different for different cultures. Whether this is colonisation is something else and there is too much hysteria around for me to get a clear picture at this stage. Or maybe I am just slow but I cannot subscribe to this idea on what I have seen and heard so far. But I come from an immigrant nation so maybe see things differently.

[Mossfinn]

Ulysses G even claims to know more about the Northern Ireland peace process than those actually involved; like Peter Brooke, the Northern Ireland Secretary when the informal, and secret at the time, talks began between the UK government and Sinn Fein/IRA in 1990! (See here)

Umm, secret talks between the IRA and the UK Gov't were going on long before 1990.

[Mossfinn]

Pathetic that you both want to yet again drag this important thread off topic so you can have your childish digs at me!

Ulysses G even claims to know more about the Northern Ireland peace process than those actually involved; like Peter Brooke, the Northern Ireland Secretary when the informal, and secret at the time, talks began between the UK government and Sinn Fein/IRA in 1990! (See here)

Still, I suppose I should be flattered that you not only pay so much attention to my posts, but also have no other way of refuting them!

It is not necessary to refute facts which you make up and when you mis quote famous writers, merely to point out that you are incorrect. Some humility on your part when it comes to this might mean you do not attract so much attention.

I am not taking sides here because I do not know the extent of the previous squabbles, but myself and 7by7 have had head to heads in the past, and when wrong, he has made that clear.

However, I am not suggesting in any way that others do not, or that he is correct here, I would need to look deeper into the threads, and they appear to be rather long.

[Mossfinn]

As for secret talks between the IRA and the UK Gov't, search for the 'Mountain Climber' mid '70s, more precisely I think '73, however I could be a year or two out.

If you are really interested, the best commentator on Ireland in the past 30 years is Peter Taylor, look him up, completely impartial. and regarded with great respect from the Irish and British alike.

Or you could listen to John Major,

When he declared to the House of Commons in November 1993 that "to sit down and talk with Mr. Adams and the Provisional IRA... would turn my stomach",[

He was in full talks, but I reiterate, secret talks were going on in the early seventies.