Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On November 14 2015 22:45 Sent. wrote: I purposely used that simplification and I'm aware that there are better ways of dealing with terrorism. I'm also not trying to blame all muslims for those attacks. I'm looking to find a flaw in a "no muslims, no muslim terrorism" reasoning, regardless of how stupid it sounds. Please keep in mind I'm not calling for any expulsions or anything like that, I'm thinking about countries with little to no muslims like Switzerland.
How about Malaysia or Indonesia? The latter is in fact the largest muslim-dominant country in the world, and violence there tends to be motivated by politics rather than religion. The former is actually quite peaceful, even though fundamentalist Islam is definitely on the rise there as well.
Between 1963 and 1983 150 000 christian Papua were killed. Today muslimic settlers and the military still kill papuas.
Since 2008 the Ahmadiyya movement is not allowed to practice their religion openly, the government is pushing for a total ban.
In 16 provinces the sharia is the basis of the law including public caning for such crimes as kissing publically.
In Tangerang women are forbidden to walk on the street alone after 7 pm.
The province Aceh is ruled by a terrorist group.
The government of Indonesia is trying to appease these idiots and it won't work as they have exactly zero interest in any kind of compromise. The government will make concession after concession and the moment they'll stop the attacks will start again until Indonesia gets ruled completely by sharia law. Indonesia is a bad example.
I should specify I meant countries with christian/atheist majorities which don't bomb muslim countries every year. But that's not my point. I'm NOT trying to attack islam here, I meant to discuss policies of certain countries in Europe and did pretty badly at explaining my thoughts. I posted what I posted in this thread instead of Parisian thread because I was thinking about muslim unfriendly European governments like Slovakian (their PM said they dont want muslim refugees from Syria but had no problem with taking in christians), Hungarian (Orban) or Swiss (banning minarets). I'll stop posting about this situation before it will get me banned.
On November 15 2015 02:51 Sent. wrote: I should specify I meant countries with christian/atheist majorities which don't bomb muslim countries every year. But that's not my point. I'm NOT trying to attack islam here, I meant to discuss policies of certain countries in Europe and did pretty badly at explaining my thoughts. I posted what I posted in this thread instead of Parisian thread because I was thinking about muslim unfriendly European governments like Slovakian (their PM said they dont want muslim refugees from Syria but had no problem with taking in christians), Hungarian (Orban) or Swiss (banning minarets). I'll stop posting about this situation before it will get me banned.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that the muslims living in countries with Christian or atheist majorities tend to be minorities who are overrepresented in poverty and unemployment statistics. Basically we let them come over about fifty to sixty years ago as guest workers (to do work we didn't want to do ourselves, i.e. low-skilled labour). Initially the plan was to not let them stay permanently, but we let stay anyway.
Now, since they were manual labourers often coming from disadvantaged areas in their home countries as well (mainly rural areas) they did not have much in terms of formal education. Neither did they consider it very important for their offspring (I can only speak for Belgium, but universities tend to be filled with people from non-migrant backgrounds even though the price of entry into higher education is very affordable). This of course has become problematic since manual labour, while in high supply, is in increasingly low demand. On top of that there is a certain degree of hidden discrimination. It's not a giant leap of the imagination to see that the younger offspring of those guest worker families feel locked out from society and seek acceptance somewhere.
On November 15 2015 02:51 Sent. wrote: I should specify I meant countries with christian/atheist majorities which don't bomb muslim countries every year. But that's not my point. I'm NOT trying to attack islam here, I meant to discuss policies of certain countries in Europe and did pretty badly at explaining my thoughts. I posted what I posted in this thread instead of Parisian thread because I was thinking about muslim unfriendly European governments like Slovakian (their PM said they dont want muslim refugees from Syria but had no problem with taking in christians), Hungarian (Orban) or Swiss (banning minarets). I'll stop posting about this situation before it will get me banned.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that the muslims living in countries with Christian or atheist majorities tend to be minorities who are overrepresented in poverty and unemployment statistics. Basically we let them come over about fifty to sixty years ago as guest workers (to do work we didn't want to do ourselves, i.e. low-skilled labour). Initially the plan was to not let them stay permanently, but we let stay anyway.
Now, since they were manual labourers often coming from disadvantaged areas in their home countries as well (mainly rural areas) they did not have much in terms of formal education. Neither did they consider it very important for their offspring (I can only speak for Belgium, but universities tend to be filled with people from non-migrant backgrounds even though the price of entry into higher education is very affordable). This of course has become problematic since manual labour, while in high supply, is in increasingly low demand. On top of that there is a certain degree of hidden discrimination. It's not a giant leap of the imagination to see that the younger offspring of those guest worker families feel locked out from society and seek acceptance somewhere.
Then how come I don't see many Chinese immigrants exploding themselves on the streets? They do nasty jobs too, but they seem to integrate better and do just fine.
On November 15 2015 02:51 Sent. wrote: I should specify I meant countries with christian/atheist majorities which don't bomb muslim countries every year. But that's not my point. I'm NOT trying to attack islam here, I meant to discuss policies of certain countries in Europe and did pretty badly at explaining my thoughts. I posted what I posted in this thread instead of Parisian thread because I was thinking about muslim unfriendly European governments like Slovakian (their PM said they dont want muslim refugees from Syria but had no problem with taking in christians), Hungarian (Orban) or Swiss (banning minarets). I'll stop posting about this situation before it will get me banned.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that the muslims living in countries with Christian or atheist majorities tend to be minorities who are overrepresented in poverty and unemployment statistics. Basically we let them come over about fifty to sixty years ago as guest workers (to do work we didn't want to do ourselves, i.e. low-skilled labour). Initially the plan was to not let them stay permanently, but we let stay anyway.
Now, since they were manual labourers often coming from disadvantaged areas in their home countries as well (mainly rural areas) they did not have much in terms of formal education. Neither did they consider it very important for their offspring (I can only speak for Belgium, but universities tend to be filled with people from non-migrant backgrounds even though the price of entry into higher education is very affordable). This of course has become problematic since manual labour, while in high supply, is in increasingly low demand. On top of that there is a certain degree of hidden discrimination. It's not a giant leap of the imagination to see that the younger offspring of those guest worker families feel locked out from society and seek acceptance somewhere.
Is that really true? I don't know much about Europe (EU specifically) granted but I definitely find it hard to believe there's an excess of unskilled workers.
On November 15 2015 02:51 Sent. wrote: I should specify I meant countries with christian/atheist majorities which don't bomb muslim countries every year. But that's not my point. I'm NOT trying to attack islam here, I meant to discuss policies of certain countries in Europe and did pretty badly at explaining my thoughts. I posted what I posted in this thread instead of Parisian thread because I was thinking about muslim unfriendly European governments like Slovakian (their PM said they dont want muslim refugees from Syria but had no problem with taking in christians), Hungarian (Orban) or Swiss (banning minarets). I'll stop posting about this situation before it will get me banned.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that the muslims living in countries with Christian or atheist majorities tend to be minorities who are overrepresented in poverty and unemployment statistics. Basically we let them come over about fifty to sixty years ago as guest workers (to do work we didn't want to do ourselves, i.e. low-skilled labour). Initially the plan was to not let them stay permanently, but we let stay anyway.
Now, since they were manual labourers often coming from disadvantaged areas in their home countries as well (mainly rural areas) they did not have much in terms of formal education. Neither did they consider it very important for their offspring (I can only speak for Belgium, but universities tend to be filled with people from non-migrant backgrounds even though the price of entry into higher education is very affordable). This of course has become problematic since manual labour, while in high supply, is in increasingly low demand. On top of that there is a certain degree of hidden discrimination. It's not a giant leap of the imagination to see that the younger offspring of those guest worker families feel locked out from society and seek acceptance somewhere.
Is that really true? I don't know much about Europe (EU specifically) granted but I definitely find it hard to believe there's an excess of unskilled workers.
There is a massive excess of unskilled labor thats why the refugee will benefit society is almost completely invalid. Also please dont forgot that a quite alot of IS joiners/terrorist (from Germany at least) were university educated from a middle class background (also can personally attest that education does not seem to help here since I hung out with some Morrocans at university a few times, who basically only talked about how americans and jews need to be killed).
The poverty breeds terrorism thing that occasionally crops up makes little to no sense, as the Arab world is richer than many other areas and they are not even the poorest group in countries they are a minority.
On November 15 2015 02:51 Sent. wrote: I should specify I meant countries with christian/atheist majorities which don't bomb muslim countries every year. But that's not my point. I'm NOT trying to attack islam here, I meant to discuss policies of certain countries in Europe and did pretty badly at explaining my thoughts. I posted what I posted in this thread instead of Parisian thread because I was thinking about muslim unfriendly European governments like Slovakian (their PM said they dont want muslim refugees from Syria but had no problem with taking in christians), Hungarian (Orban) or Swiss (banning minarets). I'll stop posting about this situation before it will get me banned.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that the muslims living in countries with Christian or atheist majorities tend to be minorities who are overrepresented in poverty and unemployment statistics. Basically we let them come over about fifty to sixty years ago as guest workers (to do work we didn't want to do ourselves, i.e. low-skilled labour). Initially the plan was to not let them stay permanently, but we let stay anyway.
Now, since they were manual labourers often coming from disadvantaged areas in their home countries as well (mainly rural areas) they did not have much in terms of formal education. Neither did they consider it very important for their offspring (I can only speak for Belgium, but universities tend to be filled with people from non-migrant backgrounds even though the price of entry into higher education is very affordable). This of course has become problematic since manual labour, while in high supply, is in increasingly low demand. On top of that there is a certain degree of hidden discrimination. It's not a giant leap of the imagination to see that the younger offspring of those guest worker families feel locked out from society and seek acceptance somewhere.
Then how come I don't see many Chinese immigrants exploding themselves on the streets? They do nasty jobs too, but they seem to integrate better and do just fine.
Because its really hard to get from China to Europe, so only those with sufficient 'drive' are able to get there. (you still need drive to get from N. Africa/Middle East to Europe, but not as much)
The average immigrant is a better citizen than the average person in the country they left. That difference decreases as it gets easier and easier to move. (in the US, the average Muslim/Middle Eastern immigrants integrates better than the average Mexican immigrant. In Europe, I would guess the opposite would hold)
On November 15 2015 07:46 cLutZ wrote: The poverty breeds terrorism thing that occasionally crops up makes little to no sense, as the Arab world is richer than many other areas and they are not even the poorest group in countries they are a minority.
There is plenty of poverty in 'rich' arab countries. It isn't so much poverty as a sense of being wronged.
I am not a big fan of Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, but what he said on German television was spot on: "The goal of these attacks were not the authorities, the public representatives or its institutions, but ordinary people. Like President Hollande said: We are all of the target of IS. Because Europe has a concept of tolerance, respect and common values that is the exact opposite of what this dull Islamic terrorism wants to achieve.
The people who are fleeing from Syria, who come to us, are fleeing from the same terror. What happened in Paris is everyday life in Aleppo. And now making the refugees from these regions responsible, blaming them for the terror, means turning victims into perpetrators. That is the last thing we should do. We have bring order to the refugee crisis, no question about it. But painting victims of this terror as perpetrators is wrongest thing we could do."
On November 15 2015 16:42 lord_nibbler wrote: I am not a big fan of Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, but what he said on German television was spot on: "The goal of these attacks were not the authorities, the public representatives or its institutions, but ordinary people. Like President Hollande said: We are all of the target of IS. Because Europe has a concept of tolerance, respect and common values that is the exact opposite of what this dull Islamic terrorism wants to achieve.
The people who are fleeing from Syria, who come to us, are fleeing from the same terror. What happened in Paris is everyday life in Aleppo. And now making the refugees from these regions responsible, blaming them for the terror, means turning victims into perpetrators. That is the last thing we should do. We have bring order to the refugee crisis, no question about it. But painting victims of this terror as perpetrators is wrongest thing we could do."
Totally correct. What we should do however is what happened to the Swedish national church who got completely neutered from the 50s-60s onward.
We have a university program for becoming a priest and we should do exactly the same for Islam. Naturally with a curriculum that has the same high amount of gender equality and that removes parts that preach hate or discrimination. Female Imams? Yes. Gay weddings? Yes.
Non certified Imams are not allowed to preach or at the very least their mosques won't get any public support.
Basically just as protestant Christianity water it down from vodka strength to bud light until it fits nicely in an open democratic society.
On November 15 2015 16:42 lord_nibbler wrote: I am not a big fan of Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, but what he said on German television was spot on: "The goal of these attacks were not the authorities, the public representatives or its institutions, but ordinary people. Like President Hollande said: We are all of the target of IS. Because Europe has a concept of tolerance, respect and common values that is the exact opposite of what this dull Islamic terrorism wants to achieve.
The people who are fleeing from Syria, who come to us, are fleeing from the same terror. What happened in Paris is everyday life in Aleppo. And now making the refugees from these regions responsible, blaming them for the terror, means turning victims into perpetrators. That is the last thing we should do. We have bring order to the refugee crisis, no question about it. But painting victims of this terror as perpetrators is wrongest thing we could do."
What does Aleppo has to do with what happened in Paris ? Why not talking about some african country, why not gaza ? It doesn't mean much, there's tragedy everywhere, the only thing we can do is face them one by one, but why is it that some people feel like it is relevant to point out that there's more tragic situation somewhere else. We're supposed to dance because we're not in Aleppo ?
And I'm happy to hear that it can happen everywhere and to all of us, I thought the people dying lived in Paris. Schultz is part of "ordinary people" now ? Seriously this dramatization and those silly emotional arguments are boring. Those politicians that talk and talk are insignifiant being facing historic events, and repeating over and over the same discourse like a mantra.
Since you began your post with asking why he would talk about Aleppo, you obviously have not understood his words. Please read again, it is not that hard to grasp...
On November 15 2015 21:22 lord_nibbler wrote: Since you began your post with asking why he would talk about Aleppo, you obviously have not understood his words. Please read again, it is not that hard to grasp...
And I'm telling you it is irrelevant. What happened in Paris will not dictate our behavior towards Africa, towards Gaza, why should it dictate our behavior toward Syrian ?
The European Commission has decided to refer the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Sweden to the Court of Justice of the EU over failure to transpose legislation on Bank Recovery and Resolution (BRRD).
This Directive (2014/59/EU) is a centre-piece of the regulatory framework that was put in place to create a safer and sounder financial sector in the wake of the financial crisis. It is also important for the EU's Banking Union. The new BRRD rules equip national authorities with the necessary tools and powers to mitigate and manage the distress or failure of banks or large investment firms in all EU Member States. The objective is to ensure that banks on the verge of insolvency can be restructured without taxpayers having to pay for failing banks to safeguard financial stability. To this end, they provide inter alia for shareholders and creditors of the banks to pay their share of the costs through a "bail-in" mechanism. It is crucially important that such rules are in place in all Member States. The deadline for the transposition of these rules into national law was 31 December 2014 (IP/14/2862).
The Commission sent a reasoned opinion to 11 EU Member States on 28 May 2015 (IP/15/5057), asking them to transpose the BRRD. As full transposition of the new rules did not occur in six EU Member States, they are now being referred to the Court.
Referrals to the Court imply the imposition of, at least, a daily penalty payment until full transposition has taken place. The amount of such penalties are calculated in a way that takes into account the payment capacity, the duration and degree of seriousness of the infringement of the Member State concerned. The Commission can decide to withdraw this case in the event that a Member State implements the EU rules in question.
it's something similar(but worse because it requires besides the central/national banks being in on it, the creation(establishment) of other bank-like institutions, payed by said nations via contributions but ruled by Brussels, to coordinate this deal)) to what happened in Cyprus(a bail-in), imposed on EU member states.
The EU has formally presented to the US its proposal for a reformed approach on investment protection and a new and more transparent system for resolving disputes between investors and states: the Investment Court System.
The European Commission has today finalised its new and reformed approach on investment protection and investment dispute resolution for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). This follows another round of extensive consultations with the Council and the European Parliament. The proposal for the Investment Court System has been formally transmitted to the United States and has been made public.
the beginning of the text made public: NOTE: The EU reserves the right to make subsequent modifications to this text and to complement its proposals at a later stage, by modifying, supplementing or withdrawing all, or any part, at any time, is funny.
Faced with criticism from both the right and the left in Israel and the United States, the European Union claims its action is merely “technical,” rather than politically motivated or punitive. Yet this is belied by the fact that the measure comes in response to explicitly political demands for labeling by some member states’ foreign ministers, as well as anti-Israel NGOs.
In fact, the labeling controversy must be viewed as just one step in a broader, purposeful and gradual escalation of anti-Israel measures by the European Union. Two years ago, the commission promulgated a regulation that barred spending money on Israeli academic, scientific or cultural projects in the West Bank or Golan Heights. Then the union began refusing to allow imports of certain Israeli agricultural products. Last year, 15 European states issued warnings, alerting people to unspecified legal dangers of interacting with Israeli settlements. These steps, while supposedly motivated by what the European Union sees as Israel’s occupation of territory, have been applied only to Israel, and not to other countries regarded as occupiers in international law, such as Morocco or Turkey.
Having warned about settlement products, the European Union is now labeling them. Diplomats in Brussels and NGOs have made clear that more coercive measures will follow. In this context, labeling is important not in its immediate economic effects but as a highly visible step in a conscious process of building a legal ghetto around Israel, within which a special set of rules applies.
What has largely escaped notice is that the labeling policy violates the European Union’s own express policy on such issues. The commission primarily justifies labeling as a necessary tool to provide consumers with the information that it does not regard the territories “as part of Israel.” However, European Union and national authorities that have addressed the issue have clearly ruled that special labeling is not required in such situations — neither for consumer protection nor to reflect the European Union’s view of the underlying sovereign status of territories. ... Making special rules for Israel has the undesired effect of reducing Israel’s incentives to take international law seriously: If the goal posts can be moved, there is less reason to play the game. As a putative role model for international law, the European Union’s greatest weapon is its probity and consistency. By damaging that, it harms its ability to set the global agenda.
World is going crazy and we in the west are blind. 20 years I give it, then paradise Europe that lasted for over 60 years will be gone. In 15 years they have managed to ruin the world.
the west is not blind, it just split between US+pro israelis and Germany+pro russians(it's more like tough love here but it's there). east EU is their playground and the countries just sued at the EU justice court have their finances controlled by US+pro israelis side.
Meanwhile in Spain (at least) 16 churches will preach on the anniversary of the deceased dictator Francisco Franco.
Can somebody imagine this bs happening nowadays in Italy with Mussolini or in Germany with Hitler? Franco's war against the spanish republic got about 300k people dead.
EPT
