| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On November 15 2015 03:56 Painmaker wrote: Yeah, preventing people from going from one place to another is doable... Just like fighting the tides is doable. That's totally doable, like Hungary did it alone while everyone was bashing them for it. A union wide mobilization would do wonderfully, since you only really need to guard Greece, Italy and maybe the black sea. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On November 15 2015 03:58 Falling wrote: Gaaaah. I find this attitude so frustrating. I get the anger in the wake of the violent attack. But I'm so grateful that Canada welcomed my Mennonite ancestors who 'deserted' communist Russia, as the ones who stayed behind were hauled off to the gulags. And there was significant suspicion in Canada that Ukrainian immigrants might be communist infiltrators, but the fear of those who fled was misplaced. We survived and integrated. It's ironic considering how harsh are Canadas conditions of emmigration | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote: Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Baseless percentage, baseless and stupid question. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote: Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. | ||
|
BlitzerSC
Italy8800 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote: Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. It will definetly stop some of them, which is better than stopping none. On November 15 2015 03:59 ImFromPortugal wrote: Guys islam won't disappear so i don't understand the need for this circlejerk ... lets debate solutions to this problem that is deeply rooted in french society. Buddy, I don't know where you lived in the past 15 years but this is not a problem of french society, but it's a problem of WESTERN society. | ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
On November 15 2015 03:50 ZeromuS wrote: Its basically saying not to paint all refugees. If refugees did do this, they weren't really refugees, they just abused the lack of coordination from the EU to deal with refugees to pull off the attacks. If the paris attacks have any bearing on the refugee crisis, its that the EU needs a properly coordinated and central approach to the issue. They need to support refugee access to the EU through some sort of channel, and some way to provide temporary residence while screening is enforced, with stronger border controls at the outside of the EU as opposed to the focus on internal border controls an an ad hoc country by country manner. But thats a seperate debate. I'm pretty sure that a lot of these "refugees" know within themselves who the terrorists among them are. They know which ones came to Europe to find better life and which ones came to fight a war.But they never tell. So when this "refugee" wave started a lot of people warned that many jihadist will enter EU hidden amongst the others... and now we have Paris. So they dont care about me, why should I care about them? | ||
Falling
Canada11520 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:00 Faust852 wrote: It's ironic considering how harsh are Canadas conditions of emmigration Oh Canada was very, very harsh in their immigration policy. East Europe immigrants were middle of the totem pole- lower in desirability than the Brits, and Germans, but higher than Africans, Jews, and Asians. The fact that we were given a chance, makes we want to see my own country give the Syrians refugees the same chance- my uncle is helping coordinate our community sponsor a family. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 15 2015 03:36 Rebs wrote: Your wrong and I will tell you why, you dont present someone with the idea that a religion needs reform or some sort of evolution by telling them that their are "bad parts" in it. As an outsider with little to no knowledge of religion in general (except perhaps any faith you might have grown up with) let alone Islam I can assure you that when you tell someone that ISIS did this and therefore it is a bad part of your religion you need to reform them you arent making a very good case. Its like me telling white people that White supremacists and right wing nutjobs are the bad part of white people and we should call them terrorists and talk about it. After all they have killed more north americans than ISIS has. ISIS mostly kills Muslims. Then again, I dont know about the subject so it would be stupid coming from me so even if thats true I wont sit here without the requisite information do some googling, or in Angry Mags case, google anti muslim websites. This thread is not debating the merits and demerits of religion in general or Islam in particular, but obviously its easy to shit or religion and then listen to people argue back at you about how all bad Muslims are sponsored by or created by western powers in cahoots with the Saudi's. Its the same discussion the same narrative and the same back and forth. This is not the place for it. This is for people to talk about the events of last evening whether it be on condemnation, support or updates. Thank you for your frustration. Let's take your example with White Supremacists, which we openly an legitimately hate. We can discuss the sources of their bullshit without being accused of anything. What does the WN stem from, what the problem is, what social issues we can try to tackle with which approaches and policies. Does the White Supremacist idea come from Christianity? Undoubtedly partially, you'll find that they're defending white christian values, family values and would probably try to spin it as a positive thing with those terms. Can we argue that some of those ills stem from an interpretation of Christianity and other such things? There are probably grounds for that. The same can be said about Islam. The religion itself might be fine, but in many cases it comes with an ideology that I find to be reprehensible. In both cases, you have to tiptoe around the debate, because people are so outrageously ticklish when it comes to religion that the overarching ideology and its effects can't be discussed thoroughly without everyone being extremely cautious. "Now is not the time to talk about this. You're racist. You're bigoted." This debate is off limits because we've decided that. People are arguing that Islam has NOTHING to do with anything because most Muslims are good people. And I think that if we want to open the debate, we have to first weed out the people who are only interested in hate, first - and then the people who have a political incentive to try to derail the debate by putting blinders on and just arguing that there is no link at all between Islam and these actions. From my perspective, this entire ordeal is one that needs to be tackled by smart people (unlike myself) who are willing to have the debate. Unfortunately, most of what comes out is the people who want violence on one hand, and the people who are so fed up with the people who want violence that they assume anybody who wants to discuss it has an ill intent. I don't think it's healthy. There is no other social debate in the world where you have a strong correlation where you have a correlation between a specific part Islam and terrorism, and the issue is so politically loaded that nobody can even talk about it. To put it in exceptionally stupid terms, we have this issue here which is toxic, and the simple fact of pointing at it causes people to act as if it doesn't exist, because it's so fucking toxic that poking at it causes shit to happen. So what of those of us who want to talk about this??? I think it's important. To me it seems like there's this extremely discussion that needs to be had but IT'S HARD and everyone's avoiding it. You and me both know that there's a highly complex problem. In my mind, you have to understand where it comes from to tackle it. If you continue to act as if one of its components cannot even be explored from an intellectual perspective, you're ensuring that the only option that will be available to tackle the issue, in people's minds, will always be violence, which has proven to be highly ineffective. You'll notice that right now it's the West's reaction. We'll do more violence... I think if we want to go beyond that, people need to fucking think, and that'll only be possible when we manage to evacuate the assholes who can only think in terms of hate, and the people who are so defensive they'll prevent the debate from taking place in the first place. | ||
yamato77
11589 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:02 mdb wrote: I'm pretty sure that a lot of these "refugees" know within themselves who the terrorists among them are. They know which ones came to Europe to find better life and which ones came to fight a war.But they never tell. So when this "refugee" wave started a lot of people warned that many jihadist will enter EU hidden amongst the others... and now we have Paris. So they dont care about me, why should I care about them? That's a baseless assumption. | ||
|
BlitzerSC
Italy8800 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:03 Falling wrote: Oh Canada was very, very harsh in their immigration policy. East Europe immigrants were middle of the totem pole- lower in desirability than the Brits, and Germans, but higher than Africans, Jews, and Asians. The fact that we were given a chance, makes we want to see my own country give the Syrians refugees the same chance- my uncle is helping coordinate our community sponsor a family. Does Canada come to Europe to pick up Syrians refugees or does it just wait for them to reach Canada? Because if it's the latter then you are just filtering the poor and the rich and we all know that richer people are happier and less prone to extremism compared to poorer people. Not exactly a noble way. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On November 15 2015 03:49 Saumure wrote: So our duty is to welcome the world's deserters? what do you mean by deserters? | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
Studies show that even if a minority, a vast number of mulsim support Sharia laws above Western laws, and a good portion have a really harsh mentality toward non believer. So yeah, some of them probably know and say nothing A 2013 survey based on interviews of 38,000 Muslims, randomly selected from urban and rural parts in 39 countries using area probability designs, by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that support for making sharia the official law of the land is very high in many Muslim-majority countries: Afghanistan (99%), Iraq (91%), Niger (86%), Malaysia (86%), Pakistan (84%), Morocco (83%), Bangladesh (82%), Egypt (74%), Indonesia (72%), Jordan (71%), Uganda (66%), Ethiopia (65%), Mali (63%), Ghana (58%), and Tunisia (56%).[176] In Muslim regions of Southern-Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the support is less than 50%: Russia (42%), Kyrgyzstan (35%), Tajikistan (27%), Kosovo (20%), Albania (12%), Turkey (12%), Azerbaijan (8%).[176] - wikipediaIn Muslim-majority countries and among Muslims who say sharia should be the law of the land, a percentage between 74% (Egypt) and 19% (Kazakhstan) want sharia law to apply to non-Muslims as well.[177] A 2008 YouGov poll in the United Kingdom found 40% of Muslim students interviewed wanted sharia in British law.[178] Since the 1970s, the Islamist movements have become prominent; their goals are the establishment of Islamic states and sharia not just within their own borders; their means are political in nature. The Islamist power base is the millions of poor, particularly urban poor moving into the cities from the countryside. They are not international in nature (one exception being the Muslim Brotherhood). Their rhetoric opposes western culture and western power.[179] Political groups wishing to return to more traditional Islamic values are the source of threat to Turkey's secular government.[179] These movements can be considered neo-Sharism.[180] | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12463 Posts
On November 15 2015 03:44 AngryMag wrote: Well then it unfortunately boils down to a disagreement. But what you are basically saying is that all these practices taking place in islamic countries with backing of islamic institutions (i mentioned Azhar university) are infact not compatible with islam. If that is your opinion it is fine with me, but I personally see that very differently. No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that what's written in a book doesn't matter. Your original point was that it did matter, and I argued against that. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote: Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shooting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shooting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:07 BlitzerSC wrote: Does Canada come to Europe to pick up Syrians refugees or does it just wait for them to reach Canada? Because if it's the latter then you are just filtering the poor and the rich and we all know that richer people are happier and less prone to extremism compared to poorer people. Not exactly a noble way. And if they pick the skilled one, that doesn't count too. But well, Canada isn't stupid is only picking skilled people when it comes to immigration. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:02 BlitzerSC wrote: It will definetly stop some of them, which is better than stopping none. Buddy, I don't know where you lived in the past 15 years but this is not a problem of french society, but it's a problem of WESTERN society. i live in Portugal buddy... so far so good. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote: I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. | ||
|
Meta
United States6226 Posts
It is Islamophobic to form prejudicial bias against all Muslims simply over which religion they were brainwashed into as children. Please refrain from alienating and dehumanizing Muslims because certain people interpret their scripture in such a way to justify atrocities. However, it is not Islamophobic to criticize legitimate Jihadist organizations that regularly carry out mass murder against innocent civilians in general. Whether or not this particular attack was carried out with theocratic militant motivations, many recent attacks look a lot like this, and actually are carried out by people with those motivations. Anybody who is willing to call out and attack the driving forces behind these attacks is not automatically bigoted, simply for pointing out and vehemently criticizing reasonably interpreted scriptural justification for such action. Such criticism should, of course, include a warm acknowledgement for the vast majority of Muslims who simply ignore or "reinterpret" those violent passages, to the good of all mankind, and not merely to save face. Liberal, secular, democratic Muslims are the key to ending this barbarism for all time, and that ideology needs to proliferate throughout the broad array of Muslim cultural groups. This is why you should not form prejudicial bias against Muslims in general. Furthermore, attempts to point towards socio-economic motivations for atrocities committed by Jihadists is itself Islamophobic. It sets a standard of low expectations for socially and economically oppressed Muslims. I thankfully haven't seen this argument as much as I used to. No socio-economic situation could ever cause any rational group of humans to massacre innocent people who have nothing to do with oppressive power structures. Therefore, even if such a situation did aide in the development of violent motivations, that situation did just as much work to stoke the flames as the innate irrationality of the worldviews of the perpetrators. Of course we'll have to "wait and see" who did it in this particular case, just like always, but if and when it turns out that it was a Jihadist/Islamist organization, what is the correct response? What was the correct response to Charlie Hebdo? Clearly whatever we did was not correct, and warrants reexamination. I'm pretty sure everyone in Paris and those who showed solidarity were aiming to prevent a repeat mass murder spree for at least the next year. What a tragic miss. But it was not as tragic of a miss as the American response to 9/11, which was at best a terrible and failed effort to end terrorism, and at worst a channel for fraudulent war profiteering. The worst outcome that I can think of in the immediate aftermath of this incident would be an end to refugee relocation from the war-torn regions. It would exacerbate the economic climate for human trafficking, which is an injustice in itself. But one must ask the question if allowing migration in such a volatile period is worth the perceived or real increase of risk of terror attacks. I think it is, but I can see the other side of the argument on this. There has got to be a more substantive response this time than changing your profile picture. It has to be less substantive than a full invasion. There is a middle ground here that will be effective, and it must include an alliance with moderate and liberal Muslims coupled with a propaganda war to espouse the values of secularism and democracy. Demonizing theocracy as the most evil societal structure since fascism and calling Islamism out for what it is has to be the first step. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote: Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... | ||
|
Saumure
France404 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:05 Djzapz wrote: Can we argue that some of those ills stem from an interpretation of Christianity and other such things? There are probably grounds for that. The same can be said about Islam. The religion itself might be fine, but in many cases it comes with an ideology that I find to be reprehensible. I am not an expert in white supremacy but e.g. the KKK was openly anti christian, as can be confirmed on wikipedia: It adopted a standard white costume (sales of which together with initiation fees financed the movement) and code words as the first Klan, while adding cross burnings and mass parades. It stressed opposition to the Catholic Church. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War EffOrt Dota 2 986Jaedong 759Mini  514ggaemo 303firebathero  239actioN 230Soulkey 221BeSt 155Hyuk 93Aegong 85[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games singsing2462 Grubby1469 FrodaN869 hiko790 B2W.Neo657 crisheroes292 Hui .206 KnowMe193 ArmadaUGS71 QueenE63 oskar50 Trikslyr49 |
|
GSL
Cure vs sOs
SHIN vs ByuN
Replay Cast
GSL
Classic vs Solar
GuMiho vs Zoun
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs SHIN
Rogue vs Bunny
BSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://3p3mq242g5jc2ki76r3wi6fq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Screen-Shot-2015-11-13-at-4.38.22-PM.png)
