WingsFan wrote:

Debating scriptures is a dead-end street when scriptures themselves are taken as absolute literal truth.

Not to mention the endless contradictions within those scriptures. You can choose to which absolute literal truth you wish to adhere.

L410Turbolet wrote:

He was quite explicit about his goals: "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..." This quote is from 1998. 22 years ago.

Look at it from the bright side, at least this statement makes mosques legitimate targets for law enforcement and the military.

Since the recent news were discussed in the old thread and a new one I have merged both threads into one.

marcelh wrote:

You have to understand why people radicalize. And the western (and US) foreign policy on the last decades hasn’t helped....

Take care not to try again to find culprits within attacked countries. It could be done when people where targeting the governments only with "nice" attacks.
What's happening now is a political project of islamic expansion. It doesn't come from nowhere, but rather from leaders like Erdogan and his peers. I know that it may sound crazy, but the goal is to impose the shariah in Europe.
Finding excuses to these people for years is precisely what drove us in this situation.

When people are angry against the US, or Europe they stay in their country and show their anger. When they enter the said countries or are even born in these countries and start attacking people for religious reasons, it has absolutely nothing to do with anger or resentment. It's an attempt to impose their religion.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

France needs to bring back the guillotine.

Irony much?

An eye for an eye as they say.

scbriml wrote:

WingsFan wrote:

Debating scriptures is a dead-end street when scriptures themselves are taken as absolute literal truth.

Not to mention the endless contradictions within those scriptures. You can choose to which absolute literal truth you wish to adhere.

I'm over recriminations and vendettas. I guess I'll just quietly be sad for the victims. France is almost a second home for me and where this happened is very close to where I am in Nice whenever I'm there.

I spent a while thinking if I'd reply to this thread or not.

Some questions about European border control should also (again) need to be asked & addressed. Some media is reporting this attacker recently landed on the Italian island of Lampedusa as a boat refugee. Apparently without a request for asylum & only after a Covid-19 quarantine period he was released and then travelled from Italy to France with little more then a Red Cross identity card.

Say his history could have truly been vetted during that quarantine period & there were no red flags in his history i am still left wondering how someone as a boat refugee with an unresolved status and who does not request asylum or asks to be taken by another country can just be released.

But unfortunately i think we all know boat refugees cause quite a strain and we face difficulties to manage it all with people also able to draw out their legal avenues & great difficulties to send back those that have found to be inadmissable. That's something that Europa as a whole should control quicker & more strict but i'll doubt that will change any time soon.

He is Tunisian so there shouldn't even be talks about asylum, Tunisia is a safe country.

marcelh wrote:

vrbarreto wrote:

Disgusting animals who should be dealt with severely.. The problem is how do you prevent it happening.. How do you stop large numbers of radicalised would be murderers simply going out and killing people whenever they perceive a slight? France must be one of the most secular countries in Western Europe but seems to bear the brunt of religious violence.

You have to understand why people radicalize. And the western (and US) foreign policy on the last decades hasn’t helped....

What sort of "Western foreign policy" caused people to radicalize? That Western societies are accepting immigrants or that western countries being against some anti humanitarian approach in some other countries?
Sound like the Chinese proverb, "If you give someone a meal, they would be thankful to you, but if you keep feeding him on, then you will become their enemy", that those sustained help given by western societies are being taken for granted, people become angry when those help from Western society can no longer satisfy their desire, and now see the helping hand as enemy for not giving them what they wanted

LabQuest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

France needs to bring back the guillotine.

Irony much?

An eye for an eye as they say.

An eye for an eye leaves mankind blind, as Gandhi would say.

sebolino wrote:

marcelh wrote:

You have to understand why people radicalize. And the western (and US) foreign policy on the last decades hasn’t helped....

What's happening now is a political project of islamic expansion. It doesn't come from nowhere, but rather from leaders like Erdogan and his peers. I know that it may sound crazy, but the goal is to impose the shariah in Europe.

In Western Europe, we have seen such political projects before: Far left (not the US "far"left) terrorist groups in the 1970s and 1980s who fought against capitalism. And guess what, capitalism is still around. Erdogan doesn't care about the islam, he's a nationalist who is using the islam for his own purpose; "MTGA" (Make Turkey Great Again).

France is in a specific situation while many muslim people has a 2nd or 3rd generation refugees from Algeria. As I understand it Algeria was not a standalone colony but part of France.

So these people in many cases shall be compared to a German Ost Preussen refugee now living in current Germany and not a India person living in UK.

I live in Northern New Jersey in the USA where there is a mix of race, ethnicity and religions, including Muslim that generally works. Yes, there is discrimination and self-selection by Muslims here to live close to each other for social and religious support, but we seem to have a mobility that France lacks as to its Muslim communities despite its national ideals. Many of France's Muslims come from its former territories and colonies, compounding the segregation. Many are poor and put into separate, mainly Muslim housing projects, in segregated public schools and limited employment opportunities. That sadly builds resentment by some, leading a few to acts of violence.in frustration and anger.

I don't know how France can deal with it, but for sure part must include respect for those of the Muslim faith including not display depictions of The Prophet much like displays of German Nazi symbols which is not tolerated and I believe generally illegal in France.

No.

Caricatures, including from nazi symbols are perfectly fine.

vrbarreto wrote:

France must be one of the most secular countries in Western Europe but seems to bear the brunt of religious violence.

This sentence should be a thread topic all by itself as its would initiate a debate more on the core fundamentals versus reactions to events.

ltbewr wrote:

I don't know how France can deal with it, but for sure part must include respect for those of the Muslim faith including not display depictions of The Prophet much like displays of German Nazi symbols which is not tolerated and I believe generally illegal in France.

Apology of nazism would be illegal, not showing pictures of Hitler. Showing pictures of a man with a beard is not punishable by law in France.
And in France, if something illegal is done, people go to trial, we don't behead them in the street. But maybe you find it normal ...

Please try to find more excuses, it will be very helpful.

ltbewr wrote:

I live in Northern New Jersey in the USA where there is a mix of race, ethnicity and religions, including Muslim that generally works.

The US got to cherry pick most of it’s Muslim population. That makes the situation incomparable with Europe where many Muslims just crossed to border illegally.

ltbewr wrote:

I don't know how France can deal with it, but for sure part must include respect for those of the Muslim faith including not display depictions of The Prophet much like displays of German Nazi symbols which is not tolerated and I believe generally illegal in France.

Religions tend not to respect nonbelievers and religions deserve no respect from others. It’s a set of ideas people are free to believe in, nothing more. It’s immoral to limit to freedom of nonbelievers just to appease those who believe. If Muslims can’t accept this they shouldn’t have been in Europe in the first place. I’m not moving to Saudi Arabia to advocate free speech either.

c933103 wrote:

What sort of "Western foreign policy" caused people to radicalize? That Western societies are accepting immigrants or that western countries being against some anti humanitarian approach in some other countries?

Seriously? Do you mean to imply that it's pure coincidence that so many radicals come out of impoverished countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.) that are more than even in part impoverished in the first place because of decades of invasions and interventions by foreign (predominantly Western) powers?

And accepting immigrants has absolutely nothing to do with whether those from an origin country will choose to radicalize. It's not as though the choice is 'come to America/Europe or stay here and join ISIS'.

Jetty wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

I live in Northern New Jersey in the USA where there is a mix of race, ethnicity and religions, including Muslim that generally works.

The US got to cherry pick most of it’s Muslim population. That makes the situation incomparable with Europe where many Muslims just crossed to border illegally.

ltbewr wrote:

I don't know how France can deal with it, but for sure part must include respect for those of the Muslim faith including not display depictions of The Prophet much like displays of German Nazi symbols which is not tolerated and I believe generally illegal in France.

Religions tend not to respect nonbelievers and religions deserve no respect from others. It’s a set of ideas people are free to believe in, nothing more. It’s immoral to limit to freedom of nonbelievers just to appease those who believe. If Muslims can’t accept this they shouldn’t have been in Europe in the first place. I’m not moving to Saudi Arabia to advocate free speech either.

Here here. Great post.

winginit wrote:

c933103 wrote:

What sort of "Western foreign policy" caused people to radicalize? That Western societies are accepting immigrants or that western countries being against some anti humanitarian approach in some other countries?

Seriously? Do you mean to imply that it's pure coincidence that so many radicals come out of impoverished countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.) that are more than even in part impoverished in the first place because of decades of invasions and interventions by foreign (predominantly Western) powers?

Military conflict cause poverty which helps radicalism gain ground
But I do not believe Western intervention is source of these military conflicts or source of these poverty.
Like in Afghanistan, would you say it is the fault of Western countries that the government there still isn't able to control their entire country with many places still in the hand of Taliban?
Or in Iraq, where while the situation wasn't as stable as two decades ago, yet except places being conquered by extremist forces, in most places the economic indicators have been improving over the past two decades?
Or in Saudi, where radical idea have significant followers but their country isn't particularly involved in poverty or western conflicts?
Or Tunisia where attack of one of the latest incident come from?
Or Chechen, origin of offender of this post's theme case, are you going to say that's caused by the West?

Sorry guys, but stop trying to find some rational causes.
The problem is religion, I'm sorry to say that, but it is.

c933103 wrote:

But I do not believe Western intervention is source of these military conflicts or source of these poverty.

Western intervention, which has been almost exclusively military intervention, is not the source of military conflicts? ... right.

c933103 wrote:

Like in Afghanistan, would you say it is the fault of Western countries that the government there still isn't able to control their entire country with many places still in the hand of Taliban?

Yes, obviously, because that conflict is in and of itself a proxy cold war and has been for decades

c933103 wrote:

Or in Iraq, where while the situation wasn't as stable as two decades ago, yet except places being conquered by extremist forces, in most places the economic indicators have been improving over the past two decades?

Again yes. Iraq was far more stable under Saddam. No one will for a second deny that.

c933103 wrote:

Or in Saudi, where radical idea have significant followers but their country isn't particularly involved in poverty or western conflicts?

To say that Saudi Arabia is not involved in western conflicts is comical. They're the source of conflicts (Yemen, for example) that the west involves themselves in. So again, yes.

c933103 wrote:

Or Tunisia where attack of one of the latest incident come from?

Tunisia is currently a stable, relatively peaceful, and comparatively contemporary nation for the region. It has also been without notable intervention. It's almost as if there's a correlation there.

c933103 wrote:

Or Chechen, origin of offender of this post's theme case, are you going to say that's caused by the West?

Of course, it is well documented that Chechens are in many ways aligned with the Taliban, who exist as a consequence of the proxy war in Afghanistan between the US and Russia.

Finally, so much of the inherit tension in the Middle East is a consequence of the armed powers within the region: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iran. All three of them exist in their current states of influence as a direct consequence of, you guessed it, intervention. Predominantly from the US but also Russia.

Aesma wrote:

He is Tunisian so there shouldn't even be talks about asylum, Tunisia is a safe country.

Then where is the problem? Don't tell me France has no means to force countries like Tunisia, Morocco, or Senegal into minimal compliance such as prompt acceptance of their failed asylum seekers.
The terrorist who killed 12 people in Berlin just before Christmas in 2016 was also from Tunisia, also passed through Lampedusa (where he participated in riots setting the camp ablaze and was in jail for that), Tunisia refused to accept him and despite being in Italian jails for years he managed to file for asylum in Germany.
I think it must be extremely frustrating (not only) to relatives of those who lost their lives to muslim terrorism 1, 2, 5, 10 years watch the authorities learning no lessons from their past failures what so ever.

winginit wrote:

c933103 wrote:

But I do not believe Western intervention is source of these military conflicts or source of these poverty.

Western intervention, which has been almost exclusively military intervention, is not the source of military conflicts? ... right.

c933103 wrote:

Like in Afghanistan, would you say it is the fault of Western countries that the government there still isn't able to control their entire country with many places still in the hand of Taliban?

Yes, obviously, because that conflict is in and of itself a proxy cold war and has been for decades

c933103 wrote:

Or in Iraq, where while the situation wasn't as stable as two decades ago, yet except places being conquered by extremist forces, in most places the economic indicators have been improving over the past two decades?

Again yes. Iraq was far more stable under Saddam. No one will for a second deny that.

c933103 wrote:

Or in Saudi, where radical idea have significant followers but their country isn't particularly involved in poverty or western conflicts?

To say that Saudi Arabia is not involved in western conflicts is comical. They're the source of conflicts (Yemen, for example) that the west involves themselves in. So again, yes.

c933103 wrote:

Or Tunisia where attack of one of the latest incident come from?

Tunisia is currently a stable, relatively peaceful, and comparatively contemporary nation for the region. It has also been without notable intervention. It's almost as if there's a correlation there.

c933103 wrote:

Or Chechen, origin of offender of this post's theme case, are you going to say that's caused by the West?

Of course, it is well documented that Chechens are in many ways aligned with the Taliban, who exist as a consequence of the proxy war in Afghanistan between the US and Russia.

Finally, so much of the inherit tension in the Middle East is a consequence of the armed powers within the region: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iran. All three of them exist in their current states of influence as a direct consequence of, you guessed it, intervention. Predominantly from the US but also Russia.

Those tensions existed even without any Western influence.
What you are saying is like saying WWII wouldn't happen if we simply let Nazi Germany take over the Europe
Was the United States bad for helping the Allies to defend against Germany eighty years ago?
Afterall the tension wouldn't exists if they just let Germany take them all

ltbewr wrote:

I live in Northern New Jersey in the USA where there is a mix of race, ethnicity and religions, including Muslim that generally works. Yes, there is discrimination and self-selection by Muslims here to live close to each other for social and religious support, but we seem to have a mobility that France lacks as to its Muslim communities despite its national ideals. Many of France's Muslims come from its former territories and colonies, compounding the segregation. Many are poor and put into separate, mainly Muslim housing projects, in segregated public schools and limited employment opportunities. That sadly builds resentment by some, leading a few to acts of violence.in frustration and anger.

I don't know how France can deal with it, but for sure part must include respect for those of the Muslim faith including not display depictions of The Prophet much like displays of German Nazi symbols which is not tolerated and I believe generally illegal in France.

I'm not sure what you mean by displays ? Charlie Hebdo is a paper (doesn't even have a proper website), covered by the freedom of the press. Displaying something, like at the front of your house, isn't covered by this. In fact recently people had to remove displays attacking the president they had put on their house, whereas the same thing in the press (or facebook...) wouldn't be illegal. A display can be banned because it is causing a stir.

Incidentally, many of the rules Muslims follow these days are new rules invented by "savants" here and there (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran...). The religion is evolving, not in the right direction, and we shouldn't encourage that. It only leads to more suffering for the Muslim people. Most of them live in not very democratic places, and the leaders stay in power by touting their religiosity, meanwhile their countries' economies stagnate.

olle wrote:

France is in a specific situation while many muslim people has a 2nd or 3rd generation refugees from Algeria. As I understand it Algeria was not a standalone colony but part of France.

So these people in many cases shall be compared to a German Ost Preussen refugee now living in current Germany and not a India person living in UK.

No. Refugees from Algeria are mainly Pieds-Noirs, "colons" if you wish that had to leave when the Algerian war of independence was lost. They're of European descent. Some local Algerians fled with them, the Harkis, as they had fought on France's behalf.

The vast majority of Algerians and their descendants living in France today came to live and work, not as refugees. More came after Algerian independence than before...

To this day there is still a bilateral accord between the countries facilitating Algerian immigration to France, which in my opinion makes no sense. Even without it, immigration would continue, as many French with Algerian roots will take an Algerian spouse, so that's one immigrant, then that spouse can get his/her family in through family reunification.

Again I don't know what the solution is, but I've been reading on the US green card lottery, and I noticed that who got one in the previous years (by country) has an impact on who can get one in the future from the same country, it makes perfect sense to me.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Aesma wrote:

He is Tunisian so there shouldn't even be talks about asylum, Tunisia is a safe country.

Then where is the problem? Don't tell me France has no means to force countries like Tunisia, Morocco, or Senegal into minimal compliance such as prompt acceptance of their failed asylum seekers.
The terrorist who killed 12 people in Berlin just before Christmas in 2016 was also from Tunisia, also passed through Lampedusa (where he participated in riots setting the camp ablaze and was in jail for that), Tunisia refused to accept him and despite being in Italian jails for years he managed to file for asylum in Germany.
I think it must be extremely frustrating (not only) to relatives of those who lost their lives to muslim terrorism 1, 2, 5, 10 years watch the authorities learning no lessons from their past failures what so ever.

I don't know what the problem is exactly, I don't support far right parties and don't want them to get power, so regular parties must really tackle situations like this. In this case it's Italy who should have sent him back (Italy where the far right is strong...). Italy is right though to be asking for EU help over this. Part of the solution would probably be to build better facilities on Lampedusa, though.

Really gross we are allowing myths from 1000s of years ago, when people did not even wash their hands, and thought the Earth was flat, to dictate what is going on in today’s world. Religion does seem to be a mental illness or just a type of drug that people use to get through the day. It is affecting the rest of us though who reject using mythology to guide our lives.

Aesma wrote:

I don't support far right parties and don't want them to get power, so regular parties must really tackle situations like this.

So far the mainstream seems to be offering EUropean version of "thoughts and prayers", not much else.

Aesma wrote:

Italy is right though to be asking for EU help over this. Part of the solution would probably be to build better facilities on Lampedusa, though.

Italy is only asking for perpetuation of the problem. Mere 5 weeks ago the rejection of the idea of migrant processing centers outside European has been hailed (by the usual suspects) as a great success.
How would facilities at Lampedusa affect the chronic problem with getting rid of (at least) failed asylum seekers?

c933103 wrote:

winginit wrote:

c933103 wrote:

But I do not believe Western intervention is source of these military conflicts or source of these poverty.

Western intervention, which has been almost exclusively military intervention, is not the source of military conflicts? ... right.

c933103 wrote:

Like in Afghanistan, would you say it is the fault of Western countries that the government there still isn't able to control their entire country with many places still in the hand of Taliban?

Yes, obviously, because that conflict is in and of itself a proxy cold war and has been for decades

c933103 wrote:

Or in Iraq, where while the situation wasn't as stable as two decades ago, yet except places being conquered by extremist forces, in most places the economic indicators have been improving over the past two decades?

Again yes. Iraq was far more stable under Saddam. No one will for a second deny that.

c933103 wrote:

Or in Saudi, where radical idea have significant followers but their country isn't particularly involved in poverty or western conflicts?

To say that Saudi Arabia is not involved in western conflicts is comical. They're the source of conflicts (Yemen, for example) that the west involves themselves in. So again, yes.

c933103 wrote:

Or Tunisia where attack of one of the latest incident come from?

Tunisia is currently a stable, relatively peaceful, and comparatively contemporary nation for the region. It has also been without notable intervention. It's almost as if there's a correlation there.

c933103 wrote:

Or Chechen, origin of offender of this post's theme case, are you going to say that's caused by the West?

Of course, it is well documented that Chechens are in many ways aligned with the Taliban, who exist as a consequence of the proxy war in Afghanistan between the US and Russia.

Finally, so much of the inherit tension in the Middle East is a consequence of the armed powers within the region: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iran. All three of them exist in their current states of influence as a direct consequence of, you guessed it, intervention. Predominantly from the US but also Russia.

Those tensions existed even without any Western influence.
What you are saying is like saying WWII wouldn't happen if we simply let Nazi Germany take over the Europe
Was the United States bad for helping the Allies to defend against Germany eighty years ago?
Afterall the tension wouldn't exists if they just let Germany take them all

A ridiculous straw man, but to entertain you, a better comparison would be if after WWII we'd simply let Germany and Japan (and broader Europe) sit in smoldering piles of rubble instead of dedicating a truly breathtaking amount of resources towards their rebuilding and thus long term stability.

Yes, tensions would continue to exist in the Middle East (largely as a consequence of the Sunni vs. Shia divide) without Western intervention, but the poverty that has devolved the entire region (apart from Saudi Arabia and to an extent Israel) and directly lead to terrorist groups filling power gaps is the direct consequence of Western intervention. To deny that is absurd.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Italy is right though to be asking for EU help over this. Part of the solution would probably be to build better facilities on Lampedusa, though.

Italy is only asking for perpetuation of the problem. Mere 5 weeks ago the rejection of the idea of migrant processing centers outside European has been hailed (by the usual suspects) as a great success.
How would facilities at Lampedusa affect the chronic problem with getting rid of (at least) failed asylum seekers?

Well their asylum requests should be processed while they stay there. Especially if they're from safe countries and have thus 0 chance of getting asylum.

winginit wrote:

A ridiculous straw man, but to entertain you, a better comparison would be if after WWII we'd simply let Germany and Japan (and broader Europe) sit in smoldering piles of rubble instead of dedicating a truly breathtaking amount of resources towards their rebuilding and thus long term stability.

Yes, tensions would continue to exist in the Middle East (largely as a consequence of the Sunni vs. Shia divide) without Western intervention, but the poverty that has devolved the entire region (apart from Saudi Arabia and to an extent Israel) and directly lead to terrorist groups filling power gaps is the direct consequence of Western intervention. To deny that is absurd.

After WWII resources from the US indeed helped economic recovwry of the both region, but as we can see from places like Korea and China and East Germany where further war and instability have dealt additional damage to those countries after WWII and have not received much additional resources from external source, it take them some times but they can still set themselves on a good recovery and growth projectile.
As for poverty in the Middle East region? The entire world are already spending tons of money to buy oil from them. Any poverty problem in the region is a problem of injustice in the region rather than lack of resource.

c933103 wrote:

After WWII resources from the US indeed helped economic recovwry of the both region, but as we can see from places like Korea and China and East Germany where further war and instability have dealt additional damage to those countries after WWII and have not received much additional resources from external source.

... seriously? No.

From 1953 to 1962, U.S. aid to South Korea averaged sixty-three percent of total imports. Not only did Russia invest heavily in East Germany after WWII, but the U.S. picked up the mantle immediately upon reunification. The China story is obvious, where almost immediately after Nixon's visit to the country in the early 1970s, both U.S. and European factories poured into the country.

You'd benefit from a very basic global economic history book.

Thread has gone off topic.