Shooting reported at Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo

[Togo]

1) Your understanding of the world is way off base. Extractive industries benefit the countries they are in, although if the local government is bad enough that benefit may be concentrated almost totally in a small group.

Hmm... One of the jobs my old consulting company got was an emergency training session for a group of Mining Exces. The brief was that they had had an 'unfortunate incident' with some indiginous peoples, and needed some 'cultural sensitivity training'. When we did a little digging, it turned out this was code for being caught attempting genocide. Fortunately for the company, the tribe in question was almost unknown, so the company managed to avoid any serious trouble.

 

[untermensche]

I just find the contrast between the way untermensche talks about Islam and the way he talks about Christianity remarkable.

OK, thanks. I did not catch the reference because I have missed the post you link to here.

My comments about Christianity would hold for Islam.

From an early age the minds of children raised in the Muslim religion are polluted and corrupted.

Religion corrupts the mind.

But the only difference between radical Christians today and radical Muslims are circumstance. They are the same thing and under the same conditions will do the same things.

Give Christians real power and they will begin Inquisitions and launch the Crusades.

We have two powerful nations in the world, Saudi Arabia and Iran, both insane religion based nations. One supported by the US and one arose because of US greed and meddling.

Islam (religion) has real power in the Middle East. That is the problem.

The separation of church from state is a great gift the founders of the US gave us.

And why Americans should not support nations like Saudi Arabia and Israel and why the US should separate itself from the religion of corporate greed.

 

[Warpoet]

Vietnamese immigrants were educated boat people fleeing the communist regime. Their socio economical level and their Confucius-influenced culture made them have their kids work hard and become productive members of society, whose kids now act like other French kids.

"Arabs" immigrants were imported labour to work in the steel and/or construction business. They had no experience of education to pass on to their kids, and the 70s crisis put them on the sidelines of society, where racism augmented by the resentments born from the Algerian independence war kept their kids. Their French kids now feel trapped in the housing projects where the lower class lives, with only a life of small jobs and unemployment ahead, as exemplified by their parents.
The only exit they see is in crime (drug trafficking), and the only source of pride in reclaiming their grandparents original culture, that their ignorance turns into a twisted caricature.
All generalities, of course, some do better, but they're not numerous enough to serve as role models.

Stop complicating the issue with history and sociopolitical context. You're getting in the way of people who want us all to believe that the only relevant factor in this equation is religion.

I'm sure Sam Harris will be along any minute now to sort you out.

 

[Axulus]

OK, thanks. I did not catch the reference because I have missed the post you link to here.

My comments about Christianity would hold for Islam.

From an early age the minds of children raised in the Muslim religion are polluted and corrupted.

Religion corrupts the mind.

But the only difference between radical Christians today and radical Muslims are circumstance. They are the same thing and under the same conditions will do the same things.

Give Christians real power and they will begin Inquisitions and launch the Crusades.

We have two powerful nations in the world, Saudi Arabia and Iran, both insane religion based nations. One supported by the US and one arose because of US greed and meddling.

Islam (religion) has real power in the Middle East. That is the problem.

The separation of church from state is a great gift the founders of the US gave us.

And why Americans should not support nations like Saudi Arabia and Israel and why the US should separate itself from the religion of corporate greed.

So the amount of violence and the commands to engage in violence in the holy scriptures of various religions and the supernatural rewards for doing so plays zero part in influencing or increasing ones courage to engage in such actions? On what basis do you conclude that?

If there were no plausible interpretation against blasphemy and to avenge the prophet in the Quran and Hadith, you think that wouldn't play any role in the frequency of cartoonists getting targeted?

 

[Axulus]

True or false - the more Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa one has in their country, the more frequent terrorist incidents within that country become? Whether the religion is a factor or whether a minority of those immigrants hate the west and are willing to take on violent action to punish the west seem to be a bit irrelevant for the potential for harm.

 

[Underseer]

True or false - the more Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa one has in their country, the more frequent terrorist incidents within that country become? Whether the religion is a factor or whether a minority of those immigrants hate the west and are willing to take on violent action to punish the west seem to be a bit irrelevant for this purpose.

You know, if you think the whole collective punishment thing is a good idea, why are you living in this country?

 

[Axulus]

True or false - the more Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa one has in their country, the more frequent terrorist incidents within that country become? Whether the religion is a factor or whether a minority of those immigrants hate the west and are willing to take on violent action to punish the west seem to be a bit irrelevant for this purpose.

You know, if you think the whole collective punishment thing is a good idea, why are you living in this country?

What collective punishment? Are you talking about the terrorists collectively punishing the west? Ridiculous to think I believe it is a good idea. Are you unable to answer the simple question instead of engaging in irrelevant strawmen?

 

[Axulus]

True or false - the more pro-life fundamentalist Christian immigrants one has in their country, the more likely an abortion clinic is to be bombed or abortion doctor is to be murdered? If you have an easier time answering this question than answering my previous question, you have a politically correct mental block that you need to work on overcoming.

 

[Axulus]

True or false - the more Haredi Jewish immigrants Israel has in its country, the more likely/more frequent/more severe it is to engage in collective punishment against Palestinians and the more likely it is to expand settlements in the West Bank? If you have an easier time answering this question than answering my previous question on Muslim immigrants, you have a politically correct mental block that you need to work on overcoming.

 

[Warpoet]

True or false - the more Haredi Jewish immigrants Israel has in its country, the more likely it is to engage in collective punishment against Palestinians and the more likely it is to expand settlements in the West Bank? If you have an easier time answering this question than answering my previous question on Muslim immigrants, you have a politically correct mental block that you need to work on overcoming.

I don't think you want to start reducing the equation to "group X is broadly associated with Y behavior, therefore we should consider Z."

Unless you feel like opening a massive can of racially charged unpleasantness. I'm guessing you don't.

 

[Axulus]

True or false - the more Haredi Jewish immigrants Israel has in its country, the more likely it is to engage in collective punishment against Palestinians and the more likely it is to expand settlements in the West Bank? If you have an easier time answering this question than answering my previous question on Muslim immigrants, you have a politically correct mental block that you need to work on overcoming.

I don't think you want to start reducing the equation to "group X is broadly associated with Y behavior, therefore we should consider Z."

Unless you feel like opening a massive can of racially charged unpleasantness. I'm guessing you don't.

The "therefore we should consider Z" may either be a non-sequitor or may do more damage than good (such as immigration restrictions or selective targeting against groups). Doesn't mean we shouldn't still be honest about the downsides and acknowledge them in a discussion on the downsides vs. the upsides of any particular policy. In fact, such an argument is more persuasive: I honestly acknowledge the negatives, but, despite those negatives (that unrestricted Muslim immigration from Middle East/Africa likely increases the number of terrorist incidents in the country that accepts those immigrants), the proposal (sharply limit Muslim immigration, or whatever) is _still_ a bad idea (because of X, Y and Z). This is what it will take to convince the fence sitters. If their concerns aren't honestly addressed, they may dismiss you all together.

In all honesty, I'm still a fence sitter in a lot of ways. The massive demonstrations in France and Charlie Hebdo's decision to publish another issue with Muhammad on the cover were very encouraging and pushed me further against having selective restrictions. Such infrequent terrorist incidents are the price of freedom.

 

[Warpoet]

The "therefore we should consider Z" may either be a non-sequitor or may do more damage than good (such as immigration restrictions or selective targeting against groups). Doesn't mean we shouldn't still be honest about the downsides and acknowledge them in a discussion on the downsides vs. the upsides of any particular policy. In fact, such an argument is more persuasive: I honestly acknowledge the negatives, but, despite those negatives (that unrestricted Muslim immigration from Middle East/Africa likely increases the number of terrorist incidents over time), the proposal (sharply limit Muslim immigration) is _still_ a bad idea. This is what it will take to convince the fence sitters. If their concerns aren't honestly addressed, they may dismiss you all together.

I would tend to agree with this (and I apologize for misreading your earlier post; a lot of the stupid shit I've been reading on here the past few days has put me in full-on attack mode). But the lack of intelligent discussion being had on this forum of all places does not give me much cause for optimism about the broader court of public opinion.

I think Juan Cole was probably right that the real underlying goal of these attacks was to strengthen the hand of the xenophobes on the far-right, to start a war, draw battle lines and send more and more Muslims running to this brand of ideology. I fear they will be successful.

 

[Axulus]

I would tend to agree with this (and I apologize for misreading your earlier post; a lot of the stupid shit I've been reading on here the past few days has put me in full-on attack mode). But the lack of intelligent discussion being had on this forum of all places does not give me much cause for optimism about the broader court of public opinion.

Anyone that can't be convinced via reasoned argument probably wasn't a fence sitter anyway.

I think Juan Cole was probably right that the real underlying goal of these attacks was to strengthen the hand of the xenophobes on the far-right, to start a war, draw battle lines and send more and more Muslims running to this brand of ideology. I fear they will be successful.

The massive demonstrations in France give me optimism. However, Al-Queda's strategy may be to strengthen the far-right in order to make recruitment easier.

 

[bilby]

True or false - the more Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa one has in their country, the more frequent terrorist incidents within that country become? Whether the religion is a factor or whether a minority of those immigrants hate the west and are willing to take on violent action to punish the west seem to be a bit irrelevant for the potential for harm.

True or false - the more pro-life fundamentalist Christian immigrants one has in their country, the more likely an abortion clinic is to be bombed or abortion doctor is to be murdered? If you have an easier time answering this question than answering my previous question, you have a politically correct mental block that you need to work on overcoming.

If you think that "Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa" in the one case are directly analogous to "pro-life fundamentalist Christian immigrants", then you have a mental block that you need to work on overcoming.

A fairer comparison might be between "Muslim immigrants" and "Christian immigrants"; or between "pro-life fundamentalist Christian immigrants" and "pro-Sharia fundamentalist Muslim immigrants".

That you appear to think that "Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa" is essentially an identical concept with "pro-Sharia fundamentalist Muslim immigrants" says a lot about your attitude towards Islam and Muslims; None of it very pleasant.

 

[Axulus]

True or false - the more pro-life fundamentalist Christian immigrants one has in their country, the more likely an abortion clinic is to be bombed or abortion doctor is to be murdered? If you have an easier time answering this question than answering my previous question, you have a politically correct mental block that you need to work on overcoming.

If you think that "Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa" in the one case are directly analogous to "pro-life fundamentalist Christian immigrants", then you have a mental block that you need to work on overcoming.

A fairer comparison might be between "Muslim immigrants" and "Christian immigrants"; or between "pro-life fundamentalist Christian immigrants" and "pro-Sharia fundamentalist Muslim immigrants".

That you appear to think that "Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa" is essentially an identical concept with "pro-Sharia fundamentalist Muslim immigrants" says a lot about your attitude towards Islam and Muslims; None of it very pleasant.

You are projecting something that isn't there. I wasn't comparing the groups. Adding or removing those qualifiers would not change the answers to the questions, now would it?

 

[Axulus]

Some interesting research:

“Is there a Muslim disadvantage in economic integration for second-generation immigrants to Europe? Previous research has failed to isolate the effect that religion may have on an immigrant family’s labor market opportunities because other factors, such as country of origin or race, confound the result. This paper uses a correspondence test in the French labor market to identify and measure this religious effect. The results confirm that in the French labor market, anti-Muslim discrimination exists: a Muslim candidate is 2.5 times less likely to receive a job interview callback than is his or her Christian counterpart. A high-n survey reveals, consistent with expectations from the correspondence test, that second-generation Muslim households in France have lower income compared with matched Christian households. The paper thereby contributes to both substantive debates on the Muslim experience in Europe and methodological debates on how to measure discrimination. Following the National Academy of Sciences’ 2001 recommendations on combining a variety of methodologies and applying them to real-world situations, this research identifies, measures, and infers consequences of discrimination based on religious affiliation, controlling for potentially confounding factors, such as race and country of origin.”

“Anti-Muslim prejudice is widespread in Western countries. Yet, Muslims are expected to constitute a growing share of the total population in Western countries over the next decades. This paper predicts that this demographic trend will increase anti-Muslim prejudice. Relying on experimental games and a formal model, we show that the generosity of rooted French toward Muslims is significantly decreased with the increase of Muslims in their midst, and demonstrate that these results are driven by the activation of rooted French taste-based discrimination against Muslims when Muslim number s increase. Our findings call for solutions to anti-Muslim prejudice in the West.”

http://journalistsresource.org/stud...email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=JR-email#

http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...ou-are-probably-wrong-about-almost-everything

 

[bilby]

If you think that "Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa" in the one case are directly analogous to "pro-life fundamentalist Christian immigrants", then you have a mental block that you need to work on overcoming.

A fairer comparison might be between "Muslim immigrants" and "Christian immigrants"; or between "pro-life fundamentalist Christian immigrants" and "pro-Sharia fundamentalist Muslim immigrants".

That you appear to think that "Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa" is essentially an identical concept with "pro-Sharia fundamentalist Muslim immigrants" says a lot about your attitude towards Islam and Muslims; None of it very pleasant.

You are projecting something that isn't there. I wasn't comparing the groups. Adding or removing those qualifiers would not change the answers to the questions, now would it?

Yes, it most certainly would.

The probability of fanaticism is proportional to the numbers of fanatics. The numbers of moderates who share the same broad label is useless as an indicator of the probability of fanatical behaviour, unless you can show that there is a fixed ratio of fanatics per moderate in all populations.

 

[untermensche]

My comments about Christianity would hold for Islam.

From an early age the minds of children raised in the Muslim religion are polluted and corrupted.

Religion corrupts the mind.

But the only difference between radical Christians today and radical Muslims are circumstance. They are the same thing and under the same conditions will do the same things.

Give Christians real power and they will begin Inquisitions and launch the Crusades.

We have two powerful nations in the world, Saudi Arabia and Iran, both insane religion based nations. One supported by the US and one arose because of US greed and meddling.

Islam (religion) has real power in the Middle East. That is the problem.

The separation of church from state is a great gift the founders of the US gave us.

And why Americans should not support nations like Saudi Arabia and Israel and why the US should separate itself from the religion of corporate greed.

So the amount of violence and the commands to engage in violence in the holy scriptures of various religions and the supernatural rewards for doing so plays zero part in influencing or increasing ones courage to engage in such actions? On what basis do you conclude that?

If there were no plausible interpretation against blasphemy and to avenge the prophet in the Quran and Hadith, you think that wouldn't play any role in the frequency of cartoonists getting targeted?

It is not usually the case that people sit at home and read the so-called holy books and then begin to kill people.

People usually kill other people because of interaction with other people, not interaction with books.

There is nothing particularly unique in Islam that causes leaders to drive people to violence. This occurs generally because of political motivations, just as it occurs when the US resorts with violence.

 

[Trausti]

There is nothing particularly unique in Islam that causes leaders to drive people to violence. This occurs generally because of political motivations, just as it occurs when the US resorts with violence.

What? The Koran is pretty much just violence and justification for more violence: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

There is no "Blessed are the peacemakers" in Islam.

 

[untermensche]

There is nothing particularly unique in Islam that causes leaders to drive people to violence. This occurs generally because of political motivations, just as it occurs when the US resorts with violence.

What? The Koran is pretty much just violence and justification for more violence: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

There is no "Blessed are the peacemakers" in Islam.

So is the Old Testament.

But people aren't all that motivated by books.

Generally people commit acts of terrorism due to the influence of people, not books.