Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New terrorist attack in Paris, at least 140 dead

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by ponyexpress View Post
    How ironic that people here complain about the problem for immigrants to failingly integrate into their destination country. How well did you integrate into Indonesian society? Ohhhh...the sound from the mosque is too loud here. Why do all maid go back home to their village during Ramadhan etc....Well, these migrants might not have any channel through which they can express their concerns or objection to something. These people are not expats who travel to a different country with salary and other benefits. They are fleeing from war.
    That's a pretty lousy set of analogies you have there. I've heard Indonesians complain about both the loudness of the mosque and the mbak asking for an especially long vacation at Ramadhan. Those things are inconvenient for anyone, from any culture. And, to the best of my knowledge, that little bit of whinging to my mates about random stuff never really bothered anyone but me and my mates. Admittedly, I know nothing about the integration problems experienced in areas that have a high influx of refugees, but I'm guessing those problems are a bit more pressing.
    I'm not taking any particular stance on the refugee thing at the moment, mind you, but it's a bit silly to compare my complaining to news-worthy maladjustment.

    Comment


    • #77
      The most frightening thing is this is actually happening -

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by ScooterIndo View Post
        The most frightening thing is this is actually happening -
        What "actually happened" is something different than depicted in your reposted Youtube video with a hand-wringing, them-versus-us, incomplete narrative produced by those with a political agenda. The vilification of refugees fleeing war and an oppressive dark-ages regime, is itself a dark-ages response. The problems this crisis present to the world are legion. Our response in the face of fear, hopelessness, bigotry, frustration and desperation is a measure of our humanity, collectively and individually.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by ponyexpress View Post
          A great response to Dan's post Waarmie. I'd like to add:

          How ironic that people here complain about the problem for immigrants to failingly integrate into their destination country. How well did you integrate into Indonesian society? Ohhhh...the sound from the mosque is too loud here. Why do all maid go back home to their village during Ramadhan etc....Well, these migrants might not have any channel through which they can express their concerns or objection to something. These people are not expats who travel to a different country with salary and other benefits. They are fleeing from war. .
          One important path to integration is intermarriage with locals so I guess the expats on here are well on the way.
          "[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helvetica Neue]I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.[/FONT][/COLOR]"
          George Bernard Shaw

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Happyman View Post
            That's a pretty lousy set of analogies you have there. I've heard Indonesians complain about both the loudness of the mosque and the mbak asking for an especially long vacation at Ramadhan. Those things are inconvenient for anyone, from any culture. And, to the best of my knowledge, that little bit of whinging to my mates about random stuff never really bothered anyone but me and my mates. Admittedly, I know nothing about the integration problems experienced in areas that have a high influx of refugees, but I'm guessing those problems are a bit more pressing.
            I'm not taking any particular stance on the refugee thing at the moment, mind you, but it's a bit silly to compare my complaining to news-worthy maladjustment.
            Happyman, I know that's a silly comparison but I brought it up anyway because when we debate about refugees I often hear people put forth the argument of a failure integration from the newcomers. Really? Should we bring the issue of integration in this case? Perhaps these people who believe that refugees fail to integrate never really see the problem from refugees' perspective. What underlies the question of integration is a superior feeling over these newcomers. Let's take it back to when it all started. Colonial powers took over indigenous land and later built a colony then developed into a nation. What integration did they do in order to be accepted by the local inhabitants? Nothing. In fact they wiped out their cultural practices and put theirs in place. Now when these people eventually become the majority of a nation, and then open up their door to refugees, they ask them to integrate and follow the majority.

            Most analysis I read on the attacks are mainly focused on the suspects and their links but I'd love to hear any analysis on how could these people be easily recruited to be a killing machine? What sort of social, cultural and political circumstances do these terrorists live?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by ponyexpress View Post
              Happyman, I know that's a silly comparison but I brought it up anyway because when we debate about refugees I often hear people put forth the argument of a failure integration from the newcomers. Really? Should we bring the issue of integration in this case? Perhaps these people who believe that refugees fail to integrate never really see the problem from refugees' perspective. What underlies the question of integration is a superior feeling over these newcomers. Let's take it back to when it all started. Colonial powers took over indigenous land and later built a colony then developed into a nation. What integration did they do in order to be accepted by the local inhabitants? Nothing. In fact they wiped out their cultural practices and put theirs in place. Now when these people eventually become the majority of a nation, and then open up their door to refugees, they ask them to integrate and follow the majority.

              Most analysis I read on the attacks are mainly focused on the suspects and their links but I'd love to hear any analysis on how could these people be easily recruited to be a killing machine? What sort of social, cultural and political circumstances do these terrorists live?

              So now we have colonial powers in reverse, not only do they not integrate, but they want us to integrate in their culture such as build more mosques, women should be covered up, only halal food should be sold and everything should be closed during Friday prayers. I still say that this is not tolerable, we are losing our own identity.

              I do feel bad for the refugees, but on the other hand I can not abandon my own people, how much is the relocation and screening of refugees going to cost the tax payer, you know the money is coming from the middle class in this case I am talking about The Netherlands. We are a small country and we have taken in refugees from Hungary, Serbia, Kosovo etc.
              I would say enough is enough.

              After the French Indo chine war, a lot of Vietnamese migrated to France for economic reasons even though they had their independence now.
              The Vietnamese integrated well, where ever they are, the Chinese never gave us problems.

              After Algeria got their own country back, again many of them went to France, but this time it didn't work out so well, can anybody tell me why?
              Where there are Arab and African refugee enclaves, they have no go zones and problems, again can anybody tell me why? Is it their mentality? If so, than it is of no use to admit them, because we just will have problems later on.


              In San Francisco we have china, Japan, Korean town, we have the Mexican district and even Little Manilla, but no problems here, San Francisco is the real multicultural city.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by lantern View Post
                This is serious shit. Latest death toll around 140. Politically, it could be a game changer.
                Talking of Political game changer -

                Does this put an end to the shelter seeker crisis faced by most of the Europe lately as no country would want jihadis to disguise as shelter seekers any more ?

                Will schengen area still exist or Europe will close its borders ?

                What will happen to the migrants who just got sheltered ?

                Is France going to retaliate ? If yes, then who will support France ? Or, will the world forces combine together and bring those 160 ml extremists to an end ?

                What if France decided to retaliate, US supports France....will Russia support ISIS then ?

                By the time the political leaders figure out these answers, this world will be a difference place.
                Last edited by FoSeWine; 18-11-15, 12:33.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by ponyexpress View Post
                  Happyman, I know that's a silly comparison but I brought it up anyway because when we debate about refugees I often hear people put forth the argument of a failure integration from the newcomers. Really? Should we bring the issue of integration in this case? Perhaps these people who believe that refugees fail to integrate never really see the problem from refugees' perspective. What underlies the question of integration is a superior feeling over these newcomers. Let's take it back to when it all started. Colonial powers took over indigenous land and later built a colony then developed into a nation. What integration did they do in order to be accepted by the local inhabitants? Nothing. In fact they wiped out their cultural practices and put theirs in place. Now when these people eventually become the majority of a nation, and then open up their door to refugees, they ask them to integrate and follow the majority.

                  Most analysis I read on the attacks are mainly focused on the suspects and their links but I'd love to hear any analysis on how could these people be easily recruited to be a killing machine? What sort of social, cultural and political circumstances do these terrorists live?
                  To be honest with you, this comparison is lousy compared to the earlier one as in the earlier example the crux was coming out clearly ; immigrants showing cultural insensitivity in the host country. I had a Philipino colleague and he couldn't survive 3 months in the country as he perennially complained of a headache to the sound of praying on loud speakers and wanted pork to be served in all restaurants freely.

                  Colonizers overshadowing aboriginals, building a nation and then expecting migrants to integrate and follow the majority is an example that could suit the case of Australia/America at best, but both the countries are significantly cosmopolitan, unlike Europe. Also, colonizers saw aboriginals as a less developed and underexposed group of people ; what purpose will it serve for them if they integrated with their culture.

                  On how these people get recruited to be a killing machine is exactly similar to how soldiers get recruited into being killing machines ; both working for a comparatively lower salary than cushy while collared jobs and both believe they have a commitment. The only difference is that one is fighting for the right cause and the other is fighting for the wrong cause(which they are made to believe as right). Of-course, coming from a underprivileged strata of a society and getting exposed to a preacher who fills their brains with wrong causes and their house with bread, is an easy trap to fall into.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by ponyexpress View Post

                    Most analysis I read on the attacks are mainly focused on the suspects and their links but I'd love to hear any analysis on how could these people be easily recruited to be a killing machine? What sort of social, cultural and political circumstances do these terrorists live?
                    Here's a link to a bit of background on one of the suspects still at large

                    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6738601.html

                    Edit: Just think how easy it would be to radicalize young, unemployed,working class white youths from the various housing estates/complexes across Europe. Just feed them a daily dose of IS beheadings and bombings. Tell them how the Paris gunmen shot people in wheelchairs at point blank range at the concert venue. Convince them that unless they join an underground and fight back the same will happen to them. Tell them that the Muslim hoards are descending on Europe to enslave their women etc etc etc. All it needs is an organizer and a bit of money.
                    Last edited by lantern; 18-11-15, 14:07.
                    "[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helvetica Neue]I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.[/FONT][/COLOR]"
                    George Bernard Shaw

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by FoSeWine View Post
                      Talking of Political game changer -

                      Does this put an end to the shelter seeker crisis faced by most of the Europe lately as no country would want jihadis to disguise as shelter seekers any more ?
                      Nope, it won't. Countries still have to follow the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention Treaty that they've signed.

                      Saying that because Jihadis are abusing the refugee system we should stop taking in refugees is just as impossible as saying that we should abolish religion because extremist abuse it.

                      Will schengen area still exist or Europe will close its borders ?
                      Ain't gonna happen

                      What will happen to the migrants who just got sheltered ?
                      Same as usual but they'll need more protection from far-right extremist groups.

                      Is France going to retaliate ? If yes, then who will support France ? Or, will the world forces combine together and bring those 160 ml extremists to an end ?
                      France is already retaliating. We've been conducting air strikes in Syria since September, so it's not new. We've recently intensified the air strikes immediately after the last Paris attacks but it's more a show of force than anything else. ISIS were expecting airstrikes in Raqqa for a while and have already deserted all their camps there.

                      If France decides to engage in a stronger response, we can call upon our NATO allies. The last address from the President made strong use of the word "war" in his vocabulary, qualifying the attacks as acts of war. If France is considered at war, then NATO countries have an obligation to help.

                      What if France decided to retaliate, US supports France....will Russia support ISIS then ?
                      US and France are already cooperating in engaging ISIS via air strikes. The next step I would anticipate is an increase of the French airforce involvement (as would the presence of the Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier indicate) possibly followed by small special force involvement on the ground. I'd like to see the French Foreign Legion kick ISIS' ass but I'm not sure if a larger scale ground deployment is the best response right now.

                      As for a rift between NATO and Russia. It's certainly possible, most likely in the shape of an air warfare incident in the crowded skies over Syria. But make no mistake, Russia will NOT support ISIS. They are supporting Assad and are hurting the Free Syria Army under the pretense of targeting ISIS but they certainly won't support ISIS.

                      By the time the political leaders figure out these answers, this world will be a difference place.
                      Talking to my brother in Paris and how scared he understandably is from simply catching the subway to go to work, I'd say we already live in a different world.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by El_Goretto View Post
                        Nope, it won't. Countries still have to follow the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention Treaty that they've signed.

                        Saying that because Jihadis are abusing the refugee system we should stop taking in refugees is just as impossible as saying that we should abolish religion because extremist abuse it.
                        O rly?

                        http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68ccec.html

                        "According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin."

                        So, let's follow it and ship 'em all back to Turkey. They're overwhelmed? I'm certain neighboring Arab states and ESPECIALLY Israel would be THRILLED to take 'em!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by lantern View Post
                          Here's a link to a bit of background on one of the suspects still at large

                          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6738601.html

                          Edit: Just think how easy it would be to radicalize young, unemployed,working class white youths from the various housing estates/complexes across Europe. Just feed them a daily dose of IS beheadings and bombings. Tell them how the Paris gunmen shot people in wheelchairs at point blank range at the concert venue. Convince them that unless they join an underground and fight back the same will happen to them. Tell them that the Muslim hoards are descending on Europe to enslave their women etc etc etc. All it needs is an organizer and a bit of money.
                          This statement presupposes that Islamic radicalism is a product of poverty, disenfranchisement, poor education or all of the other non-factors ponied out to explain why there's such a pathological bent in Islam today. It's total bunk as evidenced by the widespread support for jihad franchises among the wealthy and educated every bit as much as the poor and disenfranchised. While it's not a surprise to learn that spiritual leaders and ideologues come from the upper classes, support among everyone from mujahideen to jihobbyists comes from all classes and walks of life.

                          There's a problem with Islam, not with poverty, lack of opportunity or lack of education. Is this problem fundamental or unique to Islam? I don't believe so, but we must entertain the icky truth: there's a problem with Islam and Muslims today across the board. We cannot fix it if we engage in dissimulation about external factors. He was a killer because he fell into the modern rubric of jihad.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by waarmstrong View Post
                            What "actually happened" is something different than depicted in your reposted Youtube video with a hand-wringing, them-versus-us, incomplete narrative produced by those with a political agenda. The vilification of refugees fleeing war and an oppressive dark-ages regime, is itself a dark-ages response. The problems this crisis present to the world are legion. Our response in the face of fear, hopelessness, bigotry, frustration and desperation is a measure of our humanity, collectively and individually.
                            For such a "we" sentiment it sure as hell sounds like it's only white people who are expected to demonstrate this wholesome, humanist approach. It's very comfortable to assume the moral high ground, to state that you're standing up for humanity in the face of xenophobia. It's also totally divorced from reality.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by DanInAceh View Post
                              O rly?

                              http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68ccec.html

                              "According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin."

                              So, let's follow it and ship 'em all back to Turkey. They're overwhelmed? I'm certain neighboring Arab states and ESPECIALLY Israel would be THRILLED to take 'em!
                              Ok let me quote 2 more sections from the same page:

                              Reference might also be made to Conclusion No. 58 (XL) (1989) on Irregular Movements, paras. (f) and (g), which together accept that a refugee/asylum-seeker may be returned to the country of first asylum if the person:
                              • can enter and remain there,

                              • is protected there against refoulement and is treated in accordance with basic human standards,

                              • will not be subject there to persecution or threats to safety and liberty (on this, see also Conclusion No. 15, para (k)),

                              • has access to a durable solution.
                              and

                              15. On the other hand, there are difficulties in applying the concept, in particular in deciding how long an individual needs to have stayed in a country and under what circumstances (Is transit sufficient?) before that country can be determined a country of first asylum. In addition, there is the problem of establishing safety (what conditions, for example, qualify as "basic human standards" and what safeguards should be accepted as sufficient to guard against possible refoulement). There may be a need, in this connection, to augment the list, in Executive Committee Conclusion No. 58, of prerequisites for return to include adherence and/or compliance with the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as well as basic human rights instruments, including the U.N. Bill of Rights2. Finally there is the problem of ensuring that individual asylum seekers remain able to invoke circumstances militating against return to the "safe" country of asylum.
                              What does this tell us? It's not enough to be a country of first asylum that is safe from the situation of war. There are other aspects involved to qualify a country as good enough for asylum:
                              - is the country able to provide a solution to these refugees in the long term?
                              - what qualifies as first asylum? How long does a refugee need to be in the country for it to be considered "first asylum"?
                              - as I've already brought up earlier in this thread: what is the definition of safety? Is safety from bullets enough?

                              When we look at Turkey, can we say that it is equipped to provide a long term solution to all those refugees and provide them with, at the bare minimum, "basic human standards"? The answer is no. Moreover, they just so happen to be right on the border and very close to the conflict with several skirmishes with the Syrian army but also with ISIS which makes the country already quite affected by the conflict.

                              Saudi Arabia should definitely deal with these refugees but don't expect them to when they are actually part of the problem on a fundamental level.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                I've always been a bit confounded by the way in which people interpret words like:"tolerance", "integration", and "multi-cultural". These are just my definitions/opinions, but I'm wondering if we even mean the same thing when we use the words...

                                Tolerance - You allow me to live my life as I see fit, without trying to change my ways and beliefs. Meaning, not attempting to force me to act like you, or prevent me from following my own beliefs and behaviors. With the obvious caveat that We are not imposing significant physical or emotional harm upon one another, with the emotional harm being defined by the standards of the society as a whole. For example, you let me drink my beer without bothering me, even though you don't like it, and I let you drag your kids screaming to church, even though I don't like it.

                                Integration - You attempt to find some way in which you can fit into an existing society, rather than demanding wholesale changes from society at large. You do not isolate yourself from accepted society attempt to create a sub-society of persons who are directly opposed to society at large.

                                Multi-cultural - A society in which multiple cultures (or subsets of society) are integrated and practice tolerance towards each other. A healthy multicultural society would not contain any sub-sets who were actively opposed to the beliefs and behaviors of the other sub-sets.

                                Wonder if these words mean the same thing to you guys...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X