Terrorist attack on French satirical magazine

[Crni Vuk]

I would say, personaly, that it all goes even as far back to the time of British/French colonialism. See the middle east was always the ballpark of the powerfull nations. And the Islam was here a friend just as much as it was the enemy. Trough WW1 both the British and Germans exploited it for their cause. It turned out the British had more luck with their choice, many hated the Ottomans.

The point is its not about right or wrong, you know. The point is that our governments are messing around with many many nations. And that for the lets say at least the last 100 years. This has nothing to do with the Islam, or religions or what ever. Our actions simply make people angry. And at some point they will direct their anger at us. That simple.

Islamic Spread:
the problem is that people participating in islamic spread are not doing so under a countries banner, but under a religious banner, and most western states have protections for religious institutions. the issue is that islam is not very compatible with western thoughts and ideals, in fact on many points it goes against them. so how do you deal effectively with islamic spread given western ideals?

yeah ... like christian ideals are so compatible with western thoughts and ideals. That is why we had so much secularization I guess.

The Islam can work with a democracy just as christianity can.

 

[SnapSlav]

lets have a test!

if you live in the US, you constantly hear about wage stagnation and income inequality and economic mobility being huge problems. now, the "accepted" reasons are generally a bunch of bullshit that people try to push because they want to tell you they have the solution.

so lets have a test!

i will give you 4 years where something happened that led us into this situation and are the ACTUAL causes of the above, lets see if you can get them right!

1) 1920
2) 1941
3) 1986
4) 2001

GO!

Hmm, I'm rusty on my history, but I can answer the first two.

1920, the 18th Amendment, Prohibition. Popular accepted reason for it was that Americans believed in the evils of alcohol and so there was widespread support in this amendment to the Constitution that made the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol illegal. It welcomed all manner of avenues for abuses because pure alcohol has medical disinfecting utilities, so many doctors would use their license to carry alcohol to sell it to "patient", who would turn it into really nasty artificial drinks. Not even moonshine, because they didn't craft it themselves. The actual cause, was more racial bias against "certain immigrants", if I remember correctly? Regardless, the 13 years under the 18th Amendment led to widespread explosive growth of organized crime, somewhat bolstered by Hoover's public denial of its very existence.

1941, Pearl Habor. The popular accepted reason for the U.S. entering WWII is that Japan attacked them when they had kept out of the entire issue. The real cause was that the U.S. was already involved in the conflict by imposing oil embargoes on Japan and supplying weapons to the allies, so they'd already joined the cause; they simply hadn't done it officially until the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Yeah, you could say it's appalling for me to not have an answer for the seemingly obvious 2001, but I'd rather see what you've got to say, since there's just been so much wild speculation about it all.

 

[TheWesDude]

Snap

you got 1941 cause correct, but the effect is wrong. again, this is bout wages and purchasing power and what has happened. this is all based purely upon economic principles.

im mostly waiting for Crni Vuk to reply

 

[SnapSlav]

Gotcha. Well I was just taking a looksie at the dates and trying to figure out their significance in my head, without fully grasping the conversation's context. But I think I know now what direction it's going.

I'll check back, as well. =)

 

[TheWesDude]

ill explain why the 18th amendment was wrong:

the 18th amendment, or prohibition, was an effect of the temperance movement that gained wider popularity after the first world war. a lot of it was the increased drug abuse/addiction including alcoholism. the subsequent economic effect did cause a problem, and some even say was a contributing factor to the great depression of 1921. ( the US has only had 4 "great" depressions, 1868, 1921, 1929, 2008 ) its failure was actually seen as a large blow against the temperance movement which eventually led to its demise which the founders morphed it into a different movement which is still alive and kicking today. it did provide a large boost to organized crime, as organized crime thrives on things made illegal. organized crime has seen significant losses of power due to falling out of public favor, increasing reliance on legitimate enterprises, and moving more to technology rather than the classic models. nowadays their power has been replaced with the gangs present in jails and the inner cities.

now while you will hear people possibly bring up that the illegal/black market especially for things like guns/drugs hits the poor highest, the actual effect is that the wealthy end up spending a surprisingly significant amount of money of drugs as well. but the money for drugs/guns does not stay local, it filters upwards to the drug king pins and such, in effect increasing wealth concentration as well, but they typically do not live in the US which makes them irrelevant.

now, some people may bring up H1B Visa's and while those do have an impact, on average about 70-80% of them issued in a year are in fact renewals and not new applications. they do have a 3 year limitation that can be received 2 times per individual, but the eventual goal is permanent residence. most immigration studies that look at long term impact tend to agree that as long as H1B's stay under 250k then they are population neutral and fill a valid use.

@Crni Vuk

still waiting for your cause/effect for those 4 years!

 

[Crni Vuk]

For your answer:

I would say, personaly, that it all goes even as far back to the time of British/French colonialism. See the middle east was always the ballpark of the powerfull nations. And the Islam was here a friend just as much as it was the enemy. Trough WW1 both the British and Germans exploited it for their cause. It turned out the British had more luck with their choice, many hated the Ottomans.

The point is its not about right or wrong, you know. The point is that our governments are messing around with many many nations. And that for the lets say at least the last 100 years. This has nothing to do with the Islam, or religions or what ever. Our actions simply make people angry. And at some point they will direct their anger at us. That simple.

A date or exact point is rather meaningles. You could also say WW1 was caused by 1918 or the Civil war in Yugoslavia in 1991. But the issue for it self is a historical one.

Again. We are messing around with nations like the Iran, Syra and Iraq for the last 100 years.

 

[TorontoReign]

I would say, personaly, that it all goes even as far back to the time of British/French colonialism. See the middle east was always the ballpark of the powerfull nations. And the Islam was here a friend just as much as it was the enemy. Trough WW1 both the British and Germans exploited it for their cause. It turned out the British had more luck with their choice, many hated the Ottomans.

The point is its not about right or wrong, you know. The point is that our governments are messing around with many many nations. And that for the lets say at least the last 100 years. This has nothing to do with the Islam, or religions or what ever. Our actions simply make people angry. And at some point they will direct their anger at us. That simple.

A date or exact point is rather meaningles. You could also say WW1 was caused by 1918 or the Civil war in Yugoslavia in 1991. But the issue for it self is a historical one.

Again. We are messing around with nations like the Iran, Syra and Iraq for the last 100 years.

Are you debating yourself now? CRNI HAS MULTIPLIED!!!11

 

[TheWesDude]

For your answer:

I would say, personaly, that it all goes even as far back to the time of British/French colonialism. See the middle east was always the ballpark of the powerfull nations. And the Islam was here a friend just as much as it was the enemy. Trough WW1 both the British and Germans exploited it for their cause. It turned out the British had more luck with their choice, many hated the Ottomans.

The point is its not about right or wrong, you know. The point is that our governments are messing around with many many nations. And that for the lets say at least the last 100 years. This has nothing to do with the Islam, or religions or what ever. Our actions simply make people angry. And at some point they will direct their anger at us. That simple.

A date or exact point is rather meaningles. You could also say WW1 was caused by 1918 or the Civil war in Yugoslavia in 1991. But the issue for it self is a historical one.

Again. We are messing around with nations like the Iran, Syra and Iraq for the last 100 years.

the question is do you actually understand cause and effect, but not just any cause, the root causes. not superficial causes, but root causes.

you called into question my previous wall-o-text that you dismissed the whole thing by implying i was on drugs.

so, the question becomes, do you really know what events led us to this situation. i am pretty sure you at least peripherally have heard of these issues and how lots of people have their pet peeves and pet issues that it blinds them to the actual chain of events. if you pay attention you can see people occasionally hint at it without fully committing to them and exploring their impacts.

lets have a test!

if you live in the US, you constantly hear about wage stagnation and income inequality and economic mobility being huge problems. now, the "accepted" reasons are generally a bunch of bullshit that people try to push because they want to tell you they have the solution.

so lets have a test!

i will give you 4 years where something happened that led us into this situation and are the ACTUAL causes of the above, lets see if you can get them right!

1) 1920
2) 1941
3) 1986
4) 2001

GO!

 

[Crni Vuk]

the root? No. It obviously goes over my head if I am honest. I am no expert on the middle east. Understanding ALL of the reasons would probably require some serious studying, like about the history of the middle east and probably even to visit the nations down there, we have a very western view on things, me included. I am not sure what you're trying to achieve here. I doubt you know the reaons either. No offense meant.

All that I am seeing though, and that just from the limited informations that I have is that we fuck up everything, and that for the last 100 years like I said. That we bomb nations to kingdom come and selling weapons to all sides, screwing over nations and people and so on, see the Iran-Iraq war as best example we had no problem to sell weapons on both sides and we did our best to fuel the war, it is for me no surprise that some of the people down there really hate us. And that they are offended if we also shit on their religious feeings.

How do they say, what goes around comes around. The thing is it always hits the innocent people, never the ones in charge.

 

[TheWesDude]

again, this is not about the middle east, this is about economics.

ill give you the cause, you provide the effect:

1920: suffragette movement gets the 19th amendment, the right of women to vote
1941: japans attack on pearl harbor giving the US cause to enter WW 2
1986: regan gets amnesty for illegal immigrants
2001: china joins the WTO

there is the causes, provide the economic impacts focusing on wages. you will want to rely heavily upon the concept inherent in supply/demand.

 

[Crni Vuk]

again, this is not about the middle east, this is about economics.

ill give you the cause, you provide the effect:

I can't. I am not a historian dude. Just some ranting internet schmock like most of us here. Besides I am not in the mood of writing a novell which no one will care about anyway.

 

[Sander]

Why is TheWesDude trying to turn the Charlie Hebdo thread into a bizarro-world history lesson for someone clearly not interested in his crackpot theories?

 

[Brunzer]

Since when has anyone of us said those people are no threat? But seriously, you have a bigger chance, as European, to die in some car accident or from a simple flue than getting bombed by Islamic terrorists. Why not keep the hysteria at least somewhat on a reasonable level.

I can fear for my life every time I step on my bike to go somewhere. That'd be a far more rational fear than the generalized fear of Islamic terrorist attacks, which has turned into a generalized fear of Muslims in many parts of Europe.

It’s not about the number of casualties caused by terrorist attacks. Although they can be very severe, as the 9/11 attacks have shown.

The real battles are fought in between the terrorist attacks and threats. Those are the moments where, figuratively speaking, terrain is gained or lost. Those are the moments where crucial decisions are made which affect everybody. Just think about all the safety measures, security protocols and government surveillance added in the last 15 years to maintain a truly ‘free’ society. Political and religious leaders calling for restrictions on the freedom of speech. For me, these are all net losses to my core principles and believes.

A recent example would be the cancelled Pegida demonstration in Germany. Through the mere threat of violence, extremists were able to deny a part of the German people their constitutional right to demonstrate.

Now, whether you or I support Pegida or not is not the issue here. They have, according to German custom and laws, the right to demonstrate. This doesn’t merely affects the supporters of Pegida. A compounding problem are the, almost sanctioned by government, counter demonstrations. In my opinion, the mayor of Dresden made the right call by calling off all demonstrations for the time being. This allowed him to maintain his neutral position, as a mayor should.

As an ad hoc decision this cannot continue though. Pegida has been effectively been silenced on German soil by a foreign party, further fuelling their anti-Islamic sentiments and the feeling that they are wilfully ignored by their government. If the German government fails to enforce their right to demonstrate, especially in the light of chancellor Merkel condemning their protests, it will create a precedent for further bans on demonstrations and other expressions of free speech.

As such the impact of a terrorist attack, or even threat, is far greater on society than, for example, a traffic accident. You are right that it is irrational to fear for a violent death by terrorists. But the fear for terrorism goes deeper, it’s about the fear of a destabilized society, the fear that a group of people, can so easily challenge the fundaments of your society, your homeland, and neither you, nor your government are able to provide a solution. Sure, your government can largely provide safety, ensure, within reason, that you won’t die due to a terrorist attack. But you still won’t be safe from the changes these terrorists make to your society, your nation’s laws. Laws by which they don’t abide, influencing the democratic process which they reject.

That, Crni Vuk & Sander, is something to fear.

 

[Sander]

The terrorists aren't the ones changing society. That'd be the reactionary responses to terrorism. The ones fueled by fear. Which is exactly what we're decrying.

 

[Hassknecht]

"It's not the invading soldiers changing a country, it's the invaded country's people giving up."
I know, I know, that's not what you meant and it's not even remotely comparable. It's just a joke.

 

[Crni Vuk]

As such the impact of a terrorist attack, or even threat, is far greater on society than, for example, a traffic accident. You are right that it is irrational to fear for a violent death by terrorists. But the fear for terrorism goes deeper, it’s about the fear of a destabilized society, the fear that a group of people, can so easily challenge the fundaments of your society, your homeland, and neither you, nor your government are able to provide a solution. Sure, your government can largely provide safety, ensure, within reason, that you won’t die due to a terrorist attack. But you still won’t be safe from the changes these terrorists make to your society, your nation’s laws. Laws by which they don’t abide, influencing the democratic process which they reject.

That, Crni Vuk & Sander, is something to fear.

Well sometimes a democracy, if it really wants to remain true to its values, can't do anything else than to endure it. Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither the one nor the other.

Otherwise I would have to ask, what are the alternatives:

 

[Brunzer]

In common usage, fear, by default implicates irrationality. We use adjectives to discern between rational and irrational fear. My example of the mayor of Dresden prohibiting a demonstration is, in my opinion, a clear case of a rationally justifiable act. A possible terrorist attack constitutes a risk that is simply too great to take, when there is such a large concentration of people. Any measures to prevent such an attack, if at all possible, would have a very serious impact. That leaves no other option than to (temporarily) postpone the constitutional rights of German citizens.

The terrorists aren't the ones changing society. That'd be the reactionary responses to terrorism. The ones fueled by fear. Which is exactly what we're decrying.

There are indeed many restrictive laws pushed by either fear or by opportunists who have government control of the population high on their agenda. That being said, in the example above the reaction to a terrorist threat can hardly be called reactionary. I further address this issue below Crni Vuk’s quote.

Well sometimes a democracy, if it really wants to remain true to its values, can't do anything else than to endure it. Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither the one nor the other.

Sometimes immediate action is required. In the Pegida example enduring was not an option. It was a choice between taking excessive security measures, or calling of the demonstration. I don't think Benjamin Franklin’s quote is applicable here; going through with the demonstration against the wishes of the government would result in a battle between protesters and police, who are not opposing eachother, yet it would allow the German media to frame the Pegida movement as violent.

I’d argue that terrorists therefore are indeed changing society by creating situations where a reaction by our authorities is forced. Hence, the terrorists are the direct cause for these changes. Sure, you’d might argue that the course of action is still determined by the reaction of our government, who in turn rule with a mandate given to them by the majority of the population. Yet, most of these restrictive measures are a logical result of the threat imposed on us by these terrorists. Don’t mix up cause and effect.

Otherwise I would have to ask, what are the alternatives:

This image signifies the ‘nie wieder’ (never again) sentiment that lives strongly in post 1945 Europe and especially in Germany. The majority of European people fear nothing more than their own reaction, which created a political climate where tolerance has become mandatory, and paradoxically enough, where even the intolerant must be tolerated. Ironically, by caving in to terror and allowing intolerance free reign, ‘nie wieder’ becomes ‘schon wieder’.

 

[Sander]

I was not trying to say that fear itself is irrational. It is perfectly rational to be afraid in a war zone, or to be afraid when a gun is pointed at you, or to be afraid when falling out of an airplane without a parachute. But the fear of Islamic terrorism is irrational -- the fear of violence, the fear of extremists subjugating 'Europe' to some oppressive regime, the fear of a loss of culture, the fear that Muslims at large are out to get people -- that fear is irrational. And that fear is what is driving Pegida and similar movements. That fear is changing European societies, and has been for decades.

But the stopping of one single Pegida demonstration in reaction to a concrete threat, that's not "changing society" at all. It is thus far nothing more than a single, isolated incident -- and preventing protests under threat of violence is fairly commonplace across Northwestern Europe, because we've enshrined the concept of non-violence and safe protests. I would agree that the systematic oppression of protests would be bad, but that's not what's been happening -- and indeed, Pegida and similar fascist organizations function to (sometimes violently) stifle peaceful protests themselves.

 

[Crni Vuk]

PEGIDA, yeah, those right wing nutjobs know everything. I am sure!

One thing is strange though. In Dresden a town with 0.2% Muslims 10.000 PEGIDA followers start their Monday demonstrations. Because of Muslims (not only, but its a big reason).

However in Cologne a city with more Muslims PEGIDA has almost no followers.

I think it is much more likely that the people behind PEGIDA are not really representative for the nation. They are just xenophobic. They feel left behind. Ignored by the politicians - welcome to the world of most immigrants/foreigners guys! And now they act like stubborn children blaming their issues on Muslims or what ever else they feel is a good scapegoat. The Saxons though are notorious for their xenophobic attitude. It is no surprise that quite a lot of their followers are part of right wing organizations and political parties that have no problem with Nazis in their ranks, like the AfD, and strange enough the same crap which Nazis from the NPD throw around are paroted by many PEGIDA followers. Yeah, yeah in a few years X-Mas will be prohibited, immigrants are the reason why seniors have no money and so on and so on.

PEGIDA is a joke, really. Instead of looking for reasons and educating them self they just want to demonstrate. I mean hey, it is their right, we are a democracy after all. But if many of their followers walk like ducks, quack like ducks and behave like ducks, than they have also to live with the criticism that many of them are seen as Nazis. Not to mention that many of them really do nothing else but shouting nonsense. The Muslims dont have some special protection in Germany and you are allowed to say something about the Islam, albeit if you release BULLSHIT, like Sarazin with his book where he claims that Arabs are inherently worse than Europeans because of their genes, than you have to live with the fact that people will call you out on your BULLSHIT, that is the least I expect from a decent democracy.

But see, THIS is the kind of stuff I am talking about when I say that the right wing movements have a MUCH bigger influence on our society than those few Muslims, even if SOME of them eventually kill people or blow up a questionable news paper, which is horrible, we all agree on that, but those Muslims will not change really much in our society. They definitely don't have the same effect on Europe like the right wing does at the moment.

Look at the Ukraine, look at Austria, look at France, Germany and a few other nations. Or the European parliament. Those right wing groups, particularly the extreme right, is steadily growing.

But no, we pretend like nothing is wrong. Have people become so blind?

 

[MutantScalper]

Crni Vuk,

I think Hungary is espcially bad, I think they have an extreme right-wing prime minister now who is making pretty extreme statements etc. while in office. Eastern Europe & Russia might be the worst area of geographic Europe in terms of racism. So unfortunately, things may get worse before they get better.