Terrorist attack on French satirical magazine

[Ilosar]

Not in Germany at least. Far more murders and violent acts are commited by right wing nut jobs than islamists and/or radical muslims. Yet it is for some reason the muslims that people fear ... for what ever reason.

But I can't speak for France.

To be really honest, my biggest fear is that right wing politicans and views will take eventually over and not just in Germany but also in the European Union. I have far more fear from those fuckers than the few moslems in Europe. if only for the simple reason that those Right Wing idiots have already established their own parties with quite some support in the population, at least in some areas, in Germany the east is full of neo Nazis and fascists. And it seems France has its fare share of radical right wing parties as well. And it seems they gain slowly but steadily also some influence into politics.

But yes! lets continue to worry about the Islam that has apparently no saying in our politics or law making.

Right wing parties often grow in response to how people feel about the left wing, Unless Germany is so far left wing, that the pendulum will swing all the way back right, it isn't really something to fear.
I'm not sure why you are calling Nazi's who centralized their government and granted it more power, "right wing." Are they the other way around in Germany?

Except that Fascist and Nazis took control of countries with the backing and blessing of political elites, industrialists, press magnates and other influencial strates of society. They ruled by having a single strong leader in conjonction with powerful businesses who thrived under him. It's often forgotten that the liked of Krupp, Volkswagen, Porsche, Hugo Boss and others fully supported, endorsed and served the Reich while profiting from it immensely, to say nothing of foreign industrialists like Ford, and in large part that support was to protect them from communism (hell it's how the SA started, as anti-communist militias). Their policies were also famously unequal, and there was nothing like the (often forced) collectivisation you saw in many communist states. Yes, the nazis expanded the state but it was not with the goal of providing equality at all, which is (on paper) the goal of a large state in a left wing system.

Going ''nazis wanted to expand the state = left wing = the nazis were left wing'' is like saying ''donkeys are mammals, Socrates is a mammal, thus Socrates is a donkey''. It's an incredibly simplistic reasoning that ignores historical reality in favor of scoring political points by going ''see, Hitler was left wing, so left wing leads to dictatorship!!''. Maybe you don't mean it like that, but it needs to friggin stop.

Back to your regularily scheduled discussion about terrorist attacks now. This is the last I say on this issue.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I heard on NPR that Germany was taking in over 200,000 immigrants from the Middle-East a year. I'm not saying it shouldn't, but isn't that probably the reason? Even with the rugged Germany economy, it can't really support that kind of immigration in any sustained fashion, can it?

Its one of the arguments from PEGIDA (Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes (PEGIDA, in English: "Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West")[SUP][note 1][/SUP] is)

But even if that is true - I dont know it - it would not make the situation better. Racism is racism. What ever if it is because of 200 000 immigrants or because of the 2.4% muslims in Germany.

*But most of it happens in Saxonia which is somewhat funny. 10 000 people demonstrate against 0.4% of the Saxonian population in Dresden, as 0.4% of the Saxonians are muslims. It's all so bizarre.

 

[Ceratisa]

@Ilosar
Many Historians actually consider Nazi fascism to have elements of both the left and right, its not as simple as conservatism or liberalism.
@Sander, I honestly hope you aren't calling historians like Eric Foner laughable while suggesting in comparison, you yourself are not. Since he has actively defined where the parties stood in an attempt to explain why some failed and other succeeded. Of course I'm talking about the United States in this case. Libertaranism isn't even remotely similar to the very defining characteristics of Nazi Germany during its time in power. The very fact that the government encouraged you to spy on your neighbors as one of the most glaringly obvious examples.

I heard on NPR that Germany was taking in over 200,000 immigrants from the Middle-East a year. I'm not saying it shouldn't, but isn't that probably the reason? Even with the rugged Germany economy, it can't really support that kind of immigration in any sustained fashion, can it?

Its one of the arguments from PEGIDA (Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes (PEGIDA, in English: "Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West")[SUP][note 1][/SUP] is)

But even if that is true - I dont know it - it would not make the situation better. Racism is racism. What ever if it is because of 200 000 immigrants or because of the 2.4% muslims in Germany.

*But most of it happens in Saxonia which is somewhat funny. 10 000 people demonstrate against 0.4% of the Saxonian population in Dresden, as 0.4% of the Saxonians are muslims. It's all so bizarre.

Is it bizarre or entirely predictable because they through their own fear of Islam and their own racism don't want that minority to grow?
The most logical resolution to me seems to be that Germany should reform their immigration policy to accept the able, and their families into the country, that way those able to work will enter the workforce and their families will be supported by those working. Hopefully very little of the burden would fall upon the state itself then, but rather it should about equal out into an economic gain overall. The only remaining issue would be Germany's ability to support growth, since fresh immigrants often aren't the one's starting businesses and making jobs available. But since I'm no expert on the the German economy, I can't quite comment on that.

 

[TheWesDude]

This thread is not about GamerGate. If you want to discuss that, go to the Censorship thread.

see, i make an argument about your logical inconsistency citing examples, and you vat it.

this thread is NOT about gamergate.

my response was NOT about gamergate.

my response WAS about your failure to maintain a logical consistency.

that should have been clear when i opened the post with:

see sander, this is why i like to give you a healthy and hefty "fuck you" because you are inconsistent.

then i talked 1 line about gamergate merely to provide a referenced example of where you blame the whole for the actions of a radical minority or 3rd parties.

then i spent 2 more lines talking about this very issue.

either it is ok to blame the whole for the actions of a minority, or it isnt.

my position is that it isnt fair to do so. regardless of circumstances.


one thing a bleeding heart liberal has said that i agree with on this very subject:
radical islam is to islam as the KKK is to christianity

i think that is a quite apt comparison.

radical islam is the enemy of moderate/tolerant islam because it is not content to live side by side with others. yes, both use the koran as the basis of their theology which does have instructions to murder and kill non-muslims, but moderate/tolerant islam at least tries to work within the structures of their environment without overt violence.

KKK has very little to do with christianity. sure it does condone having slaves and polygamy, but also regulates how that happens which means that the KKK has nothing more than a casual in-passing relationship with actual christianity.

the vast majority of muslims ignore the violent part of the koran. radical muslims dont.
the vast majority of christians ignore the violent parts of the bible. the KKK didnt.


society has the right to defend itself. the problem is, more and more societies are refusing to against those who happen to be the biggest actual threat to it.

do i blame every japanese person for the bombing of pearl harbor? nope
do i blame the whole UK for the creation of the US slave trade? nope
do i blame every irish person for the IRA? nope
do i blame every muslim for the actions of terrorists? nope
do i blame every african-american for the gang violence and gun deaths in the US? nope

but it would take a special kind of logic to ignore history and trends.

 

[Crni Vuk]

@Ceratisa, many laws have been already changed, I think immigrants are now allowed to work after already 3 months, before that it could take between 1 and 2 years before their status changed and they had to get support from the government. Many people saw that as issue.

A lot of this fear is very unreasonable. I think Germany has acceptable laws with immigrants even if not everything is perefct. And while the PEGI movement contains a lot of middle class people Dresden as city is very known for its right wing/neo-nazi groups. Hell, Saxon had once the NPD, our right wing party in their German state parliament. For example in Cologne 400 people protested, in Dresden 10 000. Both very large Cities. That alone should tell you something.

I will say this again. Germany has a far bigger problem with right wing nut-jobs than any muslims of which most have rather peacefull lives. Immigrants are really the last of our problems. But they simply make a great scape goat. At least it is easy to blame those 200 000 people for your issues.

The economic situation in Germany has changed, particularly in the east. And many people have trouble to catch up with those changes, Germany has simply become a multicultural society. You see more Black, Asian and Arabian people on the streets than ever before, the big cities at least. And those people live peacefull lives, go to work and all that just like everyone else. But it's simply hard to understand for some, so they react with fear and protest blaming immigrants for their economical problems and the loss of German culture. Even though no one can really tell you what German culture really means.

@TheWesDude. Again, don't blame Sander that you fail to understand the difference between GamerGate and the Islam for christs sake.

 

[Sander]

@TheWesDude: If you want to discuss why I blame the whole of GamerGate for its actions, go to the GamerGate thread. This is not the place for that. When moderators tell you not to do something, you should generally listen. Please do so.

I honestly hope you aren't calling historians like Eric Foner laughable while suggesting in comparison, you yourself are not. Since he has actively defined where the parties stood in an attempt to explain why some failed and other succeeded. Of course I'm talking about the United States in this case. Libertaranism isn't even remotely similar to the very defining characteristics of Nazi Germany during its time in power. The very fact that the government encouraged you to spy on your neighbors as one of the most glaringly obvious examples.

I didn't say Libertarianism was similar to Nazism, so sure. Eric Foner's a great historian and his work on slavery is outstanding (although Nazism isn't his expertise) -- I'm not sure which of his views you're referring to. I'm fairly sure he would never call Nazism "left wing" as you did. Nor would any respectable historian. Nor would any respectable historian use the size of the state as the way to determine whether a regime is left- or right-wing.

 

[Ceratisa]

I didn't call Nazism left wing its a hybrid and this is my third time saying it. What I did mention was my confusion linking right-wing and neo-Nazi

 

[Akratus]

society has the right to defend itself. the problem is, more and more societies are refusing to against those who happen to be the biggest actual threat to it.

I agree with the rest of your post, but are you saying here that islam is societies biggest actual threat?

 

[Sander]

I didn't call Nazism left wing its a hybrid and this is my third time saying it. What I did mention was my confusion linking right-wing and neo-Nazi

Nazis and Neo-Nazis are right-wing in the sense that they are nationalistic, explicitly racist and xenophobic, socially conservative, anti-communist fascists -- all issues generally associated with the "right" on that far-too-simplistic political spectrum. The only left-wing characteristic that (Neo-)Nazism has is a tendency toward supporting economic support of the in-group, but they tend to want to do this by subjugating working-class people to a strict hierarchy with capitalist business owners at the top. There is some public ownership of the means of production, but "public" means "owned by the elites" and subjugated to nationalistic interests (which is different from people's interests), which again, not very left-wing. Neo-nazism, like all fascism, is also very social-Darwinistic and hence its limited support for welfare isn't rooted in egalitarian principles. In fact, punishing (or culling) the weak is basically a core tenet of fascism -- certainly not a left-wing trait, either.

In sum: the very few traces of left-wing policies you can find in Nazism and Neo-Nazism aren't even supported by left-wing ideological concerns, but by a cull-the-weak-support-the-strong attitude.

 

[McRae]

 

[cronicler]

I agree with the rest of your post, but are you saying here that islam is societies biggest actual threat?

No, the perverted, self serving, poisonous lie that masquerades as being the true meaning of Quran is the enemy. As for how to force muslims to actually read the book instead of the "phonetic parroting*"... well your suggestions are welcome

*Look, I know this sounds ridiculous but a lot of muslims who want to read the book go to Quran reading courses that only teach how to pronounce arabic alphabet and how to read the sounds without actually teaching the language. Because people believe that reading Quran in original** arabic language is the only way to read it.
** Modern arabic punctuation has serious differences from the proto-arabic of the Quran (as technically Quran is the first arabic book ever produced in arabic) which causes major headaches and ambiguity when you use it to parse Quran. Think of the English weirdness: "find the correct place top insert the word "only" in the following sentence: "She told him she loved him.", and then multiply it to the every other sentence in Quran. I can't remember the guy's name off the top of my head but there was a German filologist who actually spent a lot of his career rebuilding the punctuation of the proto-arabic and researching the true translation of the text. He was "shut down" after massive love he recieved from a coalition of various M.E factions a few years ago I believe.

 

[SnapSlav]

society has the right to defend itself. the problem is, more and more societies are refusing to against those who happen to be the biggest actual threat to it.

I agree with the rest of your post, but are you saying here that islam is societies biggest actual threat?

No, I read that he said societies are refusing to deal with ACTUAL threats against themselves because of superfluous, often politically-correctness-oriented reasons, such as "because Islam".
e.g. "Muslim fundamentalists are destroying the countryside. But we can't stop them, that would be insensitive to Islam."

Simply put, the threats are there, and they are real. There's no debating their existence. But they're being allowed to continue because of PC bullshit.

 

[Sander]

Which is complete nonsense. Have you looked at the masses of anti-terror legislation, invasions of privacy and expansion of security apparati over the past decade?

 

[Cyberfiend]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates

of COURSE these Islamic extremists have taken JEWISH people hostage. This is beyond horrendous.

 

[alec]

Horrendous? Say hello to the future of Europe. This is the kind of world the last two generations of politicians have created for you and your children. You should be glad. It's a utopia, you just fail to see it. Just listen to liberal left: multiculturalism is the most responsible population policy ever. To quote John Derbyshire:

The Diversity Theorem: Groups of people from anywhere in the world, mixed together in any numbers and proportions whatsoever, will eventually settle down as a harmonious society, appreciating—nay, celebrating!—their differences... which will of course soon disappear entirely.

You just have to be a bit patient. You see muslim terrorist attacks, I see well-meant, but somewhat amateurish attempts to integrate. The death of a couple of cartoonists, a couple of journalists, a couple of policemen, ... it is only a small price to pay for the grand multicultural project. Sacrifices need to be made.

Just be patient. In a couple of weeks, months, maybe years, Europe will be the glorious peaceful meltingpot that it strives to be. I'm a fan. Are you?

 

[SnapSlav]

Which is complete nonsense. Have you looked at the masses of anti-terror legislation, invasions of privacy and expansion of security apparati over the past decade?

This is an error based on fundamentally confusing "acknowledging" with "addressing".

How are self-destructive laws and behaviors either conducive to or in line with measures to protect one's self from a threat? They're mutually exclusive. Policies get implemented that reduce rights and invade privacy NOT "to stop terrorism" but because any excuse is fine for government, as long as the action taken is "increase government power/reach". That's just how governments operate. As the cynical-yet-accurate saying goes, "The first job of any congressman once elected is to get himself reelected." It didn't require psychopathic zealots and xenophobia to get these measures passed; they simply lubricated the process.

Properly addressing a threat would be NOT caving to political demands to "be sensitive" and just addressing it at its core. 9/11 happened because the behemoth of American government is anything BUT monolithic; it's a tangle of seedy bureaucracy as ineffectual as it is massive. The only things that have kept Big Brother in check were NOT laws and morality simple human incompetence, and the system's own deficiencies. Making travel to and from American airports** incredibly tedious and difficult didn't affect Islamic terrorists from carrying out their plots, because that wasn't the problem. Nor would bombing and systematically slaying each and every Muslim in the world impact the problem, either, because THAT wasn't the problem. "As long as there are more than 2 people, someone will want someone else dead" is a saying that reflects that violence WILL inevitably manifest so long as there are human beings. Islam is merely a funnel, and a curiously effective one, at that, at present. Dogma and indoctrination don't require religious texts to be applied. Merely malice and intent to manipulate. Muslim children "in certain parts of the world" exhibit disgusting tendencies of violent xenophobia not because of their ethnicity nor because they're Muslim, but because of their surroundings and upbringings. A law being passed that targets the former categories will always be useless, because those aren't the core problem.

Meanwhile, measures taken to TRY to deal with these serious threats are mixtures of both targeting the wrong issue and bound by the endless red tape of bureaucracy and politics. It's a combination of multiple forms of ineffectual coupled with deficiency, which make for a spectacularly, gloriously worthless action taken. These are the measures you seem to confuse with genuine action being taken to address a serious threat, which they are not.

**If "because Islam" and PC weren't impacting these decisions, then why are stereotypically "not Muslim" individuals such as adult white males stopped and harassed by the TSA equally as much as everyone, including stereotypically "Muslim" individuals? Because political correctness HAS impacted the process, and always for the worse. Making a process that should be based on expediency suddenly cumbersome simply because you are compulsorily mandated to hassle all parties equally is great for PC proponents, but a nightmare for anyone with rational mind.

 

[Cyberfiend]

Nothings been confirmed yet, but apparently there are reports that the officer that died on Thursday prevented Couilibaly from going into a Jewish primary school with the purpose of a committing a massacre.

 

[SnapSlav]

..........Primary School..........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I just... there is nothing I can say to that.

 

[Cyberfiend]

Like I wrote nothing's been confirmed as of yet. But if true then I'm terrified for the current hostages. Also, that police officer is a god damn hero.

 

[SnapSlav]

Oh, I didn't miss the "not confirmed", and if that detail was a deliberate exaggeration, then that's all kinds of levels of unacceptably fucked up. But that's what I mean by dot dot dot dot dot dot dot dot dot dot etc etc. No MATTER how you slice it, that's just.......... Yeah.