The elephant part is new though, an unexpected twist.
Paris terror attacks on Friday 13th
- Thread starter Neutral
- Start date
There are fundemental differences. This has been discussed elswhere. I'll not go into it here again.
This is a major problem. If people are going to immigrate to a new nation or seek asylum there, they should be expected to integrate and to some extent assimilate into their new host nation. They shouldn't live in Germany or France but remain entrenched in their former culture. In the US, integration has been a large part of why most immigrants have fit in well after some time. It seems that more recently some immigrants are less interested in integrating and assimilating than maintaining their previous culture and beliefs. A large number of second generation hispanic immigrants to the US now don't see themselves as Americans first but rather feel closer to their family's country.
If people don't want to make an effort to assimilate or integrate, they should leave. There's a limit to how much any government can do to integrate them.
Nope. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/racism
The idea that racism can only be committed by white people is an appallingly stupid one. Is the Nation of Islam just a "prejudiced" organization?
Last edited:
Well even using your definition, my travellers analogy still works.
I was refering to the West where 'white' governments do have power over non-white minorities.
Nation of Islam has no power over the white majority.
Yes, but its counter-productive in general to distort language. It creates disconnection and makes arguing much harder, for both sides. IMO its a significant problem in political and social discussions nowadays, and its not that just one side is to blame. The word 'Liberal' also got the f*** distorted out of it, for example. I'd rather everyone consolidate established definitions, but know that its too much to expect.
I understand fully. But there Are differences. Anyways I think we are getting away from the original discussion.
We have a major problem with these people who are in our midst. The solution has to be far reaching. Or this will continue. Bombing and destroying where these groups are will not completely solve the problem in the long term.
That's fair enough. I can only comment from my experiences in Germany. There was always very little integration. We still used to travel to our home countries a few times a year and were really never disconnected. The vast majority of foreigners never took German citizenship, never served in the German military, never fully connected. That's just the way things were.
you are right. But we cannot throw up our hands and say. "Well we cannot do anything about it." There needs to be active work to solve this...and Everyone from all communities need to be involved or this will go on and on.
I don't think there's a need to leave as long as both parties are alright with the 'arrangement'. My parents worked in Germany since the 70s, living a normal life, paying their taxes, etc. There was no need for them to assimilate into the German society and become 'Germans'. The trouble starts when your lack of effort to integrate into the society, i.e. in terms of deficient language, becomes a barrier to your success and starts preventing you from finishing well at school, prevents you from applying to university, good jobs and all that business. A huge number of second generation foreigners missed out due to living in parallel societies.
Bloody hell. How lucky were those two ladies (and then probably the rest of people inside)...
Yea, absolutely agree with you. And I think one if the biggest influences you can have starts in your own family and in your own community. And being aware of the huge number of services available and actively using them. First thing I did when a few people that I knew escaped the civil war in Yugoslavia and came to Germany was to enroll them in language courses. That was just absolutely essential and it's the first step.
I heard a very sad story on This American Life about a second generation Chinese immigrant who integrated completely to American society, to the extent he couldn't speak Chinese. While his dad (who he shared a home with, albeit working such long hours they rarely interacted) never learned English. End result, the kid was a fully grown adult by the time he was able to start having any kind of conversation with his dad (using an interpreter)
For first generation immigrants, I agree that full assimilation isn't required, but separate but equal societies don't make for a successful minority. Living in ghettos has never helped anyone. Many of the Italian immigrants who came over to the US in the early 1900s originally intended to work here and then return when things were better in Italy with their earnings. Or they supported their family in the old country. By WWI, they realized going home wasn't an option and then began to "invest" in becoming American.
excellent. agree. each of us can do something. During these sympathy expression for the French, this whole accusation that the West does not care about non-white deaths came up. It is true the media does not highlight them. The palestinian issue for example. Perhaps we have become immune to these deaths.
It is very unfortunate we as a society have begun in a way to 'accept'. We need to be re engaged.
Yeah - the experience will definitely vary from country to country.
Not to mention in terms of this topic and this issue - France not does not believe in multiculturalism. France has for a long time implemented 'assimilationist' policies. They believe you are simply French.
Where as in my own experience - we are Irish-American, Italian-American, Latino-American etc etc etc.
Both have their strengths and obvious weaknesses.
Indeed very lucky, I guess they pretended to be dead.
The gun jammed apparently. About as lucky as it gets!
Absolutely if it did.
Having escaped oblivion by inches, the women outside gather their parcels before running away! Shopping looks death in the eye and doesn't blink!
All the women moved in a fairly leisurely fashion, didn't they? Whereas the guys scampered around like rodents. Better male sense of self-preservation!
I was waiting on the mrs at a store over the weekend, and got to thinking of what to do if a guy walked in with an AK right then (what else to think of while she shops?). One of the things was that I'd have to actually consciously drop the bags I was carrying, because instinct just has you hold on. The other thing is also probably to consciously switch to a hyper-aggressive mindset that I'm not sure is automatic. And I don't mean aggressive about fighting back, but rather about things like knocking over stuff in the way, breaking glass or anything else in the way. Stuff we don't usually do, and in fact avoid doing.
And then there's the mrs and women in general. It goes without saying that their safety comes first, but they're so fecking slow, unathletic and unagressive as we saw in the video. Do they get faster if you push them? Is it worth the risk of them falling over?
Why would he do that? I don't think a man who went there to kill would suddenly change his mind.
The main thing I will remember from that video is the woman being comforted by the barmaid behind the counter. I don't know why but it really gets to me.
I think it's quite clear that the gun jammed. The cnut went to the woman with the clear intention to shoot her point-blank.
I can't speak for Mihajlovic but since I raised the topic I'll answer.
I was, in fact, trying to make the opposite point, while at the same time seeing if you could hold a consistent stance.
My point was that any narrative of a clash of civilizations, of 'Islam vs. The West' or whatever shouldn't be accepted or go unchallenged even though one particular group (European Christians 1,000 years ago, many Muslims today) believe there to be a string of reasons proving it to be true.
There are many factors which undermine or complicate the Crusader notion of an Islamic war on Christianity. Similarly, the idea that the West is today at war against Islam doesn't hold up. To take three examples:
1. Many Middle Eastern and North African Christians were quite happy to exchange Byzantine rule for that of the Muslims, as they found the latter generally more tolerant of their diverse beliefs.
Likewise today, many Muslims find a much greater degree of religious freedom in the West then they do in predominantly Muslim countries.
2. During the Crusades and after, many Muslim states were willing, time and again, to ally with Christians against their Muslim rivals.
Likewise today you get many Western or Christian states sometimes ready to support Muslims against others (e.g. Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims vs. Serbs, or Pakistan vs. India and by extension the Soviets).
3. The Crusaders' 'defense' of the Holy Land involved the slaughter of Jews and other minority Christian sects they deemed deviant.
Likewise, jihadists' 'defense' of Islam today involves the targeting mostly of other Muslims.
The idea that Islam and the West are locked in some kind of inevitable perpetual conflict is among the most dangerous notion floating about these days. It shouldn't be accepted with a shrug of the shoulder and a "what do you expect?" attitude, rather those on both 'sides' who subscribe to it need to be challenged constantly.
That's what you would think, but the video looks quite convincing to me. He points the gun down at them, looks like he says something, and then they escape. I'm surprised but it is just what I see in the video...Maybe the religious mind virus wasn't so strong in this one.
I've had this exact same thought while out shopping and pondering what to do if a terrorist attacks.I've not seen it put that way before. Thought provoking post.
Nothing convincing about it really?
Looks like he went to do it but couldn't, whatever the reason may be. I think it's reasonably safe to assume the gun jammed though, what with all the rest of the shooting at people.
Well I don't know anything about firearms, how likely is it that the gun jammed?
I'm no expert but I don't think it's massively rare, particularly if not well maintained.
@Dwazza von Moosesteiger might be able to better answer that.
It'll be interesting if the two women say anything to the media. Incredibly fortunate either way!
Yeah the woman moving behind the bar was in the sort of run you'd see old people do when they're late for the bus.
It seems the gun jammed in the Thalys attack, saving some lives, so probably not very rare.
I think this is quite common. Heard a story about grandkids born here and learning English from the beginning, being brought up by grandparents who speak no English. Apparently they tend to live together and the only words they communicate with are "are you hungry" and the alike.
Depends on a few things, so it could be any of these scenarios: Jams can happen but are rare in quality firearms. That said, a dirty gun is more likely to jam. Poor quality ammunition will give you a higher percentage of duds, i.e. rounds that don't go off when the firing pin strikes the primer charge. You then have to clear the dud and introduce a new round to the chamber, which is time consuming. Finally, automatic weapons tend to overheat when the operator fires a lot of rounds. This can happen with semi autos, too, and it means your gun won't work properly.
That said, in these situations the bad guy will likely just beat people with the gun if it isn't firing...but that's dangerous as well.
Yes. The outer borders need to be strongly enforced and entries/exits should face some level of scrutiny. Obviously there are places where all someone needs to do is cross a river in a rural area to get from Turkey to Greece or Bulgaria, but there's no reason those entering or leaving the EU aren't checked against existing databases. Most of the nations in the Eastern part of the EU will lack the capabilities and resources of the British, French, and Germans when it comes to intelligence, but they shouldn't be completely blind. Nor should they be lazy or hesitant to perform necessary checks for incoming traffic. If there were better information sharing, potential terrorists could be apprehended prior to carrying out attacks and away from major targets. Stricter external border controls could also help combat other types of crime since it's not only terrorists who are sneaking in and out.