[headdie]

The problem Goober IS the source, The Daily Mail and The Sun are sensationalist tabloids both with a proven history of putting scandal above minor details like fact checking

[The E]

Read between the lines.  They are communities with a majority migrant population.  Women are not taken seriously.  Criminal justice is handled within the enclave without involving the police.

This is not full-blown explicit Sharia, but it certainly has all the marks of Sharia "in the closet".

No. Zones where Police doesn't go, or where groups try to establish a segregated community are a problem for criminal justice which is present everywhere where "criminal justice" is a thing. It doesn't matter whether these communities are founded by immigrants or nazis or whatever (And again: Nazis are a much bigger problem in Germany). There have been attempts to create similar zones by muslims. They were rejected by the muslim community and severely discouraged by the authorities.

In other words, this isn't a new problem. It didn't start with immigrants or refugees, it won't end if we stop taking in new people.

Oh for ****'s sake! You're quoting The Daily Mail AGAIN?! And then you're following it up with the 750 no-go zones nonsense even though a quick look on Snopes would have shown what bollocks it is? Even Fox News apologised for that bull****.

If you're going to lose your **** whenever someone cites a source, this thread isn't going to remain civil for very long.

Maybe you should stop quoting discredited sources?

[Aesaar]

Goobber: your post is pretty representative of why it's pretty hard to believe claims that these "no-go zones" exist.  It's all "read between the lines" and "statements by the government are invalid because they'd never admit it even if it was true."

I'd also be careful citing Gatestone.  For one, they're the only "reputable" place I've ever seen articles on this.  Second, I've read articles from them in which they cited French sources that didn't actually say what they claimed the sources were saying.  Or, like the German example The_E's talking about, they interpreted unsafe zones as automatically meaning Muslim-controlled when the source never mentioned Islam anywhere.  I suspect they were hoping their readers didn't speak French and so couldn't verify. 

I don't feel like delving through that website to find an example, so believe what you will.    I think they have a political agenda.

Also, that there are groups actively trying to accomplish something doesn't mean anything.  There are groups in the US actively trying to ban Islam from the country.  It doesn't mean they'll ever succeed.

[Goober5000]

The problem Goober IS the source, The Daily Mail and The Sun are sensationalist tabloids both with a proven history of putting scandal above minor details like fact checking

A good scandal usually has a basis in truth.  That's why I cited other sources as well.  The Daily Mail and the Sun shouldn't be the final word on the subject.

Maybe you should stop quoting discredited sources?

Why should that have any bearing on how karajorma behaves?  Both you and NGTM-1R responded civilly to that post.

[Bobboau]

I asked for this so I figured I needed to respond even if it is a few pages stale.

Fine.  People who have comfortable lives and future prospects don't usually go and blow themselves up.  Terrorism isn't caused by religion, it's caused by poverty and desperation.  ISIS didn't come about because 'lol Muslims', it came about because there's been a near nonstop war in the region since 2003 (and since 1979 in Afghanistan, and then the whole Israel thing).

I've said this in other threads before, but the whole ISIS things has a lot of parallels with the Russian Revolution.  ISIS and the Bolsheviks operate in very similar ways.  They show up, make an example of some scapegoats (usually representatives of the ineffective government), take over government services, run them relatively competently, and violently dispose of any dissenters.  Both used an ideology to gain traction with a thoroughly disenfranchised population with little hope for the future and blamed the problems on some Other.  The biggest differences are the ideologies used (for Russia, it was Communism, and for the ME, it's Islam), and the fact that Lenin was a lot more competent a general than al-Baghdadi is.

Now, here's the thing: if you can offer all the refugees fleeing the war the chance to make themselves safe and comfortable lives in the West, then you're not likely to see many of them turn to terrorism.  They'll have no cause to.  What do you think will happen if you make them turn around and go back to the war-torn ****hole they came from, where they have no future?  Why, they might become quite receptive to the notion that their problems are caused by the West.  Maybe they'll want to do something about it.

Why do you think countries like Saudia Arabia, Iran, the UAE, and Jordan don't have huge problems with domestic terrorism?  I mean, if Muslims are a security issue in Western countries even in their small numbers, shouldn't these countries, which are almost entirely Muslim, be crawling with terrorists?

Terrorism represents a failure of government, not religion.

Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh and a whole bunch of other fat comfortable christian Americans who think that god has charged them a righteous crusade against the unholy heathens would like to tell you some good news. and the 5-7000 ISIS fighters that made the reverse migration would like to share some good news too.

You place a religious conservative family from Syria into a liberal secular European country and what do you think will happen when their daughters/sisters start coming home with local boys, dressing "like a slut" and listening to that devil music. This western temptation is corrupting or youth! They will see, "oh the west really is against god. it really is a plague of degeneracy on the world that needs to be wiped out" it happens with Christians in America, why wouldn't it happen with Muslims in Europe?

Saudia Arabia, Iran, the UAE, and Jordan don't have huge problems with domestic terrorism are all also totalitarian theocracies that will eagerly crack your skull at the slightest sight of not fervently praising the national government

You cannot have terrorism without an ideology that pushes you to sacrifice your life for a greater good. You can have that if you have nothing or if you live in the lap of luxury. If you feel like you are better and have absolute truth and the rest of the world just needs to fall in line. Religion fills this role wonderfully, in fact that might be it's purpose, to give a uniformity of thought in a population and to make that population willing to serve the greater good. Why do you think there is always a war on Christmas?

and then there is the bigger question of maybe they are right to a degree, maybe islam and western liberalism are incompatible after all.

[Grizzly]

They exist in France, the UK, Germany, and other countries as well.

Just gonna comment on the Germany example you linked there: All that interview states is that there are zones where the Police does not feel safe going alone. There's nothing there about Sharia zones. They do not exist, not in the sense Maslo was referring to them.

Read between the lines.  They are communities with a majority migrant population.  Women are not taken seriously.  Criminal justice is handled within the enclave without involving the police.

This is not full-blown explicit Sharia, but it certainly has all the marks of Sharia "in the closet".

Getting your news from Presidential campaign speeches isn't a very good way to stay informed about the world.  Try reading European news sources, or talking to people -- like Sandwich -- who are actually from Europe.

Why would you listen to, say, Sandwich, who doesn't live in Europe, but deny the E, who actually lives in the country you are talking about?

Why should that have any bearing on how karajorma behaves?  Both you and NGTM-1R responded civilly to that post.

We are kinda obligated to be nice because you are an admin. Karajorma has the authority to set you straight when you do something really stupid.

[Bobboau]

We on this forum have historically run on the principal of freedom of speech, we don't take it as far as I would like but for the most part that has been the culture. if you don't have any hope of changing his mind and don't mind looking like an asshole by all means be as rude to him as you would anyone else, admin abuse of power has always been something that has never been tolerated.

[headdie]

Admins are given a degree of respect on here because, while there have been exceptions, they are usually level headed individuals whose words show a level of depth that thinking them over before replying is usually the prudent thing to do regardless of the scenario.

Mods.... have a more checkered history lol

[Aesaar]

I asked for this so I figured I needed to respond even if it is a few pages stale.

Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh and a whole bunch of other fat comfortable christian Americans who think that god has charged them a righteous crusade against the unholy heathens would like to tell you some good news. and the 5-7000 ISIS fighters that made the reverse migration would like to share some good news too.

You place a religious conservative family from Syria into a liberal secular European country and what do you think will happen when their daughters/sisters start coming home with local boys, dressing "like a slut" and listening to that devil music. This western temptation is corrupting or youth! They will see, "oh the west really is against god. it really is a plague of degeneracy on the world that needs to be wiped out" it happens with Christians in America, why wouldn't it happen with Muslims in Europe?

Saudia Arabia, Iran, the UAE, and Jordan don't have huge problems with domestic terrorism are all also totalitarian theocracies that will eagerly crack your skull at the slightest sight of not fervently praising the national government

You cannot have terrorism without an ideology that pushes you to sacrifice your life for a greater good. You can have that if you have nothing or if you live in the lap of luxury. If you feel like you are better and have absolute truth and the rest of the world just needs to fall in line. Religion fills this role wonderfully, in fact that might be it's purpose, to give a uniformity of thought in a population and to make that population willing to serve the greater good. Why do you think there is always a war on Christmas?

and then there is the bigger question of maybe they are right to a degree, maybe islam and western liberalism are incompatible after all.

I'm pretty sure I stated in one of the dozen posts I made in this thread that yes, you're going to get terrorists even in a comfortable, well-off population, but you're not going to get large scale movements like IS or Al-Qaeda.  You'll notice that all the people who left European counties to join IS... left their countries.  They didn't stay to fight at home, they went to Syria.

What you describe probably happens, but then again, I suspect that Muslims who really do think the West in the devil, or immoral, and that western values will corrupt their youth won't choose a western country to come to.  They'll go to Turkey, or Lebanon, or Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt.  Do remember that far, far more Syrian refugees have gone to other Middle-Eastern countries than have gone to Europe.

Of the four countries listed, only Iran is a theocracy.  The other three objectively are not.  Jordan is actually a fairly liberal secular constitutional monarchy (relative to other states in the ME), and is probably one of the greatest success stories of the Middle-East.

You cannot have large-scale terrorism without circumstances that favor the creation of large paramilitary movements specifically focused towards committing criminal acts for political ends.  Those circumstances almost always (as in I can't think of a case where they did not) involve perceived oppression, stemming from poverty, desperation, or disenfranchisement.  Sure, you need an ideology, but that ideology will not gain widespread traction if circumstances don't favor it.  Such circumstances did not exist in Iraq until 2003 (except for the Kurds).  They exist now, which is why IS happened now and not in 2002.  Religion absolutely fills this hole, but it is by no means the only thing that does.  Communism did the job perfectly well in both Russia and China.  If circumstances in a region favor the development of terrorist or rebel movements, a suitable ideology will be found.  It happens every time.

And I think Islam is as compatible with western liberalism as Christianity is.  It is no less mutable.

[AtomicClucker]

Well, I'll say this on the matter - people are idiots. From the Left trying to falsely paint the refugees as a one-solution fits all approach to radical right wingers and Nazis calling for concentration camps.

What the matter shows is that ISIS is not a mere bully, but an entity that will and can strike. Normally I don't advocate for direct force, but after the Paris attacks, my opinion is heavily leaning towards a form of real military action, not just airstrikes. Perhaps we do owe it to the Syrians to give them their country back.

As for my take on the migrants and refugees? Well, the answer is simple - the Left is foolish, downright lying bastards claiming that integration will go smoothly. In fact, I'm more cynical that the current European governments are pretending that the refugees as "an easy" problem when in reality it's a mess. The so-called Liberals in Europe better get a memo that things are not peachy, and all of their pathetic pandering to sound "politically acceptable" will just backfire as much as the clash going on with migrants and natives. The Left is in crisis, cowards, and not really ready to hear reality.

Are the migrants a problem? So are the governments trying to foolishly paint it white. I'm not surprised at the attempts of whitewashing to make things look easy, and they're not. And frankly, magically expecting the refugees to "integrate" is stupid. And really, I got no good answers but wait and see.

[Bobboau]

@Aesaar
Yes, the ones who left left and the ones who didn't staid, that's quite tautological.

There are Christian westerners who grew up in the west, are part of the culture, and who you would say have massive privilege in the culture who think the west is of the devil and corrupting the youth, people who none the less move into more "liberal" cities for their career, I'm see no reason to assume there are no Muslims who do the same.

OK, I'll give you Jordan, but you are actually calling the UAE and Saudi "There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah"-on-it's-****ing-flag Arabia non-theocracies? I suppose maybe technically they are Monarchies, but that is at best pedantic. At least you are not contesting my assertion that they are totalitarian, which is the reason I was asserting why they don't have a whole lot of internal terrorism, and honestly they do have a fair decent amount of that even with their focus on control of their population.

So, when you say "large-scale terrorism" you mean like the christian militia movement (some of them/debatable), or the KKK/Arian Nation, or the Weathermen in the US, or the to look outside the US how about the IRA or the ETA? it seems the only thing that stopped these things from becoming paramilitary is a strong existing central military power and it sure as hell didn't stop them from being highly effective terrorist groups so the only thing missing in the comparison to ISIS specifically is the ability to hold land, but I don't see why that's relevant to a discussion about terrorism in general.

"Religion absolutely fills this hole, but it is by no means the only thing that does.  Communism did the job perfectly well in both Russia and China."
I absolutely unconditionally agree with this statement.
Though I often think of Communism as tantamount to a religion.

"And I think Islam is as compatible with western liberalism as Christianity is."
I don't disagree with you. but possibly not in the way you think. Christianity has been on a slow decline the last few hundred years and on a rather rapid collapse the last 50ish. If Islam was forced to play by the same rules Christianity has in recent history it would likely be in the same boat.

[Phantom Hoover]

Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh and a whole bunch of other fat comfortable christian Americans who think that god has charged them a righteous crusade against the unholy heathens would like to tell you some good news.

McVeigh? McVeigh, who directed his terrorist attack at the US federal government as an explicitly political act? That 'Christain crusader', McVeigh? You're proving yourself wrong pretty wonderfully.

[Bobboau]

yeah, its debatable.

[Bobboau]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/french-jets-bomb-syria-police-launched-international-manhunt/story?id=35215091

[karajorma]

Maybe you should stop quoting discredited sources?

Why should that have any bearing on how karajorma behaves?  Both you and NGTM-1R responded civilly to that post.

Because neither of them caught on to exactly what you did. Having been asked for a reputable source you deliberately posted one you knew would be unacceptable to those people arguing against you. You've been on this forum long enough to know that the Daily Mail is probably one of the worst news sources on the planet and that it is especially unacceptable to anyone of a left-wing point of view. You know damn well that posting anything from the Daily Mail is scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. You've been around long enough to know that simply posting a Daily Mail article is immediately followed by someone having to go to the trouble of finding a website that shows it has been discredited (in exactly the same way I had to).

So given all that, as far as I'm concerned, you posted a bad faith argument. You knew the exact effect posting a Daily Mail story would have, yet you made no attempt to find a better source. I could try to read between the lines about your motives for doing so but I'm simply going to leave it at publicly putting it on record that you now know that those of us on this board consider the Mail to be at about the same level of reputability as the Sunday Sport or National Enquirer.

[Bobboau]

I honestly don't remember which UK tabloids are acceptable to which tribes, I just remember some people find some of them unacceptable and I have to some times go back and find another source. I don't live in the UK so I'm not reminded about it every other day, I don't read it, I wouldn't recognize their logo. I imagine Goober is in a similar boat as me.

[NGTM-1R]

Actually, I was tempted to curse Goober out for the right-wing conspiracy blog  long before I got to the Daily Mail being a so thoroughly discredited source a presidential candidate had to apologize for using that story.

The post that you saw was edited for tone a half-dozen times before I actually posted it. I had, and have, serious doubts about whether the effort to make the post's point-by-point analysis of the sources was at all worthwhile, much as I spent several minutes of debate in whether it actually deserved a civil reply. "Argument in bad faith" are gentler words than I would use to describe it. "Willful and bizarre desire to believe something you think horrible in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence" and "deliberate ignorance of anything past the point where the information that confirms your worldview is" are as close to politely rendering my opinion of what that was as I can come in the five and a half minutes I'm devoting to this post.

[headdie]

I honestly don't remember which UK tabloids are acceptable to which tribes, I just remember some people find some of them unacceptable and I have to sometimes go back and find another source. I don't live in the UK so I'm not reminded about it every other day, I don't read it, I wouldn't recognize their logo. I imagine Goober is in a similar boat as me.

while that is fair enough, The Daily Mail has the dubious honour of having it's editor in chief go from pretty damn popular to publicly ridiculed in a day over 1 decision to go with his boner rather than check sources which cost him his job soon after, that editor in chief was Piers Morgan.  Not many years after that News of the World and the phone hacking broke so the Tabloids/Sensationalist press based in the UK has a *Very" low standing as far as the more intellectual Brit is concerned, and even before that.... it wasn't very high due to harassment, knee jerk reporting and more often than not extremely conservative views.  Unfortunately most brits lap that **** up so they still have health circulation numbers.

[General Battuta]

Also just a general FYI that Russia is probably not in Syria to fight Daesh

[Goober5000]

They exist in France, the UK, Germany, and other countries as well.

Just gonna comment on the Germany example you linked there: All that interview states is that there are zones where the Police does not feel safe going alone. There's nothing there about Sharia zones. They do not exist, not in the sense Maslo was referring to them.

Read between the lines.  They are communities with a majority migrant population.  Women are not taken seriously.  Criminal justice is handled within the enclave without involving the police.

This is not full-blown explicit Sharia, but it certainly has all the marks of Sharia "in the closet".

Getting your news from Presidential campaign speeches isn't a very good way to stay informed about the world.  Try reading European news sources, or talking to people -- like Sandwich -- who are actually from Europe.

Why would you listen to, say, Sandwich, who doesn't live in Europe, but deny the E, who actually lives in the country you are talking about?

I had been under the impression that Israel was technically considered part of Europe, but on looking it up it's actually considered part of West Asia.  The funny thing about the Middle East is that it's on the crossroads of three continents.  Mea culpa on that point.

I'm not at all denying The E's experiences.  Telling someone that there could be more than meets the eye is completely different from contradicting him.

And your juxtaposition of quotes makes it look like that second quote was directed at The E, when it was actually directed at NGTM-1R.  I hope that wasn't your intention.

Why should that have any bearing on how karajorma behaves?  Both you and NGTM-1R responded civilly to that post.

Because neither of them caught on to exactly what you did. Having been asked for a reputable source you deliberately posted one you knew would be unacceptable to those people arguing against you. You've been on this forum long enough to know that the Daily Mail is probably one of the worst news sources on the planet and that it is especially unacceptable to anyone of a left-wing point of view. You know damn well that posting anything from the Daily Mail is scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. You've been around long enough to know that simply posting a Daily Mail article is immediately followed by someone having to go to the trouble of finding a website that shows it has been discredited (in exactly the same way I had to).

So given all that, as far as I'm concerned, you posted a bad faith argument. You knew the exact effect posting a Daily Mail story would have, yet you made no attempt to find a better source. I could try to read between the lines about your motives for doing so but I'm simply going to leave it at publicly putting it on record that you now know that those of us on this board consider the Mail to be at about the same level of reputability as the Sunday Sport or National Enquirer.

Ah, you're giving me too much credit here.  I'm in the same boat as Bobboau; I honestly didn't remember that you had such a reaction to the Daily Mail last time I posted a link it.

I take issue with your statement "you made no attempt to find a better source" though.  I cited multiple sources, only one of which was the Daily Mail.