[karajorma]

Yes, but you cited multiple sources that confirmed your point of view. Given how easy it was to prove the 750 French No-Go areas was false (literally 1 minute for me on Bing, not even Google) the obvious conclusion is that you only looked at sites which confirmed your biases and didn't bother trying to look for anything which showed that they were wrong.

More importantly though, if you are not familiar enough with British culture to know that The Daily Mail is a rag, then perhaps you shouldn't contradict people who seem certain that they are correct. I'm from the UK so I obviously know the culture of my country very well. If you aren't familiar with my culture (and if you don't know the names of the main newspapers, you probably aren't) then it takes quite a large amount of hubris to tell me I'm flat out wrong about it. Had you asked why that article wasn't proof of the existence of No-go zones I would have been a lot more civil.

[watsisname]

WTG France, bomb the **** out of those bastards.

[Grizzly]

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.

No, it wasn't, it was more a "Practice what you preach" remark.

[Goober5000]

Yes, but you cited multiple sources that confirmed your point of view. Given how easy it was to prove the 750 French No-Go areas was false (literally 1 minute for me on Bing, not even Google) the obvious conclusion is that you only looked at sites which confirmed your biases and didn't bother trying to look for anything which showed that they were wrong.

What kind of circular logic is this?  If I'm looking to prove a point I'm obviously going to cite evidence in support of that point.

You, on the other hand, are not showing any indication that you actually read the articles that I linked.  The American Thinker article says, in the second sentence, "For the record, there are no "official" no-go zones anywhere in Europe."  You've gone and congratulated yourself -- twice -- for disproving an argument that I never advanced in the first place.

You're trying to paint the situation as black-and-white, as if I'm saying that there is full-fledged Sharia and that non-Muslims are entirely prohibited.  The full story is more complex, and it's a delicate subject.  Of course the official word is that there is no problem and everything is fine.  You might be content to stop there, but I'm interested in the truth, not merely the party line.

This page has some more thorough on-the-ground reporting on the sort of circumstances one finds in the Sensitive Urban Zones.  (It was linked by both the American Thinker article and the Snopes article, incidentally.)

More importantly though, if you are not familiar enough with British culture to know that The Daily Mail is a rag, then perhaps you shouldn't contradict people who seem certain that they are correct. I'm from the UK so I obviously know the culture of my country very well. If you aren't familiar with my culture (and if you don't know the names of the main newspapers, you probably aren't) then it takes quite a large amount of hubris to tell me I'm flat out wrong about it. Had you asked why that article wasn't proof of the existence of No-go zones I would have been a lot more civil.

What I said was "I honestly didn't remember that you had such a reaction to the Daily Mail".  That has to do with you in particular.  I don't categorically rule out a news source just because it's a rag or it has a spotty record; if I limited myself to sources which were never in error I wouldn't be on the Internet.  As I said earlier in this thread, a good scandal has an element of truth.

In the US, MSNBC has the same reputation to those on the right that Fox News has to those on the left.  But if someone making an argument cited one of those sites, I would do them the courtesy of reading it regardless of which one it was.

[AdmiralRalwood]

In the US, MSNBC has the same reputation to those on the right that Fox News has to those on the left.  But if someone making an argument cited one of those sites, I would do them the courtesy of reading it regardless of which one it was.

MSNBC has a reputation as the propaganda arm of a political party that routinely flat-out lies to its audience? This is news to me.

[Aesaar]

@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.

My point is that the IS sympathisers in Europe didn't start a war in their home countries.  They went to Syria to fight there.  The political circumstances in Western European countries do not favor the development of domestic terrorist organisations.  Unlike Iraq and Syria.

There's a significant difference between not being willing to leave a place where you're already established even when you dislike it, and moving to that place.  If they must move, I don't think you'll see too many American fundamentalist Christians moving to San Francisco if they have the option of going pretty much anywhere else.  Same idea here. 

A theocracy is a specific form of government.  Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with a state religion.  The UAE is a state of 7 such monarchies.  That they have state religions does not make them theocracies.  Like I said to 666maslo66 earlier, if a state religion makes a country a theocracy, then the UK is one.

Did you read the rest of the thread at all? Because I talked about the IRA a lot as an example of a terrorist movement that wasn't Muslim and ended pretty neatly despite the UK not resorting to 666maslo666's notion of 'deport all the potential terrorists'.  I'm not really sure what you're arguing about.

[666maslo666]

So, there are apparently areas we can call "immigrant ghettos", where crime rate is relatively high and going inside is discouraged, especially at night. And even officers think twice before they enter without good support. Should we call them "no-go zones" or not? Semantics.. The definition of a no-go zone would probably be different if you are a man or woman, strong or weak etc..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseng%C3%A5rd#Violence

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/world/europe/27sweden.html
>Rosengard hardly has the look of a troubled ghetto. Lawns and playgrounds abound. But the area does not look like traditional Sweden, either. Satellite dishes hang from every balcony. The bakery sells Middle Eastern confections. Al Jazeera plays on the televisions. And young men huddle on street corners casually bragging about doing battle with the police.
>A few years ago, the fire and ambulance brigades would not even enter Rosengard without a police escort. Youths there threw rocks and set cars on fire. Police officials say things are much better now. Fires were down 40 percent last year compared with 2009. But last month, two police vehicles parked at the station were set on fire with small homemade explosives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_riots

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-15/belgium-targets-molenbeek-neighborhood-in-anti-terror-clampdown
>Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel called for a stricter clampdown in Molenbeek, the municipality hosting the largest population of North African descent in the Belgian capital and an apparent hot spot for terrorist activity as shown by its involvement in earlier attacks and foiled plots this year.
>“Almost every single time there’s a link with Molenbeek,” Michel said on VRT television. “Interior Minister Jan Jambon has already taken initiatives against radicalism, against terrorism in a preventive strategy, but we need more forceful action as well.”

Perhaps people in the west are already used to the fact that in a city there are inevitably certain "bad parts of town", minority neighbourhoods that are best to be avoided, so they dont consider this a big problem. But with the exception of a few Roma areas such as Lunix IX in Kosice, I dont know of any such areas in Slovakia, and I would like to keep it that way. We dont need another problematic minority with above average crime rate that could form similar ghettos, enough problems with the Roma integration already, and they dont even have widespread religious extremism

[karajorma]

Did you fail to notice the part about chronic unemployment in that particular part of town?

If I'm looking to prove a point I'm obviously going to cite evidence in support of that point.

You might be content to stop there, but I'm interested in the truth, not merely the party line.

You don't see how those two are contrary to each other? Sorry Goober but you aren't the slightest bit interested in the truth. If you were, you wouldn't still be defending posting the article from The American Thinker. That is an article written in 2015 containing details from the 2006 article by Daniel Pipes that you should know damn well were debunked by Daniel Pipes himself in 2013. You've accused me of not reading the article but have you? Actually, **** that, why hasn't the author of that piece read the article he's ****ing quoting from? The first thing the article says is

[Author's note: Please note that the update of Jan. 16, 2013 substantially changes my understanding of the ZUS.]

and then he goes and quotes something from the 2006 part of it as if that's somehow not incredibly dodgy!

More importantly though, since you were complaining at me about not having read the article, I know you must have read Snopes and the original Daniel Pipes article. So why, knowing what you obviously do now, knowing that The American Thinker article has done some seriously dubious stuff, are you still trying to use it as evidence instead of dropping it like a kid who thinks he's found some chocolate would as soon as his friends start pointing out that it's actually dog ****.

I'm angry about this cause there is a bad faith argument going on here. I know the author of The American Thinker posted a bad faith article that said things even his own damn source now disagrees with. But what worries me is that you are continuing to defend it. Now it's quite possible that when this article first came to your attention you didn't realise what **** it was. But now, you're still trying to argue it's good. To me that either means you are the same kind of wilfully ignorant that you have previously complained at others for, or that you went into this knowing that the article in American Thinker was dodgy but hoped to pull the wool over our eyes.

What I said was "I honestly didn't remember that you had such a reaction to the Daily Mail".  That has to do with you in particular.  I don't categorically rule out a news source just because it's a rag or it has a spotty record; if I limited myself to sources which were never in error I wouldn't be on the Internet.  As I said earlier in this thread, a good scandal has an element of truth.

I don't rule out the Daily Mail just because that is the source. I just get automatically more distrustful. But when there are massive, massive gaps in the narrative I get suspicious. When it is claiming something as ****ing big as no-go zones and no one else is claiming they exist. Not even people who ****ing live in the places named, then I get very, very suspicious about them.

[666maslo666]

Did you fail to notice the part about chronic unemployment in that particular part of town?

Nope, but thats a given, its not like you can easily change it. If we had a magic wand to get rid of unemployment/poverty, we would have already used it on already existing poor areas. Its not wise to import more poverty when you cant even solve what you already have.

[karajorma]

Yeah, but the point is that it might be nothing to do with cultural issues and everything to do with poverty again. In which case your solution of deporting people is actually going to make things worse. Let me point out why you can't do the deporting thing Trump wants to do as an example.

[666maslo666]

Yeah, but the point is that it might be nothing to do with cultural issues and everything to do with poverty again.

There are many examples of poor areas without religious extremism (like the Roma areas here, they are pretty much atheists, or black people in the US, from what I know), or wealthy areas with religious extremism (southern US), so I dont think you can blame solely poverty for that, culture definitely plays a role too. But as I said, even if its poverty, its not like that makes things better, you cannot easily change the poverty factor too.

In which case your solution of deporting people is actually going to make things worse. Let me point out why you can't do the deporting thing Trump wants to do as an example.

I am talking first and foremost about restrictions on further immigration, not deportations, thats a pretty radical solution, especially deporting "every single one" as Trump says. Anyway, the situation in the US with Mexican immigrants is pretty different, I dont think you can directly compare the two like that. For one thing, Mexican immigrants in the US are much less problematic and more integrated than MENA immigrants in the EU (from what I have read, all relevant metrics such as prevalence of religious extremism, crime rates, employment and economic statistics are much worse in the latter). It can very well be the case that its not worth the hassle in the US, but it is worth it in the EU.

[General Battuta]

Intelligence on the Paris attacks is starting to come out, and as with 9/11 it seems very much like there were a series of intelligence failures — super close calls that could've stopped the attacks if information was shared better or examined more closely.

As usual, the solution to these problems is the opposite of 'lock down immigration', literally handing Daesh exactly what it wants. You win by making your existing systems work better.

[est1895]

Please read this article from the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelis-say-french-will-now-realize-theres-a-war-on/2015/11/15/2ebd84e6-8b9f-11e5-934c-a369c80822c2_story.html

[NGTM-1R]

So Israel is complaining about something they're not really dealing with themselves.

Good to know!

(The tone of the Israelis quoted there is hilarious considering that their own, domestic enemies are strictly opposed to ISIS.)

[Grizzly]

“to control the ground, go into the villages, demolish terrorists’ homes and take preventive action against the infrastructures of terrorism.

I wonder what Netanyahu wants the french to do. Blow up the banlieue?

[Bobboau]

actually... probably

[karajorma]

An Israeli politician cynically using the death of innocents in an attempt to justify their policy in Palestine? Well it's not like that hasn't happened 6 million times before.

[NGTM-1R]

Honestly, Israel's getting a pretty sweet deal out of the ISIS thing, as most of the big enemies of the Little Satan are expending their energies on fighting it rather than Israel.

[Ghostavo]

There is a push against encryption yet again using this tragedy as a means to gain political capital, even though the intelligence failure had nothing to do with encryption.

[666maslo666]

As usual, the solution to these problems is the opposite of 'lock down immigration', literally handing Daesh exactly what it wants.

Yeah, right..

Do that and you may as well get used to experiencing regular bloody attacks every year. As the new normal.

It is literally the very opposite of what should be done.

Sorry to say it bluntly, but you are not just uninformed or somewhat mistaken about this issue, you go out of your way to be as wrong as possible about it. Its like watching an expert at being wrong display his art for all to see.

But I know we will probably never agree about it, so further discussion seems pointless..