Another attack in Europe..

[mjames]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/mar/22/brussels-airport-explosions-live-updates

[adodd81802]

.

[thalbergmad]

This is what happens when you let thousands of people you know nothing about into your Country. The politicians will not learn their lesson and these attacks will continue.

Thal

[distantfieldrelative]

Letting in people and not letting in people makes no sizeable difference.
Differences need to be settled to make a chance.

[themeandvariation]

This is what happens when you let thousands of people you know nothing about into your Country. The politicians will not learn their lesson and these attacks will continue.

Thal

So you don't think this is blowback from a campaign  of bombing (people you know nothing about) for the past 2 1/2 decades?  

This is terrible… Our thoughts and prayers go to the victims and families of this latest attack… 

[mjames]

So you don't think this is blowback from a campaign  of bombing (people you know nothing about) for the past 2 1/2 decades?  

This is terrible… Our thoughts and prayers go to the victims and families of this latest attack… 

I think a lot of people understand that the previous military campaigns played a large role in the destabilization of the middle east, however that doesn't counter Thal's point. It's not about completely stopping immigration, it's just that the immigration policies in most of Western Europe has been quite irresponsible (you know, anyone can come in policy).

 It's terrible that our policies is one of the reasons people from Afghanistan, Iraq etc are migrating to Europe however I ask you this: should European citizens suffer for the mistakes of their politicians?

[themeandvariation]

violence is deplorable period.  It is terrible that the European citizens Do suffer from the mistakes  of the politicians.. As we do in the US…  We must have a stronger voice on those who represent us, or suffer the consequences… 

[outin]

It's just as difficult for us to keep people out as it is on the Mexican border. It is the free mobility inside EU that has made it impossible to control the movements of people after that. And it's a political decision heavily influenced by economical reasons. That may or may not change in the future... Maybe Thal can convince UK to take the first step to break down EU...

Terrorism is nothing new, but you young people just happened to be born on one of the most stable times in (Western) world history. And it still is safer to be a citizen than ever before if you really think about it.

[thalbergmad]

So you don't think this is blowback from a campaign  of bombing (people you know nothing about) for the past 2 1/2 decades?  

No doubt it is, but that doesn't mean that feeble EU politicians should sit back and allow the Islamification of Europe and unchecked immigration.

Thal

[chopinlover01]

While I don't agree with complete open borders, I for once can agree with the left in the US on this issue.
Have a vetting process. Have some sort of an application process to make sure you're getting good people in. Of course if you let in thousands of refugees with little to no investigation, some bad ones will get through. So have a system, and have it be rigorous (as the US has), and you'll have fewer Islamic extremism attacks (As the US has had, despite what you'll hear from the far right who say that Muslims are taking over and whatnot).

[adodd81802]

.

[adodd81802]

.

[mjames]

Oh
One of me motherlands is doing a pretty good job about the refugee crisis
Good job as in
Leaving people stranded in the waters
Or um
Telling them to ride back to Russia
sh*t that was cruel

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Trump is gonna use this to boost the sh*t out of his campaign...

[adodd81802]

.

[mjames]

Yeah I'm only a halfie so I don't much about norways history in regards to immigration but the current government is hardcooooore anti migrant.

Lmao like riding bikes for 5000miles to Norway expecting a paradise then being told to turn back. Then again to be fair most of them were economic migrans and not actual refugees so.

[thalbergmad]

just HOW did millions of people get lead into thinking the systematic persecution of the Jewish community was considered acceptable

That is simple. You gradually reduce them from humans to cockroaches and then it is easy to kill millions.

Thal

[ahinton]

No doubt it is, but that doesn't mean that feeble EU politicians should sit back and allow the Islamification of Europe

I don't think that any politician in the West is actually doing that as such; moreover, the various "Islamic" terrorist groups and not only unIslamic but also operate already within those Western nations to which so many people wish to come as refugees of theirs and others' actions in Syria and Iraq in particular; British citizens traveeling to Syria and then returning are an example of this.

unchecked immigration

This is a much more complex question. The movement of populace that arises from the various issues principally in the Middle East is widely being described as a "migrant crisis"; this is misleading in that it fails fully to take account of the meaning of the word "migrant". A migrant is someone who, quite simply, moves location from one country to another for whatever reason/s; this includes those moving back to the countries of which they are citizens. An immigrant, on the other hand, is someone who wishes to leave his her country of citizenship and/or location and move to another for whaever reason/s.

The question of how movements of populace are or indeed can be "checked" is another complex one. If, for example, all British citizens currently living outside UK but having the right of abode there were to return there, the consequences would be horrendous but there is no means of curtailing this because, as every British citizen has the right of abode in Britian, denyong any of them the opportunity to exercise that right would contrvene both UK and international law. If UK leaves EU, France has threatened to close down its own means whereby those wishing to enter UK have so far tried to do so via its territory; UK would then have to fend for itself. There are many in China and India who might want to escape the strictures of their countries and come to the West and, if just 1 in 50 of them were to come to Western Europe, the problems thereby caused would likely be insurmouintable but the sheer numbers coming would be just too gret to revent such movement.

In the present crisis, efforts are being made to distinguish appropriately between "economic migrants" and "refugees" and to treat the latter with greater sympathy and help than the former; this, however, is fraught with many difficulties, not least because most refugees are also economic migrants (after all, the number of millionaire business people who wish to quit Iraq, Syria or wherever as genuine refugees is vanishingly small).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

While I don't agree with complete open borders, I for once can agree with the left in the US on this issue.
Have a vetting process. Have some sort of an application process to make sure you're getting good people in. Of course if you let in thousands of refugees with little to no investigation, some bad ones will get through. So have a system, and have it be rigorous (as the US has), and you'll have fewer Islamic extremism attacks (As the US has had, despite what you'll hear from the far right who say that Muslims are taking over and whatnot).

What this omits to recognise is that, in US, jus as in France, UK, Germany and elsewhere in Western Europe, so-called "Islamic" terrorists and their organisations are already operating, so it's by no means simply a matter of trying to stop certain people from entering those countries.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The problem here is, that getting into ONE part of Europe gives you a free pass to the rest of the place with pretty much no authority and you can't really control that. Just like illegal Mexicans making it over the border, once you're in, most of them can roam the place with little consequence.

Furthermore the problem is 1000's flock over in boats or vans and then just sit on the border of these countries such as Greece or the little islands of Lesbos and Mykonos where there simply isn't the man power to stop them. Through riots and starvation, there is then strong pressure on the governments to act or to be fined and considered inhuman / barbaric.

I agree with your thoughts, but the US is over there on it's own enjoying the surrounding of waters, everything here is connected, and you couldn't possibly have eyes everywhere.

I mean people can literally swim from France to the UK.

Good points, except that the last one would apply only to a very few determined and extremely fit people!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

That is simple. You gradually reduce them from humans to cockroaches and then it is easy to kill millions.

Er - how and under compliance with whose laws could this be achieved? I assume that you are not advocating that all Western governments set up modern versions of the camps in Nazi Germany during WWII, right?

Best,

Alistair

[outin]

That is simple. You gradually reduce them from humans to cockroaches and then it is easy to kill millions.

Thal

Exactly, you simply define people as a group instead of individual humans...Jews, Muslims, pianists...then it's not difficult to convince everyone they are bad and do not deserve to live.

[mjames]

Exactly, you simply define people as a group instead of individual humans...Jews, Muslims, pianists...then it's not difficult to convince everyone they are bad and do not deserve to live.

Poland certainly took their notes. xD

@Ahinty

I agree with you that there's no actual genuine distinction between refugees and "economic migrants." After all, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and so forth are all war-torn nations. The "syrian refugees" like the "economic migrants" are heading to Europe not only to escape war but to begin a new life as well.

[thalbergmad]

Er - how and under compliance with whose laws could this be achieved? I assume that you are not advocating that all Western governments set up modern versions of the camps in Nazi Germany during WWII, right?

Best,

Alistair

I think Outin has grasped my meaning in his post above.

Thal

[kawai_cs]

Well, Korwin-Mikke is an absolute jerk and it is a shame he gets to speak on European forum however it is difficult not to agree with the overall point he is making. There is no need for war refugees to escape from Syria as far as Austria, Germany or Sweden, which happen to be countries offering abundant social benefits. There are countries much closer geographically and culturally to Syria where real war refugees should be able to find shelter, e.g. Saudi Arabia or Qatar.

[thalbergmad]

There are countries much closer geographically and culturally to Syria where real war refugees should be able to find shelter, e.g. Saudi Arabia or Qatar.

Except they would be even more unwelcome there than they would be in Europe and upsetting a delicate religous balance could lead to complete chaos.

The World would be a far better place if there were a lot less people who believed in silly prophets, ancient books of fairy tales and absurd imaginary friends. Until that happens, Europe will continue to be flooded by millions who have no intention of integrating and who couldn't care less if their barbaric way of life offends.

Time to start turning the boats around as the Australians did.

Thal

[mjames]

Well, Korwin-Mikke is an absolute jerk and it is a shame he gets to speak on European forum however it is difficult not to agree with the overall point he is making. There is no need for war refugees to escape from Syria as far as Austria, Germany or Sweden, which happen to be countries offering abundant social benefits. There are countries much closer geographically and culturally to Syria where real war refugees should be able to find shelter, e.g. Saudi Arabia or Qatar.

That's sort of the point I was making; the people heading towards Europe are intending to settle there permanently. neighboring countries can and do harbor Syrian refugees, after all there was a crisis long before it started affecting europe(though no cared about it until it did).  A large portion of syrias refugees aren't in Europe, they're in Tunisia, Libya, turkey, Egypt etc.

Like I said before, the majority of people heading towards Europe aren't Syrian, but refugees/economic migrants (w.e you want to call them) from other crappy middle eastern countries.

[ahinton]

Poland certainly took their notes. xD

@Ahinty

I agree with you that there's no actual genuine distinction between refugees and "economic migrants." After all, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and so forth are all war-torn nations. The "syrian refugees" like the "economic migrants" are heading to Europe not only to escape war but to begin a new life as well.

Indeed - but a country has only to create intolerable situations for its citizens and they'll want to leave in vast numbers; there can be no stopping them just because the country concerned can see and take advantage of opportunities for offloading its citizens by such conduct.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Except they would be even more unwelcome there than they would be in Europe and upsetting a delicate religous balance could lead to complete chaos.

The World would be a far better place if there were a lot less people who believed in silly prophets, ancient books of fairy tales and absurd imaginary friends. Until that happens, Europe will continue to be flooded by millions who have no intention of integrating and who couldn't care less if their barbaric way of life offends.

Time to start turning the boats around as the Australians did.

The Australians wouldn't stand a chance were it to be flooded with migrants from, say, Vietnam, North Korea, Myanmar and China; its current population could be a mere fraction of the population that sought to migrate there. The numbers game alone could thus defeat any efforts on Autralia's part to stem the flow, just as it could if many millions of disaffected refugees from anywhere outside Western Europe chose to descend thereon.

Remember that there are many Christians in the world who might be regarded as potential or actual "terrorists" by non-Christians, so no one religious group has a monopoly on the provision of this kind of impression.

That said, what's happened in Paris, Brussels and elsewhere has nothing to do with Islam per se, so it's by no means all about "religious groups" in any case.

Best,

Alistair

[iansinclair]

...

Remember that there are many Christians in the world who might be regarded as potential or actual "terrorists" by non-Christians, so no one religious group has a monopoly on the provision of this kind of impression.

That said, what's happened in Paris, Brussels and elsewhere has nothing to do with Islam per se, so it's by no means all about "religious groups" in any case.

Best,

Alistair

Well said. And no surprise at that.  The problem -- pace, Thal -- does not lie with one religion or another, nor yet with any of the miscellaneous pseudoreligions, ranging from Marxism/Communism to Nazism to Atheism to whatever.  Rather, it stems (in my view and a number of Christian theologians, notably Reinhold Niebuhr) from two very human tendencies: the assumption that whatever "I" (that is, the speaker) believe is correct or superior to what "you" believe (and I'm not using those words to refer either to myself or anyone else on this forum!) and, relatedly, the desire for power.  These two characteristics can be sublimated -- to an extent -- but never fully subdued; they are inherent in being human.  Unfortunately, they can be encouraged by other humans, and mixed -- usually but not always by a charismatic leader -- into a very toxic mix, wherein one group comes to believe that not only is their way the best way and the only proper way, but that therefore any other group or person who does not agree must be, at the very least, subjugated, enslaved, or, at the extreme exterminated.

(entirely parenthetically -- or is it? -- the current rage for Political Correctness is only another form of the same thing)

The present situation is nothing new -- the same sort of thing has been played over and over again throughout the millennia.  Only the names of the actors playing the principal parts have changed...

[ahinton]

The present situation is nothing new -- the same sort of thing has been played over and over again throughout the millennia.  Only the names of the actors playing the principal parts have changed...

Also, thanks to technological developments and other matters, the ease with which they can play them...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

That said, what's happened in Paris, Brussels and elsewhere has nothing to do with Islam per se, so it's by no means all about "religious groups" in any case.

 

[ahinton]

If that comment puzzles you (as I assume that it does from your response), you have only to consider
(a) the sheer number of Muslims, including senior imams, across the world deplore those kinds of activity per se and deprecate them all the more in the light of their being carried out in the name of Islam and
(b) the conduct of members of so-called ISIS is "justified" by those responsible for it only to the extent of an interpretation of parts of the Q'ran that are so perverse as to have not a shred of credibility, as many distinguished Islamic scholars have testified and will no doubt continue to testify.

Consider, for the sake of comparison, the Crusades (OK, centuries ago, I know, but some things never change in the minds of some); seeking to justify actions carried out during their course is similarly predicated upon a gross perversion of the Bible's New Testament, as any distinguished Christian scholar will agree.

Above all, if one must insist on being duped into regarding both of these series of events as commensurate with the specific religious belief under which they were/are carried out, one has only to ask oneself how the prophet Mohamed and Jesus Christ respectively would have responded to them had they been alive at the time.

No - the hanging of terrorist threats and activities on the hook of religion is a deliberate and cynical act intended to mislead and to seek to elevate them by justifying them on grounds that simply do not apply; in reality, terrorist threats and acts of violence to persons and property need only the motivation to carry them out, not a religion under which to seek to justify them. The fact that they are acts and thoughts which are specifically and unequivocally anti-human is the real giveaway that they're unconnected to religion other than by the noisily promoted allegations of their perpetrators.

Anyway, as communications technology and ease of travel alone help considerably to facilitate the possibility of terrorist attacks almost anywhere in the world, I see no likelihood that this will abate until and unless those determined to carry out such acts of destruction can be persuaded to abandon their hapless and hopeless causes.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

(a) the sheer number of Muslims, including senior imams, across the world deplore those kinds of activity per se and deprecate them all the more in the light of their being carried out in the name of Islam

I do not doubt they do, but it is a shame that they cannot go a step further and start handing over known terrorists in their midst and in their mosques to the authorities. Talk is cheap, but actions speak a thousand words.

Thal

[mjames]

This whole "this isn't true Islam" or "they aren't real Muslims" rhetoric is boring and pointless. First, what people and most certainly politicians should worry about is how to better handle the threat of terrorism, not Islam's reputation as a religion.

Second of all, we are talking about the interpretation of literature. There's no absolute stance or authority on "what Islam (or any other religion) should be or what a true Muslim should act like" because it's all pretty subjective. So what if the scholars deplore ISIS' actions? On a normal day they all disagree with every other sect besides their own. ISIS extremists are Muslims just as Christian fundamentalists or the KKK are Christians. Calling a Christian extremist for what he is, a CHRISTIAN extremist is not the same as saying all Christians are like him. I don't know why people assume that calling Islamic terrorists Islamic is an insult to all Muslims...

When I read articles about the atrocities ISIS commit on foreign lands you know what the top rated comments are? Instead of there being comments about the act itself, people are busy writing out "please stop writing ISIS/ISIL, calling them the Islamic State sullies the name of Islam." It's like what the hell? Women are being mutilated, being used as sex slaves, and young men are being beheaded and the first thing that comes to your mind is THAT? The reputation of a bloody freaking book?

God, I'm tired of this No Scotsman Fallacy being thrown all over the place because people want to protect the reputation of the Islamic faith.

 

[kawai_cs]

People who write those comments feel that they as Muslims are being put in the very same boat with terrorist extremists thus they feel the need to defend themselves, not directly Koran. In Christianity, the Bible, especially the Old Testament part is a book depicting unbelievable cruelties however we don’t find those reflected in the modern church doctrines.
With Islam the problem is the close connection between religion and state, state being given its foundation and running on the rules set forth by religion. This results in state authorities using Islamic doctrines to get more control. They achieve it by “interpreting” Koran the way that supports their endeavors. I read an article some time ago how it is working in e.g. Saudi Arabia and Iran. Here it is being done in a most extremist way by a bunch of really sick people and yet it has become for us the flagship of Islam.
It is on no account my aim to defend this or any other religion because firstly I do not really care and secondly I think religion is something rather intimate that should be kept private and lastly, I just think it is worth to mention it to have a fuller view of the situation and to be fair.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I do not doubt they do, but it is a shame that they cannot go a step further and start handing over known terrorists in their midst and in their mosques to the authorities. Talk is cheap, but actions speak a thousand words.

Thal

It's also a shame that we can't go a step further and start handing over known terrorists who shoot up schools in our midst and in our churches to authorities.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

This whole "this isn't true Islam" or "they aren't real Muslims" rhetoric is boring and pointless. First, what people and most certainly politicians should worry about is how to better handle the threat of terrorism, not Islam's reputation as a religion.

Second of all, we are talking about the interpretation of literature. There's no absolute stance or authority on "what Islam (or any other religion) should be or what a true Muslim should act like" because it's all pretty subjective. So what if the scholars deplore ISIS' actions? On a normal day they all disagree with every other sect besides their own. ISIS extremists are Muslims just as Christian fundamentalists or the KKK are Christians. Calling a Christian extremist for what he is, a CHRISTIAN extremist is not the same as saying all Christians are like him. I don't know why people assume that calling Islamic terrorists Islamic is an insult to all Muslims...

When I read articles about the atrocities ISIS commit on foreign lands you know what the top rated comments are? Instead of there being comments about the act itself, people are busy writing out "please stop writing ISIS/ISIL, calling them the Islamic State sullies the name of Islam." It's like what the hell? Women are being mutilated, being used as sex slaves, and young men are being beheaded and the first thing that comes to your mind is THAT? The reputation of a bloody freaking book?

God, I'm tired of this No Scotsman Fallacy being thrown all over the place because people want to protect the reputation of the Islamic faith.

 

The problem is people think ALL Muslims are extremists so you can't really blame them for trying to defend themselves.  

[iansinclair]

The problem is people think ALL Muslims are extremists. 

One could amplify or extend that, Rach -- just write the sentence as "All xxx are yyy" and substitute pretty much any identifiable group and negative attribute you want.  For example:  All blondes are dumb".  "All Scotsmen are argumentative".  All... I could go on.

The problem is that there are many many people who do not treat each and every other person they meet as an individual, unique, and worthy simply because they exist.  It's much easier to lump people into groups -- and it's only a short step from that to treat some groups poorly.  Or worse.

[ahinton]

I do not doubt they do, but it is a shame that they cannot go a step further and start handing over known terrorists in their midst and in their mosques to the authorities. Talk is cheap, but actions speak a thousand words.

Some of them might well be willing to do this and some might even be trying to do it, but "known" is the key word in what you write here; when you bear in mind that many nations' security services have great difficulty tracking down, exposing and bringing to justice the perpetrators and the perpetrators-to-be, it's hardly a matter of wonder that peace-loving Muslims whose profession is not the protection of national security can seem capable of doing no better.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

This whole "this isn't true Islam" or "they aren't real Muslims" rhetoric is boring and pointless. First, what people and most certainly politicians should worry about is how to better handle the threat of terrorism, not Islam's reputation as a religion.

Of course - and I'm sure that this is inded already the case with most people - but that doesn't make pointing out that terrorist atrocities carried out under the name of Islam or that the perpetrators do not behave like true Muslims "boring and pointless".

Second of all, we are talking about the interpretation of literature. There's no absolute stance or authority on "what Islam (or any other religion) should be or what a true Muslim should act like" because it's all pretty subjective. So what if the scholars deplore ISIS' actions? On a normal day they all disagree with every other sect besides their own. ISIS extremists are Muslims just as Christian fundamentalists or the KKK are Christians. Calling a Christian extremist for what he is, a CHRISTIAN extremist is not the same as saying all Christians are like him. I don't know why people assume that calling Islamic terrorists Islamic is an insult to all Muslims...

This is all fine and sensible, except for the last bit, which fails on the basis that merely calling a terrorist an "Islamic terrorist" does not make that person "Islamic" and, whilst doing so might not necessarily insult all Muslims as such, it does help to promote a bad reputation for Muslims of the kind of which no means only the Trumps of this world seize all possible advantage in promulgating anti-Islamic sentiment.

When I read articles about the atrocities ISIS commit on foreign lands you know what the top rated comments are? Instead of there being comments about the act itself, people are busy writing out "please stop writing ISIS/ISIL, calling them the Islamic State sullies the name of Islam." It's like what the hell? Women are being mutilated, being used as sex slaves, and young men are being beheaded and the first thing that comes to your mind is THAT? The reputation of a bloody freaking book?

I don't think that this addresses the issue correctly. Of course the prioritisation of protest about what ISIS is called or the perceived insult to Muslims the world over would be grossly unacceptable, but I suspect that your reading on the subject may be unduly selective; the appallingly inhuman treatment of men, women and children as well as property including important historical artefacts attracts ample coverage rather than being sidelined as you appear to prefer to suggest.

God, I'm tired of this No Scotsman Fallacy being thrown all over the place because people want to protect the reputation of the Islamic faith.

What have Scotsmen to do with any of this? I ask in part because I'm one myself (a Scotsman, that is - not a Muslim!)...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The problem is people think ALL Muslims are extremists so you can't really blame them for trying to defend themselves.

That notion is indeed being widely and noisily promoted, not least by those who are being encouraged to listen to stuff deploring the alleged "Islamisation" of USA, Europe or wherever else; do you suppose that this would be the case had there been no known instances of terrorist threats or actions purportedly being carried out in the name of Islam?

Whilst we're about it, let's not forget - for the sake ot due proportionality - that there are and long have been known terrorists who issue threats and commit atrocities who do neither under the name of Islam.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

One could amplify or extend that, Rach -- just write the sentence as "All xxx are yyy" and substitute pretty much any identifiable group and negative attribute you want.  For example:  All blondes are dumb".  "All Scotsmen are argumentative".  All... I could go on.

Indeed - so let me do so for you, albeit with appropriate brevity, by quoting the distinguished English organist Kevin Bowyer - "all organists are failed pianists" (OK, tongue pretty much in cheek, but I felt that it might be time for a little momentary levity in this particular thread)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Some of them might well be willing to do this and some might even be trying to do it, but "known" is the key word in what you write here; when you bear in mind that many nations' security services have great difficulty tracking down, exposing and bringing to justice the perpetrators and the perpetrators-to-be, it's hardly a matter of wonder that peace-loving Muslims whose profession is not the protection of national security can seem capable of doing no better.

They are not doing anywhere near enough. Both you and i know that some Mosques are being used to pollute minds and recruit terrorists and the security authorities job is made harder by concerns not being reported. Same for some Faith Schools.

Thal

[gep]

Some thoughts. Forgive length, tediousness and circumlocution…

In the end, the question of ‘does Islam condone the use of violence’ or ‘does the Qu’ran support the slaughter of innocent people’ is void. Belgian law forbids it and that is the only law that counts in Belgium. Frankly, I do not care for Muslims or non-Muslims who state that ‘Islam forbids these acts’, for the very simple reason Islam is not law in Belgium, or any other Western country.

The idea that Islam does not support (certain) violence is untrue, it does (as does each and every religion). Mecca was not conquered by use of cunning arguments. Read what the Qu’ran has to say about apostasy (which is less violent than what the Old Testament has to say, by the way). What happened in Paris and now Brussels is in fact nothing more than a very extreme interpretation of certain texts in the Qu’ran (and Hadith). As such, Islam has no monopoly; one just has to read about the actions by deeply devout Christians missionaries in Africa who drive the hatred against homosexuals right up to murder. Or the treatment of women by the ultra-orthodox Jews. Or the horrendous caste system of Hindu India. Or many, many more things done based on (or by order) of just about every religion throughout the world and throughout man’s history. ‘Homo homini lupus est’.

One of the reasons for what now seems to become a daily threat is the fundamentally different, and incompatible, basic aspects of the culture in Islamic countries (which may be, but need not always be, based on Islam itself), and the present Western culture. I might therefor say ‘Arabian’ in stead of ‘Islamic’ for the remainder.

There are basically three ‘levels’ of human culture, and a community may retain aspects of either three in various levels.
1)   Barbaric. Here the main aspect is ‘power’ and how to get it and keep it. In a way, it is the most fully animalistic aspect of humans; the most ferocious lion becomes leader of the tribe (killing of any offspring of opponents), ditto in humanity. There are no rules or laws, other than the rule of the strongest. Which may be as whimsical as the weather, and the stronger is not accountable for anything, and certainly not to the weaker.
2)   Tribal. Here everything is tied up in rules; what is not mandatory is forbidden. Taboo is an important factor. As is honour and pride. And the honour and pride of the whole tribe hinge on the submission of each and every member to the rules; if any one member violates the rules (or appears to do so), the honour of the whole tribe is contaminated and reduced. The set rules are usually not based on arguments or discussion thereon, or founded in reason and factuality, but mostly ‘mystical’, as in ‘revealed to the priesthood’ or such. Each tribe, therefor, is (indeed: must be) one ‘set’ of people, often interrelated.
3)   Civic. Here still most things are tied up in rules, but rules may shift according to changing consensus, insights, argumentation and such more. Each person is a separate, individual being, whose actions may influence others, but individuals cannot be held accountable to the actions of others, as each individual is responsible for and answerable about his/her own actions only. Thus, actions of an individual do not afflict the ‘status’ of the whole. Various groups of various insights and convictions can live together and mingle on any level. A civic society is, therefore, multifaceted, variegated and of various levels of interrelation.

Western society, at large, is somewhere between tribal and civic, while retaining aspects of barbaric, and each society (such as European countries, or states in the USA) may show different ‘mixes’ (as may, for ex, the big cities or rural areas within those). Barbaric aspects one may see in how CEO’s of big companies operate nowadays (have a look at how and why the financial crisis came about, and why the mechanism thereof still is fully in place and working)

Where things now clash is because of the influx (and growth) of a subset within Western countries of cultures that are far more tribal, even barbaric, than the culture of those Western countries.

People coming from a tribal structure, and living in a (basically) non-tribal society find themselves immersed in a society that doesn’t support there tribal rules, and, at that, faced with people from other tribal structures that are fundamentally different from their own. Quite a few people from those structures will swiftly adapt, especially if they see the expanded possibilities to pursue and enhance their capacities and talents. You no longer need to become a carpenter because your father was one, you can become a stand-up comedian instead (or a politician, which basically is the same but without the jokes). You no longer need to stay home and have 15 kids just because you are a woman, but can have a job of your own and become independent. You no longer need to pay tribute to Quatzulovercoatl because you must, by order, on pain of pain, but may still do so if you happen to believe in him, but don’t have do if you no longer do say, and even say so aloud.

This loss of structure and demand for self-regulation will also scare quite a few of such groups because they cling to that structure to give shape to their lives, and now have to fend for themselves. Such people, if anything, will become possibly even more tribal and ‘orthodox’. These two directions usually forms a rift within such a group, and may take many generations to work out.

What is, almost without exception, the greatest problem, is that those who were in ‘natural’ (and often hereditary) power (such as priests, fathers, males, elders, etc), and whose authority was not, could not be, questioned or even doubted, suddenly are bereft of their ‘obvious’, ‘righteous’ power. No longer do they set the rule, but are subdued to the rules and laws of the country they have settled in. Which may be different, even violently so, to what they are used to. No longer are the young ones ‘obviously’ to do what you say. Suddenly, a woman may say ‘no’ and marry whom she wants, rather than who you decided. People may turn away from the One True God and go camp with the Many False Ones. You must suddenly ask, rather than simply command, and may not even get the answer you wanted.

The reaction of influx cultures falls into three types, roughly
1)   People may accept the law of the land, and adapt. Such aspects of their culture as fit within the ranges of law and rule are retained, others adapted or dropped. The more congruent the incoming culture is with the culture it comes into, the easier this goes, of course. There are quite a few people with Dutch names in the US, who, other than for that name, are indistinguishable. Even when they were born in The Netherlands. But one might look at the Jews, for instance, who have kept much of their own culture while adapting successfully into various other cultures. Not that they were often rewarded or appreciated for it..
2)   People may outwardly adapt insofar as they cannot avoid, but inwardly keep to themselves, usually also by living in ‘clusters’ of their own kind. They do not adapt to their new social environment, and therefor cannot become a real part of it, and will marginalise, and thus not only fail themselves, but make their children either fail too, or make it all the harder to become successful members of the society they live in.
3)   People may reject the culture they now live in. At the same time they depend on that rejected culture for income and ‘gadgets’. Often, these people are ‘proud’ people, with very little to be proud of, which will lead to aggression and violence (due to, basically, jealousy). They will adhere to some extreme sectarian religious group that justifies, even feeds, their anger.


What complicates the picture in the West is the ‘magical thinking’ so natural to 4-year old and politician; the latter still, against all evidence, in a happy multicultural society where all kinds of cultures live happily together in one big melting pot. That does not happen, for it cannot happen. The idea that various, opponent, mutual exclusive ‘viewpoints’ can all be equally applicable is an impossibility. You cannot have ‘to rape a woman is forbidden’ and ‘forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war]. Cultures are notequal, and even if they were, but different, the culture of the land you come into is superior to yours in that you must comply to its laws, rules and ways of conduct. Allowing various incongruent aspects of various cultures to be sustained is like having putting two different kind of fuel into one tank, and expect the car to drive smoothly. It won’t.

What most politicians think is that, when you get an influx of several, or many, different cultures into your country, 1) will automatically happen if you don’t do anything, let alone demand anything. What they forget is the groups 2) and 3), who will pull on anyone from their culture leaning towards 1). Such as, for ex, women starting to make up their own minds and demanding a place equal to men. Or young men adhering to what the policeman says, rather than their fathers. It is not for nothing that this kind of magical thinking is called ‘politically correct’. This to distinguish it from factuallycorrect…

The fact that things like 9/11, Madrid, London, Paris, Brussels now have happened, and will continue to happen, is that the governments of pretty much all Western countries have failed, abysmally, to set the rules clear and sharp for those wanting to come to our countries. Basically:
1)   This is our language, you learn it.
2)   These are our laws, you will adhere.
3)   These are our norms an values, you will comply.
4)   If you fail, or refuse, or hinder anyone from learning, adhering or complying, you will be expelled.
And thus separate those who will live in our culture and become a successful member thereof (retaining any and all aspects of his birth-culture as fit within the rules given) from those who won’t or prevent other.

As far as I am concerned, anyone may believe whatever he or she wants. However, if you come into my country (yes, mycountry, I was born here, live here, work here, pay my taxes here, vote here, socialise here, live every aspect of my live here; not because I think The Netherlands are the zenith of humanity and righteousness, but because I happened to  be born here, and do believe, with all its faults, it does do better than many others when it comes to give equal opportunities to all, indiscriminately, and would like to see that at least maintained, if possible further idealised), I do demand you will comply with what we have in way of laws, rules and ways of conduct (in short: culture), and lay off anything and all things that do not fit within that. If you feel you cannot, or will not, leave.

Some may call this fascist, racist, elitist. They can go on doing so, as far as I can care (which isn’t very far at all). “Fascism is everybody else’s fascism but your own”. In chemistry, you can mix some things easily, some with care and some only to your regret and ruin. In humanity, things are not that different, only more complex. It is high time – far too late, in fact – that politicians start taking their responsibilities, and separate the sheep from the goats. This applies for everyone going from one culture to another, for whatever reason. If I ever need flee to another country, one I do not like, I have the choice to either comply, or seek one more adapt to how I want to live my life. Such applies to all.

All best (and apologies for length; it is a complex matter, and not one I find easy to set into words),
gep

[thalbergmad]

Some may call this fascist, racist, elitist.

I don't, but many Western politicians would (bar Gert Wilders), and there be the problem. Western politicians have been far too tolerant and have completely alienated ordinary folk who voted them in.

Rules seem to be bent to accomodate immigrants and blind eyes are turned to horrific crimes that are swept under the carpet and labelled as cultural differences.

Laws should be enforced for all and if immigrants don't like it, then they should return to the shithole from whence they came.

Thal

[iansinclair]

I don't, but many Western politicians would (bar Gert Wilders), and there be the problem. Western politicians have been far too tolerant and have completely alienated ordinary folk who voted them in.

Rules seem to be bent to accomodate immigrants and blind eyes are turned to horrific crimes that are swept under the carpet and labelled as cultural differences.

Laws should be enforced for all and if immigrants don't like it, then they should return to the shithole from whence they came.

Thal

Wow, Thal! -- I agree with you completely!  And Gep, too, if it comes to that.

[thalbergmad]

Oh no, i hope that doesn't mean i am becoming sensible.

How about using the Navy to sink the migrant boats, reopening the workhouses and taxing moustaches?.

Much more like me old self.

Thal

[ahinton]

They are not doing anywhere near enough. Both you and i know that some Mosques are being used to pollute minds and recruit terrorists and the security authorities job is made harder by concerns not being reported. Same for some Faith Schools.

True as that may be up to a point, most of those who plan these attacks do so outside the aegis of such organised places, if for no better reason than to assist in avoiding the risk of exposure; these networks tend to work well away from the risk of being found out by anyone, be it GCHQ or the local Mosque - indeed, they'd be daft not to if they want to ensure the wreaking of the havoc that they and their colleagues desire.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I don't, but many Western politicians would (bar Gert Wilders), and there be the problem. Western politicians have been far too tolerant and have completely alienated ordinary folk who voted them in.

Rules seem to be bent to accomodate immigrants and blind eyes are turned to horrific crimes that are swept under the carpet and labelled as cultural differences.

Laws should be enforced for all and if immigrants don't like it, then they should return to the shithole from whence they came.

gep makes a host of excellent points here, but I still believe that those who harbour terrorist desires will use anything to try to justify them - religion, politics, anything that you care to name. What does "ISIS" really want to achieve? The Islamisation of the world? Somehow I think it more likely that it wants to create sufficient havoc as to ensure that no one any longer has power to say and do and make laws anywhere as they might wish. Some on the extreme end of "ISIS" have indeed stated that they'e aiming for something approaching human and international destruction because they perceive humanity to be untenable by reason of having let "God" down.

Whilst you're right that blind eyes are indeed turned to all manner of issues, I have only to think of the possibility that every British citizen currently living abroad but having a right to relocate to Britain decides to make that return journey and settle where they're entitled to settle without any immigration authorities able legally to stop them to realise that this would cause chaos in itself, never mind any further problems that might be caused by non-British citizens who might also wish to come to Britain.

I also do not think that this is particularly about "immigrants" per se; as I mentioned, there is already a worrying number of people with terrorist leanings at work in Britain with British citizenship and yet working in league with terrorist networks elsewhere, so it's not all about stopping people from coming to Britain; indeed, if there are such people living in even in somewhere as comparatively remote as Hereford I would not be remotely surprised.

Best,

Alistair