Iraq: Baghdad suicide bomb attack dead rises to 165
Printable View
https://www.rt.com/news/349472-blast...arabia-medina/
They're actually targeting the holy cities now, they weren't bluffing. To carry it out in the last three days of the month is supposed to give meaning to their sad lives. There's a new wave of terror and KSA is suddenly finding itself in the frontlines.
And here I thought they were being bankrolled by saudi arabia, I don't see that continuing in the future if they keep doing this.
Bad dog. I don't understand why Medina is a target though it's supposed to be a holy city
'Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
While there are some diehard Wahabists in SA, I suspect that rather few of them are part of the extended Saud family whose 15k members and clients (in the old Roman use of that term) dominate most of the country's capital, government, military, and economic power positions. The Saud family has long been targeted by radical Islamic sects as not "pure enough" in the faith to be worthy of this dominant position. Rather than let the radicals conflate with the local Saudi dissidents (panem et circum not always being enough), they have long bought of the radicals by funding them (indirectly of course) just so long as they go radical outside of SA.
The Saud family, however, has smashed Yemen around rather then letting it slip into the radical's hands entirely. The radicals MUST punish this behavior by the Sauds (not Saudis) and remind them as to the limits of the arrangement.
It is really a question of re-establishing an equilibrium point is all.
I think that equilibrium point is long gone at this point. They have been declared apostates by the militants, and are now finding themselves in direct conflict with them in Yemen, so that’s a first. It's possible the deputy crown prince becomes king by the end of the year, he is known to be pro-western and not anti-Israel in order to be favored over the actual crown prince, who's the minister of interior and in charge of dealing with stuff like this. If bin Salman (deputy cp) succeeds, there will be resistance by hardline salafis as he has already stripped many privileges of the religious police and is planning to muzzle the clergy on a number of things for his economic reform plans, which includes women doing more and getting long overdue basic rights. Interior minister, on the other hand, has a vested interest in being conservative as it makes his counterterrorism job easier, which is why the US might even take his side due to his reputable talent in cracking down on terrorists.
This is basically a result of monarchical rift, arguably the same thing that caused the war in Yemen and is prolonging it. Inside the country itself, the supposedly liberal Saudi prince is rendering “moral” servants irrelevant to strengthen private sector and lessen oil dependence, and salafis aren’t having it. They want their jobs that require no skills seem as important as possible so they don’t lose the Saudi youth.
Fair comment. We are seeing the various parties pushing to establish a new equilibrium point -- you are correct that things are a bit "up in the air" at present. The Salafists will use a bit of violence to remind the "young turk" prince of the cost of too much change or secularism. Clan Saud must counter to establish the limits of control by the salafists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Saw something worth sharing:
https://67.media.tumblr.com/e9e4263c...bzro1_1280.jpg
Terrorists hit a crowd in Nice, France with a truck. At least 60 dead.
Are you willing to die for your platitutudes?
73, Nice, almost 78 he came close. Hundreds are wounded so his score might rise
Tthere is ony one thing that has nothing to do with it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Could we at least avoid terms like "score?" It makes it sound too much like some kind of tawdry video game.
While Strike's post is a bit snide, the essential question underlying it is central to the whole issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
It isn't? Thought was the new hype; Infidel, we got to kill them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
my bad
While Frag may sound a bit callous here I suspect he's not far off the mark, these terrorists are not my age or younger, they probably grew up play CoD and eventually realised they were playing at "shooting their brothers" and so decided to shoot/blow up the "other team" instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Now excuse me, I need to kill some Vikings and loot their stuff to fund another Brewer in Viking Conquest.
*Loads up Sabaton Playlist, AFK.*
Truck fire at the Eiffel Tower.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnW8TXTWAAAAR8T.jpg
Accident supposedly, but the timing was interesting, made a striking image.
I am not callous I am cynical. Everybody should have seen these things comming and now we will just have to get used to it. Thank you multicultural left for this enrichment. Thanks on behalf of the EU as well, we need more EU, great idea to spread the risk all over Europe, and than the EU must find a solution, more ever closing EU
WARNING:MORBID IMAGE
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
80 dead now, 3rd largest terrorist attack in europe.
Edit: no, 4th. largest
Twitter says suspect 31 year old Tunisian.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AFP/statu...64211650547713
That's morbid allright she looks like a candy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Anyways, nobody can say they weren't warned, islam is islam no matter where islam is. If Islam settles on the north-pole it won't change islam.
Immigration was there before the EU and it won't disappear if you leave. It is a general tendency and you can't stop it (unless you close borders and it would be considered not a way of democracies).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I got no answers, it's allready too late, people who want to harm us are already here. Things like this are going to happen again and again and again. I don't expect all too much trouble in the Netherlands mind you, but it won't surprise me all that much. But closing the borders for young muslim males would be a good start, why aren't they fighting in their own country. Women and children first just like in sinking ships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
yay, scores keep comming, 84 mutually respected allahu akharred, 15 still dying probably. You just have to respect that. We can really learn from eachother. Painfull to watch what the multicultural left so very very deeply admires is willing to do. Islamapoligists, feed on me. Psychic vampires you are, draining everything obvious to feel good about yourself.
Reminds me of this movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLRg
Ae2jLaw father just can't accept that his son is simply broken and vile. But he is. He has been planning it the whole time
It ends really bad, but we know that.
lol, letists to the rescue, he was angry because he didn't get a driving license. That must have hurt a lot. I don't know if this is actuallu true but bored rich kids never dissapoint when it comes to having the circular reasoning of a F5 tornado
Case in point, NYT, quality media as they are, found A MUSLIM VICTIM See? Seeeeee? SEE!!!
https://mobile.twitter.com/ElinevdVo...44007461978112
When will they understand that for normal muslims jihaddidi's are as welcome as the inquisition.
American msm is just as activist as it is here, living the dream and noyoudon't
A franco-tunisian, thank you colonial empires?
Pretty obvious that the colonialist policies of foreign intervention are backfiring now.
Obviously we should have made sure that every person that could have identified with the people we were bombing had been exiled from the country before we started intervening.
telling France they were asking for it? Victim blaming in my opinionQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Or they could have followed the example set by the Beacon of Freedom™ and put them into concentration camps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
So when you touch a hot oven and it burns you, it's victim blaming to say you shouldn't have touched a hot oven? I was saying that colonializing countries may have consequences, even late ones. Have you not noticed that the former and current colonial empires are hit far more often by terrorist attacks than the countries that barely had any or no colonies? Has noone ever noticed that the offspring of people who migrated to the UK or France from their colonies are often the troublemakers today? That these countries had a lot more people of non-white skin color long before the current refugee wave? How many disgruntled polo-africans live in Poland and how many colonies did Poland have in Africa? How many terrorist attacks happened in Poland? How many in Germany? Or in Austria? Should we blame Africans for not wanting to be ruled by Europeans so we don't engage in victim blaming? Is it victim blaming to say that lots of Germans died in Russia and later Germany was the Germans' fault? After all it was the nasty Russians who shot them, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
And where did I blame the victims of this attack? I blamed the politicians and the country as a whole for its politics and its politics of the past since people here seemed to assume that everyone who is a terrorist now in France came due to the Schengen agreement or the recent refugee wave. I don't know how or why all the colonials moved to Britain and France over the years, but if you really want to source it, you could just as well blame the ones who drove that colonialization for not having the foresight to see that future generations would be ashamed and open the borders. The world would generally be better off today if politics had stopped evolving in the early 17th century. :dizzy2:
I'm saying that in the grand scheme of things we often are the bully blaming the victims for fighting back. We want to do with them what we want and want competition but we don't want them to fight back. It seems shizophrenic. We fish away all the fish in front of the African coast so we can make more profit than the local fishers and then wonder why they become pirates instead of trying to turn the sand, which is basically all they have left now, into gold via alchemy. We are like the noblemen of the French revolution who wondered why the peasants, whom they tried to get more and more taxes out of for nothing in return, suddenly wanted to cut off their heads...
Where was this islamic terrorism before we colonized the Middle East and Africa?
Knocking on the gates of Vienna?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The Muslim world began in the deserts of Arabia. They didn't become so widespread through peaceful debate.
You get the zyklon, I'll get the lye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So... Where's the non islamic colonial inspired terrorism? We have a tonne of indians and chinese in our nation and none of them have sought to kill us in the name of thier forebears.Quote:
So when you touch a hot oven and it burns you, it's victim blaming to say you shouldn't have touched a hot oven? I was saying that colonializing countries may have consequences, even late ones. Have you not noticed that the former and current colonial empires are hit far more often by terrorist attacks than the countries that barely had any or no colonies? Has noone ever noticed that the offspring of people who migrated to the UK or France from their colonies are often the troublemakers today? That these countries had a lot more people of non-white skin color long before the current refugee wave? How many disgruntled polo-africans live in Poland and how many colonies did Poland have in Africa? How many terrorist attacks happened in Poland? How many in Germany? Or in Austria? Should we blame Africans for not wanting to be ruled by Europeans so we don't engage in victim blaming? Is it victim blaming to say that lots of Germans died in Russia and later Germany was the Germans' fault? After all it was the nasty Russians who shot them, no?
And where did I blame the victims of this attack? I blamed the politicians and the country as a whole for its politics and its politics of the past since people here seemed to assume that everyone who is a terrorist now in France came due to the Schengen agreement or the recent refugee wave. I don't know how or why all the colonials moved to Britain and France over the years, but if you really want to source it, you could just as well blame the ones who drove that colonialization for not having the foresight to see that future generations would be ashamed and open the borders. The world would generally be better off today if politics had stopped evolving in the early 17th century. :dizzy2:
I'm saying that in the grand scheme of things we often are the bully blaming the victims for fighting back. We want to do with them what we want and want competition but we don't want them to fight back. It seems shizophrenic. We fish away all the fish in front of the African coast so we can make more profit than the local fishers and then wonder why they become pirates instead of trying to turn the sand, which is basically all they have left now, into gold via alchemy. We are like the noblemen of the French revolution who wondered why the peasants, whom they tried to get more and more taxes out of for nothing in return, suddenly wanted to cut off their heads...
Where was this islamic terrorism before we colonized the Middle East and Africa?
I think you are using the word "Colonial" wrong.
The US ruled on this. A women went into mc Donald's and poured coffee over herself, she was scalded and sued Maccy D's and won. So now, coffee needs a warning label 'contents may be hot'. You shouldn't victim blame at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Some argue we should follow the US's courts decision and make Terrorists wear warning labels which say 'warning, may kill people' and then apply this on all those who follow terrorist characteristics to be on the safe side.
Should mention that she got third degree burns from the coffee so it was more than a case of just "ouch thats hot coffee" and probably why she won the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Now you're equating the typical conquests of that time to the modern terrorism, well done!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What about knocking on the gates of Jerusalem? Or knocking on the gates of Moscow?
Does that mean Christians and French people are inherently violent and want to subjugate the world?
How often did the Mamelukes send suicide terrorists to Europe to kill as many people as possible to spread the terror again?
When was the last time you overthrew an Indian government in favor of a dictator due to a dispute over oil exports?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
When was the last time you supplied a Chinese dictator with weapons so he could continue to serve his interests and keep his people down?
Not all colonies were treated in the same way and not all of them served the same purposes. Not all of them were let go the same way.
Like how many borders did you arbitrarily re-draw to include fighting tribes within the same nation in Asia? I thought you were such experts on what constitutes a nation and why a nation is the greatest thing ever. Why then are all the Middle Eastern nations whose borders you drew after colonialism so internally rotten, full of distrust and conflict? Why are they always shown with maps of which ethnicity doesn't like which other ethnicity and a dozen more ethnicities that want nothing to do with them?
I'm NOT saying it was all peaceful there before colonialism, I just don't recall them sending terrorists over to kill and scare us before that. How could they fight back in another way? Boycott McDonald's? Vote for another dictator? Set up an army and expell all foreign lobbyists after defeating the government that we equipped with high-tech weaponry? Tell me what a Saudi Arabian who is not happy with all the oil being sold off to the US for the profit of the Saud family can do to stop it that actually has an impact, other than kill a lot of people in Europe? Stage a peaceful protest in Riyad?
You're blaming European colonialism for everything the Muslims do. However, the Muslims did more than a spot of colonising themselves. And they did the old form of colonising, ie. killing everyone who used to live there before repopulating with their own. Why do you not blame them for this? Because the west is to blame for everything, as per the bleeding heart liberal line. TBF, the colonised didn't get up to much terrorism at the time, probably mainly due to the fact that they were dead. Rubbing out the native population is an effective way of ending resistance in that generation and for generations to come.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
France had a huge Colonial Empire in Indochina. Not a single Vietnamese exploded himself on a French market... Colonialism is not the answer...
Depends on how you do the colonising. Do it on the basis of trade and resource exploitation, and you get blamed for decades afterwards. Kill them all and repopulate with your own people, and you won't have to face terrorism. Although that didn't quite work for the Germans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
In other news, Hong Kong democrats have asked for a resumption of British rule prior to eventual independence. Damn these imperialists for inculcating terrorists resentful of their historic maltreatment by the colonisers.
The Arabs never killed everyone and then repopulated the region with their own people.
At least not systematically or at a large extent. Not sure where you got that from.
But yeah I agree, we shouldn't blame colonialism. Just a loser with nothing better to do than murdering innocents out of self hatred. In the states, he would have gone in a shooting rampage in a public space.
edit:
Yeah ISIS inspired him, giving him an edgy and very public way to say goodbye to the cruel world. maybe he would have continued to beat his wife.
But that shows that Islam is not he problem. Neither is the cruelty of ISIS. Only their advertisement PR skills.
No, a lot of muslims do things that noone needs to be blamed for, I'm not blaming anyone for those. And I don't blame the West for all the wars Muslims had between themselves before colonialization? I could swear that I mentioned that the region wasn't exactly peaceful before it got colonized, it just didn't send suicide attackers to Europe around that time...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Or maybe because it is not relevant to the topic? Were we talking about muslims who decide to kill civilians in Europe or the USA today, why would I bring up muslim military conquests from 200+ years ago? 200 years ago everyone was conquesting someone. Why do you never blame Christianity for Charlemagne genociding all the Saxons who refused to convert to Christianity? Maybe because that is not relevant anymore? Maybe that's why I didn't bring it up either?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Maybe they just don't have a handy ideological excuse or already had vented their anger when they embraced communism and kicked you out? Vietnam is not currently an ally of the West in the way several Middle Eastern dictatorships or "kingdoms" are, who don't always treat their people with the values we embrace for ourselves. Its borders were also not redrawn by you to include completely different competing tribes etc. And then they already had their share of terrorism while they were getting rid of your influence:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_C...ed_struggle.22
So nice try, but apparently not such a good point in the end.Quote:
Ami Pedahzur has written that "the overall volume and lethality of Vietcong terrorism rivals or exceeds all but a handful of terrorist campaigns waged over the last third of the twentieth century"
End of story. A Tunisian, the nationality that if I'm not mistaken makes up the majority of IS recruits this year, decided to commit mass murder. I don't know what's the point of all these history lessons and false equivalencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
Europe made fascism and this is fascism post-globalization from former European territories who are still salty because their countries are not doing what they should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I was trying to disguise a pointed political argument within a joke. :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
You can chicken and egg the historical antecedents of these things ad nauseum.
The core concern is really rather simple -- How do we defeat them? As with much that is simple, simple does not equal easy.
Things like this can't be prevented, unless we turn into something monstrous. I prefer we just accept that this will happen from time to time. There isn't anything we can do about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
So in short, colonialism in and of itself is not the cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Might help if we stop doing things that drive them into poverty or cause other problems for them that drive them into extremism and make them very angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'm aware it will not stop all of them, but reducing their numbers may be a good start, I'm not aware of a good way to end an ideology.
No, it is in even shorter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Most of the troublemakers were born here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
In some ghetto and growing up with the "locals" never wanting to talk to them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Aren't those the areas where a lot of the recruits come from? Then you'd have to say the mistakes were made long before multiculturalism was even a word. At least here we imported the first Turks purely out of greed and to be competitive, which may explain why the Germans tried to ignore them. I'm not sure why France, Britain and the Netherlands for example have so many immigrants from their colonies, do they have free movement or easier immigration? Or do they just prefer their former colonial overlords because they already speak the language?
I don't think anyone can seriously claim that all the muslims in Britain and France only came with the recent waves of refugees, even in Germany we had some very few black people who already lived here under the Nazis, I'd assume in France and Britain there were quite a few more, and that the French used them as soldiers who could never become officers in WW2 should be known as well. Another reason they are often disenfranchized by the way. One may say the situation for them improved with multiculturalism, but they were already burnt by that time and the ghettos established. Multiculturalism doesn't close ghettos in practice.
I know Arabs and Turks who were born here and are basically Germans with a few quirks, apparently the people in the banlieus (forgive me if I forgot a letter that you don't spell anyway) for example are not like that, why?
That still leaves some who think being an islamofascist is a cool underground fashion thing to defend their master race or something, but as Fragony always says, nothing we can do, other than maybe make it appear less cool in general. They seem to argue with the West treating its immigrants like second class people as well.
So what do you think the reasons are?
PS: The reason I don't quite buy purely religious reasons for such zeal might be that I grew up going to very fundamentalist Christian churches, I actually know a guy who went to Texas and preached on campuses there... (you may not want to believe it, but he's actually a cool guy in general, I'm not saying I don't like him)
And I somehow got the impression that these Christians also often have their rather personal reasons to invest this much into their religion, it's not just the religion alone, it can be a fear of permanent death, really bad experiences with the general atheist world and their "friends" outside the church, so that they need a reason why it is this way, and so on. And muslim people are not genetically different from Christian people so that it could explain a completely different behavior I think. The major difference is probably that they have a much larger percentage that grows up in this more fundamentalist muslim world.
AFAIK there aren't any ethnic ghettos in the UK. Ghettos, such as they are, are inhabited by class, not race. Where cultural separation exists, it does so because of choice on the individual's part. Older generations, where the cultural gap can be expected to be greater, fit in quite well with the general older population. It is the younger population, who were born here and grew up as British as everyone else, who provide most of the troublemakers. After the ethnic tensions of the early 1980s, blacks, who are even further removed from the native white skins than brown skinned people, have merged into the general British identity, so that there is less of a distinct Afro-Caribbean culture left nowadays among the younger population (it's all part of the young British culture). In contrast, young Muslims who emphasise their Muslim identity react against the cultural merger, maintaining through their own choice a separation between Muslim culture and British culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Other cultures have merged within a general British culture, to the point where there is greater difference between different generations of the same ethnicity than between different ethnicities within the same generation. Why is it the fault of the host culture if some aliens, born in their midst and with the same upbringing as everyone else, decide to separate themselves?
Yes, that explanation does make some sense indeed, Christians also preach about not joining the "world", i.e. atheists etc., because it is ruled by the devil and they have to remain distinct, stay away from the temptations and so on. I can see how very religious muslims are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What I'm not sure about though is what can be done because citizenship is usually unrevokable and if they were born in Britain, they should have it. Other countries would also likely refuse to take them. Trying to reduce extremism somehow would seem the closest approach, no? And then I'm not sure if the same explanation is valid for France, Germany or Belgium, basically whether it is indeed like that for every extremist out there. After all, plenty of them do come from countries like Algeria for example, and they're the ones giving the European youths ideas over the web etc., no?
I think you're generally on point with this, aside from underestimating religious zeal. These individuals tend to have extraordinary levels of faith that are only fueled by some of the traits you pointed out rather than defined by them. As a person who might have had a similar upbringing, I can say with certainty that the issue here is dogma unique to this religion, or at least the way it is taught to you. For fanatics, it only takes one part or understanding of the whole thing to surrender yourself to some apocalyptic vision or suicide - the idea that God has it all mapped out and there's no need to search for your own answers as they're already there. The problem here is that, especially among North African communities now prevalent in Europe, is that their motherlands carry that same hardwired understanding of religion. Countries in between Morocco and Egypt (excluded) have a radical commonplace Islamist culture, everyone whose been there knows that. This in turn affects the upbringing of some of these people in Europe. It's like those boys that murdered their parents in Saudi Arabia for not allowing them to go to 'holy war,' what they were taught in school is a tunnel-visioned view of a route to heaven so there was only one thing (in their mind) for them to do once their parents got in their way. That's how powerful it can be. Islamists can very well be like children touched by their uncle, or in this case an education that haunts them to this day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I think that answers your question about why there is a larger percentage in the fundamentalist Muslim world. The belief that it is an intrinsic good no matter where it goes, which is a belief that has the luxury of being state-sponsored and socially acceptable.
One way would be to appeal to the crowd you're trying to win over. Establish that these fanatics are apostates and traitors to that religion so that the isolated Muslim communities can adopt this perception. Choosing words like "terrorist" for headlines only furthers insecurity, fear, and victimhood narratives. Think about it, the word now has become synonymous with derogatory terms that shouldn't even be at the same level. Imagine if that word was replaced by "mass murderer" or "apostate?" What glory would there be in 'martyrdom' then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It might be a dishonest approach to some, but it's a compromise and might save lives.
It's interesting you use this analogy. Deep down you fear Muslims, as evidenced by you equating them to a hot oven. This is quite the insight into your psyche. The self blame is really just an extension of the self hate you wear on your sleeve. That parts not as interesting.Quote:
So when you touch a hot oven and it burns you, it's victim blaming to say you shouldn't have touched a hot oven?
Of course your colonial argument is total nonsense.
Thank you Dr. Freud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Do you have anything to say on my argument or did you just want to let me know that you didn't study psychology?
Showtime's post made me think about my argument, which is why I didn't reply with a rebuttal, yours just makes me sad because there's nothing to think about other than your suggestion that I would hate myself. Shall I think about whether I should become depressed now or what's the point?
You can use those words if you like but it would likely have very little effect. Part of the problem lies with the ability today to insulate oneself from the outside world. It's too easy to go on the internet and find people you choose to self-identify with. Every little sub-culture today is able to find all it's other members via internet and feel that there's nothing wrong with them but instead find a caring community that blames the rest of society for not being like that particular subculture. This applies to many things beyond terrorism too like anti-vaccinations, general conspiracy theories and so on. You can't win an argument with people that refute all your terms and facts and prefer their interpretation of whatever other sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
The Afghans Army folks I worked with use those words all the time in their propaganda against the Taliban together with videos of converted Taliban etc... and it only won over a few people, not the quantities that matter though if a single life can be saved I guess it is worth it. Not to mention it'd be a strange cross over from church/state in most Western countries if they start to define what is apostasy when they don't have a state religion.
It is a very difficult conundrum of how can we win over dis-enfranchised young men. Probably would be better to point out a way in our society in which they can be 'real men' to confirm their masculinity that working a minimum wage job doesn't provide. The people that would rather be thugs or gangsters instead of working a 'lame job' are equally as dangerous as those with extreme religious convictions.
I see it often enough in the US, people have their redneck pride. Young men don't want to go to school and be yuppies, they'd rather be lumberjacks, fishermen, cowboys or something else simple and 'manly.' Mechanized work doesn't make it easy for these people though who are more likely to just fall into alcoholism, drugs, and illicit under the table work that eventually turns criminal. This is part of the reason that women are becoming the larger percentage in colleges. Studying to be a librarian, nurse, bank teller, etc... are unmanly and therefore not to be pursued. The military which probably used to be the destination for these people has too high standards with too much discipline and so on to appeal.
Just like HertzogQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Not what I see. I see a lot of folks who mouth off about politicians, lawyers, doctors and the like -- saying that we should be all about putting people back to work in manufacturing -- while making sure their kids get to the better schools and law school or med school to follow so they can get their piece of the pie.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
I don’t think that’s the main issue, it’s the way they’re raised. You can give as much jobs as you like but at the end of the day, the way they’re raised is a key factor when they want to be about that life. Their families still consume media from their countries, which makes an effort to dispute the Islamophobia of western media. This is an ideological issue that has every reason to exist, not necessarily about status or jobs. Speaking about Europe, the US is different since a lot of communities’ problems are related. Radical thoughts are groomed and validated in the private sphere. A good start would be to speak the language that doesn't remind them of what the west has taken from them, to ease it into the host country or risk leaving it static. Jobs or standard of life aren't always powerful enough to change social discipline that goes back generations. Winning over dis-enfranchised communities and families is the best way to win over dis-enfranchised young men.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Those words that are now a norm give the ideologues mainstream attention and more reasons for them to exist. A heroic "terrorist" death is a dream come true for them.
Spend enough on education or jobs to deal with fascism and you might just end up with wealthy/educated fascists. What it boils down to is that there will always be the fortunate, like OBL, who choose that life and use the less fortunate to blow themselves up. Providing jobs and higher standard of living will just replace them with someone else who doesn't have that stuff.
Maybe you're both right and spmetla merely covered the people who think from the start that they will never be able to afford such an education for their children? Or maybe you just cover two ends of the cultural spectrum in the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Dad?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I can only really speak for what I see here in Hawaii which has more rednecks and hippies than most would think. On my island kids can either go to school and then work in Honolulu or the mainland US or they can stay on the island and work in a hotel or agriculture unless they are professionals like the careers you listed. Here in Hawaii most Japanese, Chinese, Filipino or American/European ethnic backgrounds pursue just what you are talking about. They want agriculture and manufacturing in Hawaii again too but their kids go Punahou and then a good mainland school sot hey can do anything but those two industries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The other ethnic groups in Hawaii (native Hawaiians, Micronesians, Samoas) do have access to those too but in general those aren't pushed by their families. Understandably many Hawaiians don't want to leave their particular district or island for work and instead become 'mokes' (pretty much rednecks). Nothing wrong with that but with the slow half measures toward Hawaiian independence or tribal status within the US and the increasingly hostile attitudes of these 'mokes' it wouldn't surprise me if they don't begin resorting to violence as well. Micronesians are belittle by all the other groups and keep largely to themselves creating a group that is almost permanently in the welfare category with no push to move up and with the corresponding increase in crime, especially for all their young males which I have more than enough problems with when I employ them on my farm.
Enough of the people I knew from highschool that decided to stay in Kona here make a living collecting unemployment while doing under the table work and selling pakalolo (marijuana).
I know that like it or not a lot of the world is broken into class that are still very much ethnically based, even if there is not official policy to keep it so. Poor ethnic bubbles that see themselves as unable to achieve what we define as success in terms of money or respectable careers will have people move into crime.
How people are raised of course matters, terrorism and crime are certainly not exclusive to any status group or job type. That being said someone that feels like they are getting something from the surrounding society be it self respect or financial success will be far less likely to commit crime or terrorism. For recent immigrants to the US or Europe their parents probably expected and still strive for a certain level of success, when the children or grandchildren of those first newcomers still don't have success they will probably see no point in even trying to push upward within the system. That's when people start to see the rise of 'ghetto pride' which in itself is a rejection of the rest of society. How does one win those people over? They are the ones that will commit crime and feel justified in doing so, this for both muslim groups and poor communities in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Like you said we need to win over the disenfranchised community as a whole which will win over those young men that would otherwise do crime or violence, the start to that would be making them not disenfranchised but see a path upward in wealth and status. The conversation with them is important too. Being a thug or gangster is a point of pride for some people when it should be something their families should be ashamed of. They won't how ever see themselves as terrorists but as warriors, martyrs, freedom fighters etc.. instead.
It's very easy for young people to latch onto a 'cause' of any sort. For young muslim men being a member of ISIS may be just the sort of self respect and fulfillment they wanted. It gives them a sense of purpose, not different really than young people that join the FARC rebels in Columbia in order to fight capitalism/imperialism or go on mission to preach Christianity or protest whatever injustice the government is doing at the moment. Youth need a sense of purpose too. Like you said, jobs and standard of living don't provide that. A young man with few marketable skills isn't going to get the job or the standard of living though which leaves very few legitimate ways for a sense of purpose in anything he does.
The thing is, in the UK at least, practically no other ethnic group has that kind of problem nowadays. Blacks, even where they are poor trash unable to raise themselves from the social underclass, at least mix easily with white trash, to produce a kind of urban multicultural underclass. And there is cachet even for rich kids to identify with this underclass, as seen in private school educated upper class kids speaking in broad estuary. But it's the Muslim community that has produced such a high proportion of second gens who isolate themselves from any kind of British identity whatsoever. How is it a general problem when every other community has integrated in their own way, except for this one community?Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Living in eastern London, probably the epitome of the despised underclass is the chav: poor, antisocial, generally undesirable. But one thing that I've noticed about this underclass is that it's colour blind. White, black, brown, they make no distinctions between colour. And I've also noticed that they slip easily between what in previous generations may have been termed PWT, Afro-Caribbean, Indian, etc. lingo. While they may be separated from the rest of society by wealth and class, they mix among each other.
Keep up the legal studies lad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I think this is a common theme for Islands that are not the size of continents -- the primary export is people and the economy locally is seldom truly integrated and variegated enough. Heaven knows that my state, Florida, has scads of residents and citizens who were born on Islands in the Carribean.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla