Utopia Talk / Politics / Question For Seb

Asgard Member	Sun Sep 29 14:20:50 How come no Greek Cypriot ever blew up a bus full of Turkish-Cypriot in Turkish-occupied Cyprus? Another question - How come no Turk ever burst into a German nightclub and shoot 200 Germans for oppression and living in a Turkish Gheto, like French-Morrocons did? K, thx,bye!
Seb Member	Sun Sep 29 15:52:02 Asgard: Ever heard of EOKA? Did a Palestinian ever blow up a hotel full of British citizens.
Asgard Member	Sun Sep 29 16:58:00 Yes, well not British, but Jews, but who cares about Jews, they're just...jews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_massacre
Asgard Member	Sun Sep 29 17:02:26 It's funny, though, that you're talking about how Israel's PRE-ISRAEL war against the British is somehow some big bad evil, while EOKA is just a nice naive freedom campaign similar to Hamas, lovely, sweet Hamas. While in reality EOKA's war was part of Cyprus's war of independence. So if EOKA is fine, let's agree that David hotel is also a fun and cool event in history. Now, please answer the question. Did a GREEK cypriot ever carried out terorrism in TURKISH Cyprus? IE AFTER EOKA, not during...
Pillz Member	Sun Sep 29 17:45:53 Seb the islamophile
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 30 01:17:46 What have I missed? :-)
Seb Member	Mon Sep 30 01:48:57 Asgard: Your question was intended to portray Palestinian terrorism as in some way unique. Which is a bit rich when Israeli terrorists attacked and blew up civilians in pursuit of their independence. And doubly stupid given that the first example there absolutely were Greek Cypriot terrorists, and the second compares a colonial to non-colonial situation. RE EOKA, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha,_Santalaris_and_Aloda_massacre Try googling next time? But the key point about Greek Cypriots is that they live on the Greek side of the Island, and the Turks don't occupy the Greek area with military check points, and keep building settlements on it and subjecting it to economic blockade. Israel: more stupidly militaristic, repressive and aggressive than the Turks. Is that there point you were trying to make? You pop up every few years with this bullshit. Asgard, you're far too stupid to carry this off.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 30 01:50:54 Asgard: "that you're talking about how Israel's PRE-ISRAEL war against the British is somehow some big bad evil, while EOKA is just a nice naive freedom campaign similar to Hamas, lovely, sweet Hamas. While in reality EOKA's war was part of Cyprus's war of independence. So if EOKA is fine, let's agree that David hotel is also a fun and cool event in history." Just to be utterly explicit, I signed no value judgements to any of the things referred to in the thread. This is all the invention of your own dysfunctional mind.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 30 04:59:49 "Your question was intended to portray Palestinian terrorism as in some way unique." The only thing unique about the Israeli-Palestine conflict is how publicised it is in Western countries by leftist circles. So, a salient question is, why do people care so much about this conflict when it neither unique nor especially bloody or inhumane? The short answer is, Islamists Groups found the door into the socialists hearts via "muh colonialism".
Pillz Member	Mon Sep 30 05:36:23 How coy of Seb to imply there was ever a Turkish side
jergul large member	Mon Sep 30 06:46:25 Nimi Perhaps because the normal routes of sanctions, bombings and/or invasions are not on the table? The short answer would also be that arab nationalism found its way into socialist hearts by not being Islamists. Islamists are mostly the children of anti-communist activity. Seen as a lesser evil by the CIA and its Muslim country counterparts I imagine. Enjoy the popcorn as we watch the opiate of the masses play out :).
Seb Member	Mon Sep 30 07:09:08 Nim: "Leftist circles" (actually just some parts of it) are dogged by a fundamental perspective that sees international affairs as falling into "imperialist" and "non imperialist", and within that framework they see Israel-palestime as quintisentially imperialist. The framework is ridiculously oversimplified. But from an external position, once you understand how they think, it makes perfect sense why they are obsessed with Israel and Palestine. It links European colonialism, American interventionism, and capitalism. In many ways it's the lynchpin - from their perspective - of their argument about everything that's wrong in the world. And because many of them are simplistic as, say, Asgard, they immediately cast about looking for specific causes of bad people motivated by bad intent rather than systemic causes and incentives - and end up diving deep into mad anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
Forwyn Member	Mon Sep 30 09:27:47 "the Turks don't occupy the Greek area with military check points" Uhh, all of Anatolia is occupied by Turkish invaders. They emigrated en masse in a manner that would make Merkel proud, and massacred the natives.
Daemon Member	Mon Sep 30 09:28:49 "How come no Turk ever burst into a German nightclub and shoot 200 Germans for oppression and living in a Turkish Gheto, like French-Morrocons did?" WTF what ghetto?
Seb Member	Mon Sep 30 10:32:32 Forwyn: Last I checked, Anatolia wasn't a place in Cypress.
Forwyn Member	Mon Sep 30 10:55:57 They don't need to be in Cypress to be occupying Greek area.
Paramount Member	Mon Sep 30 11:00:56 ”You pop up every few years with this bullshit. Asgard,” Indeed.
Rugian Member	Mon Sep 30 11:01:06 But also: "During Turkey's military intervention/invasion in 1974, many Greek Cypriots (who owned 90% of the land and property in the north) were forced to abandon their homes. (A large number of Turkish Cypriots were also forced to abandon their homes in the South.) Since then, the question of restitution of their property has been a central demand of the Greek Cypriot side. However, the Turkish Cypriots argue that the complete return of all Greek Cypriot properties to their original owners would be incompatible with the functioning of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal settlement. To this extent, they have argued compensation should be offered. The Annan Plan attempted to bridge this divide. In certain areas, such as Morphou (Güzelyurt) and Famagusta (Gazimağusa), which would be returned to Greek Cypriot control, Greek Cypriot refugees would have received back all of their property according to a phased timetable. In other areas, such as Kyrenia (Girne) and the Karpass Peninsula, which would remain under Turkish Cypriot control, they would be given back a proportion of their land (usually one third assuming that it had not been extensively developed) and would receive compensation for the rest. All land and property (that was not used for worship) belonging to businesses and institutions, including the Church the largest property owner on the island, would have been expropriated. While many Greek Cypriots found these provisions unacceptable in themselves, many others resented the fact that the Plan envisaged all compensation claims by a particular community to be met by their own side. This was seen as unfair as Turkey would not be required to contribute any funds towards the compensation."
Seb Member	Mon Sep 30 11:06:40 Forwyn: "But the key point about Greek Cypriots is that they live on the Greek side of the Island, and the Turks don't occupy the Greek area with military check points, and keep building settlements on it and subjecting it to economic blockade." Very clear "the Greek area" refers to the Greek side of the Island. So why are you talking about Anatolia?
Seb Member	Mon Sep 30 11:12:55 Rugian: So, here the Turks (cast as Israel in Asgard's OP) are arguing for a two state solution, whereas Israel is arguing for a one state solution where Palestinians have no civil rights, continue to have their land expropriated, backed up by military force. This isn't looking like a great model.
Rugian Member	Mon Sep 30 11:14:50 Seb, Israel offered a two state solution. The Palestinian response was to lynch Israeli reservists and blow up cafes. Hence Asgsrds point of apples and oranges.
Paramount Member	Mon Sep 30 11:24:41 What would you do if the UN decided to offer half of the USA to Mexicans, and the Mexican accepted it and started their own country their?
Paramount Member	Mon Sep 30 11:25:02 *there
Forwyn Member	Mon Sep 30 11:37:51 "the Greek area" "the Greek side" The whole island is the Greek area. "So why are you talking about Anatolia?" Because Turkish leaders, in their own words, view the annexation of Cyprus as an extension of their conquest of Anatolia. They should be pushed out of both.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 30 11:48:10 Forwyn: You are unhinged and grasping at straws. Goodbye.
Forwyn Member	Mon Sep 30 11:59:28 You're the one shrugging off wars of conquest in the modern era, something universally decried and generally stopped with overwhelming, multi-nation alliances. For some reason leftists whine about it when it's Israel and ignore it when it's the Ottomans. Both should be pushed back to their respective borders.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 30 12:12:06 Forwyn: You'd have to be pretty idiotic to come to that conclusion Forwyn.
Forwyn Member	Mon Sep 30 12:14:52 Seb: you'd have to be pretty idiotic to handwave Turkish invasions of conquest, Seb.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 30 12:23:15 Yes, you would. But not as stupid as to come into a thread created by Asgard, who has just been taken to task for making dumb inferences for which there is no evidence, and then do exactly the same thing but even more idiotically. Not that attaining the necessary depths of stupidity has ever proven an insurmountable barrier for you.
Forwyn Member	Mon Sep 30 12:30:06 Which assertion do you have a problem with? That Turkey invaded? Or that Turkey does not have a "side" because they invaded? Or are you just being a whiny faggot, per usual?
Seb Member	Mon Sep 30 12:54:47 Forwyn: I invite you to test your hypothesis - irrespective of the moral or legal position - that there isn't what we may colloquially call "a Turkish side" by attempting a crossing from the Greek side to the side we might without going through border formalities. I was in Cyprus in the 90's when a young Greek doing that and stealing a Turkish Cypriot flag was shot. Acknowledging the reality doesn't imply endorsement of the invasion. You'd have to be idiotic to come to that conclusion.
Forwyn Member	Mon Sep 30 13:12:35 No one in the world recognizes Turkish Cyprus, except for Turkey. That Europe is too cucked to do anything about it is just a harsh reality.
Forwyn Member	Mon Sep 30 13:14:53 Funny you mention Solomou, who was protesting the death of his cousin to Grey Wolf terrorists.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 30 15:13:38 Forwyn: Noting the reality that presently there a Turkish half of the Island and a Greek half in order to have a conversation isn't diplomatic recognition Forwyn, and it's absolutely stupid to claim so. It would be like me saying that because you used the phrase "Turkish Cyprus" you yourself must be "hand waiving the Turkish invasion". Try harder.
Forwyn Member	Mon Sep 30 18:02:13 Fair. But I think you've done a bit more than neutrally present Turkish invasion and occupation. You quite clearly presented them as the good example, compared to the evil Israelis: "But the key point about Greek Cypriots is that they live on the Greek side of the Island, and the Turks don't occupy the Greek area with military check points, and keep building settlements on it and subjecting it to economic blockade."
Asgard Member	Mon Sep 30 20:37:28 We'll... 1) Point is, only Arabs blow up nightclubs, while Turks, who are not Arab - don't. The excuse of Moroccan arabs being disenfranchised in France is moot because so are the Turks in Germany. 2) Turkey invaded another country, drove out most of the inhabitants, and any Turks from proper Turkey can at any time buy property there and live there.... And NOT be called a settler. Funny
Seb Member	Tue Oct 01 01:26:43 Forwyn: Contrasting Napoleon and Hitler doesn't make Napoleon morally good. Asgard: 1) I see, and is blowing up a nightclub better or worse than a hotel? 2) I see. You'd like us to drop the use of the more euphemistic term Settler that your country prefers and use the term "occupiers"? We could use colonist if you prefer?
Asgard Member	Tue Oct 01 04:13:03 You miss the point, Miss. I would like you to vehemently attack Turkey as you do Israel. And I would like you to start realizing the danger that is specific to Arab immigrants over other immigrants in your dying and expired continent.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 01 05:06:15 Asgard: You have this idea that I vehmently attack Israel. When, other than responding to your inane threads, have I ever bought the subject up?
Seb Member	Tue Oct 01 05:10:00 Asgard: "And I would like you to start realizing the danger that is specific to Arab immigrants over other immigrants in your dying and expired continent." I'm affraid I don't agree any more than in the 70s I'd have said Irish or Catholics pose a unique threat. We can target terrorists more granularly than by discrimination against entire populations on the basis of race or ethnicity. Indeed, your own argument ought to lead us to conclude that Israelis are a greater threat, given Stern gang and Irgun. Nobody would say that those terrorist groups were somehow indicative of a propensity to violence in every Jew, so why are you pretending as such with Arabs?
Seb Member	Tue Oct 01 05:47:47 Asgard has just admitted his entire purpose in this thread is to convince me to hate and fear Arabs. To do so, he's: Used an example if Greek nationalist terrorists, Likened Israel to an invading military power, Failed to reject the equivalency between Arab and Jewish terrorist groups, How well does everyone think he's doing?
Paramount Member	Tue Oct 01 05:58:04 Lol, Asgard is still the same.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 02 14:24:42 lol, so are you :)
Seb Member	Wed Oct 02 16:21:09 Ok, so I guess that's it from Asgard for a bit. He'll pop up in nine months time with another thread as inane as this.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 03 09:20:22 seb Your comparison with the Irish/british does not extrapolate to all other cultures with regards to integration. The why is complex, but fundamentally there are differences in values greater than Irish vs British in the world. Some thing will cause friction, others cannot be reconciled without one party giving in. There are some ideosyncracies that just won’t fly.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 03 10:28:14 Nim: So, if I understand your critique correctly: My rejection of the idea of blanketing an entire ethic group as being a risk factor because it is absurdly reductionist to conflate the factors that make someone a risk of posing a terrorist threat into a single index for which ethnicity is a good proxy, is flawed because it itself is insufficiently complex to account for the fact that *all Arabs share a monolithic set of values that are of a much greater difference than that monolithic gap that exists between all Irish Catholics Vs UK govt*. I think you categorically missed the point I was making. My argument wasn't about degree, my argument was about the fundamental premise. And if we applied the arguments you are using in the way that Asgard would like them to be implemented, you and your family would still be living in Iran.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 03 11:51:09 No, you don't. Your idea of reducing all the worlds cultures and their ability to integrate or assimilate with other culture to the "1970's Irish" is flawed. The why is complex since inherent personal traits matter. My parents for instance are deeply non-religious, so am I. So the threshold for my entry to Swedish society was low, I could celebrate in Church, go to sunday school, eat pig meat and so on. On average yes. "Arabs" have greater differences in value with British people than the Irish do. So on average Arabs are more prone to self-selectively segregate and live in areas where they feel "home". It is a reality to do deal with, all the other cultures in the world are aware of this besides northern Europeans, apparently. You don't need to trample individual rights and a fair hearing because you accept the reality of averages. Curiously Iranians do not have a hard time integrating or assimilating. It may be deeply rooted in the indo-european heritage, it may be that most of the people who fleed/flee Iran are primarily driven to do so for exactly the type of reasons that makes them integrate with little resistance. Self-selection applies much less to people who flee war. With that said, there are Islamist regime loyal Iranians in Sweden, just in very very low numbers.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 03 12:00:08 It is also irrelevant to me what Asgards ideas would have had for implications for 6 year old me. I don’t think we should stop people at the border because they are Arabs. We should have more stringent selection and it should be easier to deport people. People who come here should be made perfectlt aware of what they are getting into and what kind of values that rules this place. This is all colored by the disaster that is Swedish immigration policy. I mean I think Norway or even the UK are 100 times better. Both also happen to have take in a fraction of what Sweden has done. Food for thought.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 03 12:06:51 Nim: My refutation of Asgard's view has nothing to do with integration. Arguing whether people integrate or not is totally irrelevant. But even glimpsing down that irrelevant rabbit hole, the entire basis of the NI conflict is a steadfast refusal of protestants and Catholics to integrate over about three hundred years. Arguing that somehow Arabs pose a greater threat because they are uniformly less willing to integrate into Western societies than Irish protestants and Catholics are willing to unite is an extremely odd proposition. From the point of view of a Brit in the 1970s, there's absolutely no basis whatsoever to believe Irish Catholics are going to give up their desire to independence. The point is you'd have to be a raging racist to then treat all Irish Catholics as potential terrorists in the way that Asgard is saying all Arabs should be so treated. Ethnicity simply isn't a meaningful proxy for such an assessment. As you yourself note in the case of your own family.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 03 13:43:28 Well, I think integration or assimilation matters a great deal, if these were not issues with immigration, this topic would not exist outside of inherently racist fringes. Let's fall into the rabbit hole, the distance between those two Christian denominations is closer than between Christian/Secular Britain and Muslims. So, we can conclude that the ideas Brits had about Irish in the 70's were wrong. Once the us vs them had unraveled, there existed few or no irreconcilable differences worth the time of day. It does not follow that this is the case when you run this experiment with two cultures that have bigger differences. On average it ethnicity is a meaningful proxy, I would however say religious/ideological affiliation is a better proxy for behavior. I would presume that is what Asgard really means, I have a hard time imagining him taking issue with Christian Arabs or atheist/secular arabs. I don't have to agree with Asgard to understand where he is coming from when it goes too far. My ethnicity and heritage shares ancestry with Europeans, unlike Islam. It also happened to be the deciding factor in my parents self-selection out of the country. As is the case for many if not most of the Iranian diaspora.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 03 14:23:39 Jergul "The short answer would also be that arab nationalism found its way into socialist hearts by not being Islamists." This isn't true. The first two decades until the 6 day war, Israel was solidly in favor with the European left. Being the tiny underdog and still in the wake of the shame that disgraced European after WW2 fighting for her independence. Israel was also founded on largely leftist ideas and until the 70's govered by Mapai/Labor. From 1967 and on wards, with the rise of the Israeli right during the 70's, the blunder that was Lebanon in the 80's and the intifadas it has now evaporated completely. The left now favors who ever is in opposition to Israel, regardless of ideological affiliation. The Islamist were just the best at it, with large segments of Europe completely oblivious to the reality in the ME, fundie Muslims and how deeply entrenched Islam is as a power structure, it was not that hard. Also what seb wrote is true, it slowly went from Socialist Israel feel bad for the Jews to a trifecta of things the left hates religiously.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 03 14:35:29 Nimatzo: "Well, I think integration or assimilation matters a great deal, if these were not issues with immigration, this topic would not exist outside of inherently racist fringes." Asgard raised his point with regard to the Arab Israeli issue being totemic example of Arab propensity to violence compared to other situations where a group has been occupied or displaced. The Palestinians are not immigrants into Israel, Nim, so while you are seeking to talk about assimilation, it's simply not the issue under discussion. " the distance between those two Christian denominations is closer than between Christian/Secular Britain and Muslims." You say that, and yet for 300 years the Irish Catholics have resisted integration, with the bulk ultimately leaving after an armed insurrection, and the rump in Northern Ireland having fought a horrific terrorist campaign with massacre including the murder of over 20 school children, perpetrated by an armed group, with an organised political party, extensive support throughout the civil population both in terms of fund raising and in terms of not only refusing to report but also active frustration of attempts to identify and capture perpetrators. Meanwhile, Muslim terrorism remains the purview of sporadic lone wolves, and with most people convicted of Islamic terror having been informed on and convicted with evidence from their own communities. So while you may theorise that Catholicism and Protestantism ought to be somehow closer than Islam and Christian; in terms of values, loyalty to the state, willingness not to tolerate terrorist violence and general integration - all the evidence points the other way. British Muslims are far more integrated as a whole at the moment than Catholic Irish were in the 70's and 80's. I appreciate this doesn't fit with your theory, but if one professes to a scientific perspective one must accept the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly truth.
Rugian Member	Thu Oct 03 14:58:03 It's easy for British Muslims to be appeased when you let their grooming gangs run free in your cities. Also, Northern Ireland is a colonial possession ruled by what has historically been a ruthlessly oppressive overlord, so it's a bit of a different situation.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 03 15:11:32 Rugian, the only reason you know anything about the grooming gang (Pakistani, not Arab) is because they were prosecuted. And Northern Ireland had its own parliament from its creation through to 1973, when it was abolished largely because of the Irish protestants propensity to discriminate against the Catholics.
Pillz Member	Thu Oct 03 17:52:48 Seb says Arab Muslim terrorism is isolated to lone wolves... But I don't recall the Irish blowing themselves up regularly in other countries. To say nothing of the fact you have frequent mass bombings in Egypt every year that kill like a thousand Christians annually. How many mosque attacks have we had in the west?.... 2?
Seb Member	Thu Oct 03 18:42:31 Pillz: If Arabs, as Asgard is supposing, represent a uniform threat, the fact rates vary by country of current residence, doesn't that completely undermine Agards entire point? From the point of view of the UK, what does the number of attacks in Egypt tell us about refugees from Syria, let alone third generation Brits whose grandparents came from Pakistan? And if context matters, its pretty obvious that Irish nationalist terror was (and probably likely remains) a bigger threat to UK population than Islamic terror, and nobody would consider blanket policies targeting that ethnic group. Let's face it, you are just grasping at straws trying to find reasons to be horrible to brown people in the west and refugees.
Pillz Member	Fri Oct 04 13:00:22 Vary widely by what measure? Austria, Germany, Sweden, UK, France, Spain, US, Australia, Canada... Should we be disregarding this because no attacks have struck Greenland yet?
Pillz Member	Fri Oct 04 13:01:26 And lol @syria Why would domestic Egyptian terrorism be a factor for consideration w/ regards to Syrian immigrats? Just look at Syrian domestic terrorism You've got about 7 years of documentation there
Seb Member	Sat Oct 05 06:21:51 Pillz: So... why did you bring up Egypt then, rather than just using UK examples?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 05 06:40:16 >>Asgard raised his point with regard to the Arab Israeli issue being totemic example of Arab propensity to violence compared to other situations where a group has been occupied or displaced. The Palestinians are not immigrants into Israel, Nim, so while you are seeking to talk about assimilation, it's simply not the issue under discussion.<< And I think you are able to understand why someone like Asgard would have such a strong feeling about it, the degree to which he is correct notwithstanding. And asgard is advising you on your immigration policy vis a vis Arabs, so integration matters in light of his advice. >>and yet for 300 years the Irish Catholics have resisted integration<< They have resisted assimilation, but it is quite obvious that they are well integrated in the UK. This conflict is not fundamentally about ideological differences, it has nothing to do with the transubstantiation of christ, it is a tribal conflict with religion as a marker for identity. You could have dressed this up as poor vs rich or settler vs native, i.e the conflict is about earthly things. This friction between Jews and, well, everyone else was never about Jews difficulty integrating, they integrated fine, they just never assimilated, ever, not Christ nor Muhammed managed to convince them. Which was much harder for Muslims to swallow since apparently their prophet was the last one. "Muslim terrorism remains the purview of sporadic lone wolves" Right, let's pretend you didn't write that, because it is irrelevant to the phenomena of reliably producing certain types of behavior. So, even if our world was not populated by the likes of Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and dozens of other organized jihadi groups, religion is a code that outputs behavior. That behavior is partly a product of the hardware (person) and partly the code (religion/ideology/culture). If a code reliably outputs "lone wolf terrorists", that is a problematic code. I think you would agree. >>So while you may theorise that Catholicism and Protestantism ought to be somehow closer than Islam and Christian; in terms of values<< It's not me theorizing, it is theological reality. The fact that _people_ can construe small differences into markers for identity to engage in a conflict, does not negate what is actually real. i.e we have an idea in our heads about our differences, muddied by a bunch of factors, and then there are our actual differences. We can unravel the lies about our differences (which I presume is your ambition when you engage in these threads) and still end up with irreconcilable differences. That distance is, for obvious reasons, is much closer between Christian denominations that different faiths. >>If Arabs, as Asgard is supposing, represent a uniform threat<< No group poses a uniform threat, not even Muslims and Asgard is wrong if he believes that. It does not make him a "raging racist". You seb have the capacity to understand where he is coming from (literally the time and place he comes from) that would produce such extreme thoughts.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 05 06:57:47 Why does my well integrated Bosnian socialist Muslim coworker feel the need to declare that he boycotts Israeli products? Why does he in an ill-informed manner motivate this with "it is a particularly inhuman conflict". He apparently had no problem buying oranges from Morocco because "not as many people are effected in West Sahara". He has yet to come to me about the components and technology in his iPhone. I shit you not these are excerpts from a real conversation. I summed it up for him "ok so this is ideological not a principled position regarding conflicts". Yes he said confidently :-), and very defensive at that point. I like honesty, though I don't think he really understood the implication. In his defense I have questioned and prodded him before on politics with similar results, now his tactic has shifted to simply assert things more confidently when we talk politics. Just a funny side track I remembered.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 05 08:06:31 Nimi Boycotting Israel is a reasonable grassroots reaction to the impotence of the international community in enforcing UN resolutions on Israel and Palestine. It is more reasonable to expect sanctions and other reactions in regards to other states. For the record: I would vastly prefer international sanctions on Israel, then happily eat whatever fruit made it through the sanction regime.
Asgard Member	Sat Oct 05 11:50:07 "No group poses a uniform threat, not even Muslims and Asgard is wrong if he believes that. It does not make him a "raging racist". You seb have the capacity to understand where he is coming from (literally the time and place he comes from) that would produce such extreme thoughts." Oh, not at all. Israel for example, has 25% of its population as Muslims (and I don't refer to Palestine). I have no issues with Arabs at all, and feel safe when around them, with them, or being driven by a bus with an Arab driver. The issue is that I do not, for the life of me, understand the obsession with Israel. As Nimi said, the implied theme around, is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the worst humanitarian disaster since the holocaust, but in reality it does not even come close to much larger, and widely ignored, conflicts. I especially like how Seb et al keep treating it as genocide, when there are many days, weeks, or months even, without any shots, knifings, or bombing coming from either side, and there are only protests at most. Ludicrous, in fact. You can see quite clearly how other countries get away with much worse crimes (and it is a crime to rule over other people, I totally agree), but these countries themselves promote bans and sanctions against Israel, to cover their own asses from attention.
Asgard Member	Sat Oct 05 11:59:44 To the other point of this threat - Seb, you really should continue your immigration policy in order to secure the establishment of a Eurokhalifate Union. Go ahead, it's going great so far. Let me be more specific - You'll do much good to keep democracy and pluralism alive if you allow indians, chinese, africans, latins, russians, and turks, into the EU and/or Britain. But leaving the door unchecked for Muslims, especially the ones coming for war zones in the guise of refugees (even though the majority of which speak arabic with a peculiar north-african dialect rather than a Syrian one... hmmmm...... ) is the sure way for slow and painful decay of everything you hold dear - such as pluralism, gay rights, womens' rights, religious freedom, and democracy.
Asgard Member	Sat Oct 05 12:00:29 and how both points link together? well, the Arabs in Israel want to integrate into society, and they don't blow things up. Ironic, I know.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 05 14:17:13 Nim: "And asgard is advising you on your immigration policy vis a vis Arabs, so integration matters in light of his advice." Not if his advice is founded on the basis of his mistaken belief that Arabs are now prone to violence, a fact he can't actually support with facts. You are substituting the point he has made with your own flawed proposition. ", but it is quite obvious that they are well integrated in the UK." And yet those responsible for counter terrorism consider that the level and community support for people seeking the violent disintegration from the state and willing to help their co-nationals murder in order to achieve that end is far larger than the supposedly less well integrated British Muslim community. Doesn't that simply tell you that perhaps this term "integration" is far too amophorous thing to be a direct measure of threat? You assert that the Islamic terrorist threat is fundamentally ideological whereas Irish nationalism isn't. I find that hard to accept given nationalism is absolutely an ideology, Islamic Terror has a huge streak of anti colonialism bound up in it, and in the case of domestic terrorism all the evidence of how radicalisation occurs seems to show it proceeds exactly as radicalisation of Northern Irish youths (on both sides of the sectarian divide) proceeds. "Let's pretend you didn't write that," Let's pretend you didn't overlook we are talking specifically about the UK context, and think again. Almost none of the UK islamic terrorist attacks have been the product of organised international networks. This is part of the reason they are so much less effective than the Provo's were. The fact it is convenient to your argument to highlight that they are, superficially at least, in the same cause as al-Qaeda doesnt make them the same phenomenon and allow you to make inferences about British Muslims based on the behaviours of Iraqi's which stem from entirely different contexts and circumstances. The problem is you are determined to come at this from an angle of religion and theology to the exclusion of all else. "It does not make him a "raging racist"" Of course it does. If he believes that Arabs are fundamentally more likely to commit terrorism, that absolutely is a racist belief. I do absolutely know where he is coming from: he pops up here on a regular basis asking questions like in the OP, which dissolve quite rapidly due to his failure to do basic fact checking until he admits that the point he is making ought to be self evident: Arabs are violent killers and ought to be systematically discriminated against by state policy because of that. Asgard: "I especially like how Seb et al keep treating it as genocide" I especially like how you keep making these absurd claims when literally the only person to keep bringing up Israel is you!
Asgard Member	Sat Oct 05 16:15:57 "Not if his advice is founded on the basis of his mistaken belief that Arabs are now prone to violence, a fact he can't actually support with facts." never, ever said it. Nor did I say it ever regarding Muslims. I do, say it - regarding the immigrants you import. They are not your friends.
Asgard Member	Sat Oct 05 16:19:25 "in the case of domestic terrorism all the evidence of how radicalisation occurs seems to show it proceeds exactly as radicalisation of Northern Irish youths" AHAHAHAHA! Can you give even one example showing a perfectly normal, non-Catholic, non-Irish person who converted to Catholicism, was preached by a Catholic preacher and decided to kill tourists in a former Protestant-occupied colony?
Asgard Member	Sat Oct 05 16:20:07 Can I answer "No" in your stead? great, thanks. I love it. this is gold.
Pillz Member	Sat Oct 05 19:23:54 Would Seb let his wife fuch an Irish Catholic?
Pillz Member	Sat Oct 05 19:37:54 @ seb Because I wanted to demonstrate that Arab Muslim terrorism is not isolated to western countries in lone wolf incidents. Its wide spread geographically across Western nations. Its increasingly frequent. And Arab Muslim terrorism is even more prevelent in nations with large non-muslim populations (and even then).
jergul large member	Sun Oct 06 04:17:04 Seb Islamic terrorism is ultimately the last refuge of scoundrels. I would link it more to anti-communist domino theories, than to other post colonial trauma. Every communist SAVAK killed fed into fundamental islam as the only viable form of self-expression.
Seb Member	Sun Oct 06 06:57:48 Asgard: You mentioned nightclubs being blown up - that's something that happens in Israel. You referred specifically to Arabs. Has a nightclub been blown up by an Arab in the UK?
Seb Member	Sun Oct 06 07:05:13 "Can you give even one example showing a perfectly normal, non-Catholic, non-Irish person who converted to Catholicism, was preached by a Catholic preacher and decided to kill tourists in a former Protestant-occupied colony?" That's not how radicalisation proceeds. Few IRA members start off with a profound sense of religious purpose. It starts off with angry young men who feel society is against them, who then find a group of people that are willing to accept them, who preach violence against society as a form of empowerment and self actualisation - a sense of purpose, control and power they find lacking, and who give them a convenient framework to rationalise the violence. In both cases, the ideology comes last, not first. Can you give an example of a person that is just an ordinary Joe, living a humdrum middle class life, and then walkd into a mosque finds god through a non fundamentalist preacher who isn't actively recruiting terrorists, and then decides to become a terrorist? That's not how it happens, Asgard. Pillz: If your argument is that these things are fundamentally the same phenomenon then you need to prove that, not simply assert it. My contention is the patterns are totally different, driven by different forces despite superficially similar ideology draped over the top.
Seb Member	Sun Oct 06 07:08:36 Actually, that's not even my main point. My main point is that by any measure, v within the UK context, it makes much more sense (if you are going to use ethnicity as a proxy for threat and make decisions on individuals) to do so against Irish Catholics. It is obvious to anyone that such a policy is an abomination, and nobody goes around criticising the UK for not having adopted such a stance. In fact quite the opposite: to the extent that officials have unilaterally adopted such discriminatory approaches it is rightly seen as a terrible wrong.
Asgard Member	Sun Oct 06 12:08:29 So Ariana Grande and Batackan are fakes? K, kill yourself. Right now. It's not funny anymore.
Asgard Member	Sun Oct 06 12:09:01 Bataclan*
Asgard Member	Sun Oct 06 12:09:14 Re "You mentioned nightclubs being blown up - that's something that happens in Israel"
Asgard Member	Sun Oct 06 12:10:30 " Can you give an example of a person that is just an ordinary Joe, living a humdrum middle class life, and then walkd into a mosque finds god through a non fundamentalist preacher who isn't actively recruiting terrorists, and then decides to become a terrorist? That's not how it happens, Asgard. " Yes, see my other thread currently active with 0 comments. That is exactly the case.
Paramount Member	Sun Oct 06 12:28:21 In that thread you say that the guy ”became a disciple of a radical preacher”, while the question here was/is about a person who finds god through a non-fundamentalist preacher.
Asgard Member	Sun Oct 06 12:40:35 Well, no, Fuckamount. I do not agree with the notion that Islam is itself inherently evil. Most of Islam is quite calm and historically, has been far more progressive than the rest of the world. That however, changed since the 20th century, where radical islam (note: not islam. RADICAL islam) is flourishing under the noses of Sebs and your other fuckamounts. You see innocent sad little refugees - but they are not even syrian for the most part, conning your countries and fortifying against you while you sleep (and even when you're awake, again, see Bataclan. To Seb Bataclan never happened, at all)
Seb Member	Sun Oct 06 12:44:00 Batackan is in France. Manchester was a football stadium not a night club. Is it your contention that there's something specific about nightclubs as opposed to other targets, like for example, hotels? "Yes, see my other thread currently active with 0 comments." It talks of a man that worked as an intelligence analyst who worked reviewing radicalisation for the police going on a stabbing attack in the police headquarters. It mentions he converted to Islam 18 months ago. So it seems to me there are two possible alternatives to "he became religious then violent". Firstly, it is entirely possible, in fact likely, that he was radicalised by the materials he was reviewing, and converting to Islam was an expression of his radicalisation rather than the cause. Secondly, it is entirely coincidental and this was an incident of workplace violence (cf. The origin of the expression "Going postal")
Asgard Member	Sun Oct 06 12:48:42 Oh, god. He doesn't get Yes, of course it's in France. Of course it's in Manchester. Loos, it's really rather simple and I would have stayed a bit longer to spoon feed you, bit I am exhausted.
Seb Member	Sun Oct 06 13:22:49 Asgard: No, I get it, you think that all Arabs everywhere have an innate propensity to violence. That's the underpinning theory behind this. You don't admit that, possibly you don't even admit it to yourself. But that's the corner stone of your argument.
Seb Member	Sun Oct 06 13:23:27 This attempt to argue that Arabs are exceptional in your OP - when very clearly they are not.
Asgard Member	Sun Oct 06 13:25:28 Bit didn't I say the exact opposite, when I said ISraeli Arabs are not violent, since they wish to integrate? So you even read properly?
Asgard Member	Sun Oct 06 13:25:54 Do you* I quit.
Forwyn Member	Sun Oct 06 14:39:47 "Catholicism" Fucking retard Seb, rofl. The IRA didn't blow up cars because a priest told them to. What a shit analogy to Islam.
Seb Member	Sun Oct 06 16:51:06 Asgard: You said that, when pushed, but it's entirely against the thrust of your argument. Your initial point sought to contrast Greek Cypriots against people who blew up buses in turkish occupied cypruss. Later you mentioned night clubs. In context, it is very clear you are drawing parallel to Palestinian terrorists in Israel, not the UK. But the refugees and British muslims are not palestinians. What connects them? Arab. And Arab is the term you use here, specifically from post "Asgard Member Mon Sep 30 20:37:28 We'll... 1) Point is, only Arabs blow up nightclubs, while Turks, who are not Arab - don't. The excuse of Moroccan arabs being disenfranchised in France is moot because so are the Turks in Germany. 2) Turkey invaded another country, drove out most of the inhabitants, and any Turks from proper Turkey can at any time buy property there and live there.... And NOT be called a settler. Funny" So you can say "oh, this isn't about Arabs" all you like, but you only said that *After* you did in fact confirm this is all about Arabs, in your mind.
Seb Member	Sun Oct 06 16:54:12 Forwyn: And British muslims who turned terrorists are not doing it because an Imam told them to either. That is *precisely* my point. Nimatzo believes Islamic terrorism committed by western born people is because some very religious people believe - on some level - god is willing that they fight the infidels. I am saying that is as incorrect as believing that Irish terrorists are doing so because they believe the pope is infallible and protestants are heretics.
Seb Member	Sun Oct 06 16:58:04 Nimatzo believes that because Protestant and Catholic are superficially the same religion with minor technical points and many common values; whereas Islam is in many ways strikingly different - that Catholics ought to be able to integrate into society better than Muslims. I'm pointing out that from a counter terror perspective, those involved in tackling both have repeatedly stated the reverse: muslim communities in the UK have shown far more loyalty in turning in terrorists than Irish Catholics did the IRA. Which is to say, actually the contrasting relative gap in theology doesn't appear to be a truly determining factor in integration. And absent entirely from Nimatzo's discourse in integration is the behavior of the host society and whether it wants to allow minorities to assimilate.
Forwyn Member	Sun Oct 06 18:04:49 "And British muslims who turned terrorists are not doing it because an Imam told them to either." There is an abundance of Islamic materials available to radicalize individuals, and there are absolutely Imams worldwide that preach jihad. Why else would your nation undergo such extensive counter-terrorism efforts aimed at rooting out exactly that? "that Catholics ought to be able to integrate into society better than Muslims." Depends on the society. A Catholic will no doubt have an easier time Argentina than a Muslim. It works the opposite way in Oman. But again, your go-to comparison of the IRA continues to be retarded. Catholics didn't fly into the UK from all over the world to conduct terror attacks.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 07 03:00:07 Forwyn: "There is an abundance of Islamic materials available to radicalize individuals, and there are absolutely Imams worldwide that preach jihad." Yes. But all the evidence - and it has been gone into in great depth - is that this is not how people are radicalised. You don't find someone, preach at them, get them to truly believe in the Koran, and then get them to realise they need to kill everyone who does not follow it. You start of looking for marginalized angry people, you tell them they are being oppressed, you show how people allied to your cause are able to fight society and punish it, and then you convince them to join the struggle. The Koran stuff is trapping that comes later. Counter terrorism largely focuses on that. At one point there were a few radical mosques that served as the dissemination point, but they've long been shut down. But again, it's window dressing. Nobody self radicalises simply by going to a Mosque, just like nobody becomes a sectarian Irish terrorist decides to take up arms simply by going to a catholic church. "Depends on the society." We are talking about British society. "Catholics didn't fly into the UK from all over the world to conduct terror attacks." Neither did the Islamic terrorists that attacked the UK. Almost all of them were born here, and those that were not did not come here with the intent to commit terrorism. And the point remains perfectly valid: Within the UK, Irish Catholics - from a statistical perspective - posed a much higher risk to the UK than Muslims. So, if you genuinely believe that statistical link justifies discriminatory policies that can be applied against individuals, you'd support discriminatory policies such as banning Irish Catholics from the republic entry to the UK etc. etc.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 07 12:15:30 >>You are substituting the point he has made with your own flawed proposition.<< No, I am trying to bridge an empathy gap between you and Asgard, with limited success. Also speaking more broadly about related topics. >>Doesn't that simply tell you that perhaps this term "integration" is far too amophorous thing to be a direct measure of threat?<< Not if you think broadly about integration and the problems it can create (non-terrorist related) when it fails to take place. >>You assert that the Islamic terrorist threat is fundamentally ideological whereas Irish nationalism isn't.<< There is no Islamic terrorist without a grievance narrative (real or imaginary), said this before. In this thread I said behavior is the product of hardware and code. The problems rooted in the ideology are complex, but yes the code of conduct in Islam on how Muslims should interact with non-muslims is one part of it. >>Islamic Terror has a huge streak of anti colonialism bound up in it<< It does, but this interaction with European colonialism is not something unique to Islamic countries nor was it the worst example. So while this is part of the puzzle it one part of it. >>Let's pretend you didn't overlook we are talking specifically about the UK context<< Israel, Cyprus, Britain, we are speaking broadly. The idea I tried to convey earlier was that, the world and what goes on in it can not be reduced to what happens on your Island. >>The problem is you are determined to come at this from an angle of religion and theology to the exclusion of all else.<< I think the problem is that you are determined to come at this from an angle where I am doing this, so you just don't remember all the times (in this thread and post even) where I say things like "grievance narrative", "genes", "culture" etc. You seem to have hurdle getting over the fact that people do stupid things, horrible things because of their religion and culture. Because someone told them this was a great idea and god commanded it. What I do, is I blame religion for the things that are religions fault, no more, no less. Most of the time it isn't that hard, look the book says we should throw the faggots off the roof. That is what religion is to people, a heuristic system on how to deal with all the uncertainties in life. What to eat, who to great, how to sleep, how to fuck, when to kill, who to kill etc. >>Of course it does. If he believes that Arabs are fundamentally more likely to commit terrorism, that absolutely is a racist belief.<< According to his posts he does not. We disagree in principle, I don't think saying things or having ideas that someone else perceives as racist, makes people racist. Few people are so inherently racist that you can see it from their cloths, for everyone else it requires deep digging and long format conversations. Even if you have one deeply racist idea, that does not make you a "raging racist". People can have good reasons to hold racist ideas tempered in special and extreme circumstances. Ultimately this one eyed view you have does not lead anywhere good. You are not going to solve things you don't understand and "raging racist" isn't an explanation. You do want to solve racism, I presume? >>I do absolutely know where he is coming from<< Of course, we all do, he comes from Israel. Now his view are "a bit" more nuanced than you give him credit for, but I certainly do understand why a Jew from Israel may have or convey certain ideas about Arabs that someone like you wouldn't. It just does not compare beyond some very superficial things (it is a conflict) with the IRA conflict. One key aspect being that IRA conflict predates religion, it has nothing to do with it. It is about independence and worldy things. Remove religion from the Israeli/arab conflict i.e no one thinks this is a holy land* and we would all be living in a world where the ME was partitioned among normal and sane people (let's call them secular brown people). If you do this with Ireland, well, you still have a bunch of Irish people who want self-determination. *You should have noticed by now that Muslims take the purity of landmarks that are holy very seriously. Try to visit the temple mount or Mecca as a non-muslim.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 07 12:32:42 Nimatzo: There isn't an empathy gap. I understand perfectly well why Asgard feels the way he does. And on the whole I'm sympathetic to the situation Israel finds itself in though it does continue in wrongheaded policies that exacerbate the issue, as well as atrocities of their own. That said, I don't post about Israel - I haven't for years in fact - despite Asgard mistaken belief. And further, any empathy for Asgard doesn't extend to accepting a fundamentally flawed proposition. Finally, have you considered that the true Empathy gap that exists is perhaps between Asgard and the Syrian refugees he seems hell bent on convincing me we need to turn away for our own safety.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 07 12:42:38 Nim: "Not if you think broadly about integration" well, evidently not so broadly as to consider whether you can claim a population to be integrated when it gives shelter and material support to armed terrorists that will happily kill innocents in the name of an ideology that cannot win at the ballot box that which it freely able to. If we deem that "integrated" simply because a theological analysis shows the religion to be closer, I'm really not sure that you are defining integration in a meaningful way. "In this thread I said behavior is the product of hardware and code." A very poor analogy. In any case, as I've pointed out, so far I'm not aware of any self radicalising of Muslims in the West that occurred simply from visiting a mosque. In almost all cases it has been from a narrow group of people committed to violence to begin with actively seeking to recruit people that are predisposed to violence, with religion tending to come at a later stage. If the problem was the code of conduct in Islam towards non believers, surely tips expect *some* self radicalisation to occur from purely religious texts, rather than radical materials that first focus on the role of the West as oppressors and Islamic terrorism as a form of resistance to that? And yet we see none. An awful lot of study and research has gone into how terrorists are radicalised in the West, and it's pretty clear that it's not primarily religiously motivated. So you can't use coreligion as a predictive factor in any meaningful sense. Basically, no, simply being Muslim is not a risk factor. In any case, the word Asgard used was Arab, and his meaning was clear.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 07 13:01:45 Nim: "Israel, Cyprus, Britain, we are speaking broadly." No. Asgard himself made very clear and explicitly, his purpose in this thread and others is to: 1. An attack on my (imagined) obsessive criticism of Israel and 2. Stop "importing" (again note the implicitly racist language) Arabs. He first makes this explicit here: "Oct 01 04:13:03 You miss the point, Miss. I would like you to vehemently attack Turkey as you do Israel. And I would like you to start realizing the danger that is specific to Arab immigrants over other immigrants in your dying and expired continent" Israel and Cyprus's are only relevant insofar as they represent comparators that prove Arabs *generally* are more dangerous than others. And I think we both agree that this can't be supported by the arguments Asgard is using.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 07 13:06:40 Nim: "According to his posts he does not" He explicitly states that there is a "danger specific to Arab immigration over others". Simply saying a contradictory statement without retracting the first statement or explaining how he thinks they are consistent doesn't allow us to overlook the first one Nim. He said it explicitly, and there's no real way to make sense of the other arguments he's made. I'm all for assuming good faith, but his own statements don't allow that.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 07 13:13:43 Nim: "According to his posts he does not" He explicitly states that there is a "danger specific to Arab immigration over others". Simply saying a contradictory statement without retracting the first statement or explaining how he thinks they are consistent doesn't allow us to overlook the first one Nim. He said it explicitly, and there's no real way to make sense of the other arguments he's made. I'm all for assuming good faith, but his own statements don't allow that.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 07 13:19:20 Sorry last post was about your claimre NI. Tl;Dr you are very wrong. Catholicism is what have rise to separatism (they happily fought under Charles I as *their* Catholic king to defeat the English parliament). Religion preceded a desire for independence, defined the national identity and was independences fundamental motivator, hence the continuing problem where Irish republicans do not acknowledge that loyalists and protestants are not English, nor even nth generation settlers, but Irish people who are protestant. And to argue that Palestinian terrorism is primarily religious rather than driven by a desire for independence target than second class status in a state populated by foreign immigrants that demanded they adopt an inferior civil status is frankly baffling.
	show deleted posts