BruceVC

This is interesting personal insight from someone who lives in the region So do you think the Danish social model of real attempts at integration and understanding is the way to go, or do you feel if someone leaves a country to fight Jihad they then forfeit there European citizenship and if they return they could be arrrested and or refused entry? I feel that if you choose to join groups like ISIS then you need to realize you can't just come home when convenient. So I'm not sure I agree with the Danish approach which is very conciliatory and still attempts to bring people who have been possibly radicalised back into Danish culture? None of this has anything to do with the attacks that recently occurred in Denmark. The guy the authorities said did the act was born in Denmark. He never went overseas to fight for ISIS or anyone else. This is interesting personal insight from someone who lives in the region So do you think the Danish social model of real attempts at integration and understanding is the way to go, or do you feel if someone leaves a country to fight Jihad they then forfeit there European citizenship and if they return they could be arrrested and or refused entry? I feel that if you choose to join groups like ISIS then you need to realize you can't just come home when convenient. So I'm not sure I agree with the Danish approach which is very conciliatory and still attempts to bring people who have been possibly radicalised back into Danish culture? As other have already said, this guy has never been in Syria nor has he been fighting alongside ISIS. Just a local drug dealer turned nutso. What i find appaling is the local support he gets from his actions. Sounds like breeding ground for masochists, sociopaths and evil people in general. As long as they are around as a positive feedback loop, then terrorist attacks are here to stay as a cultural phenomenon. I am not explaining myself properly, I know this gunmen didn't fight for ISIS. This is just a talking point that highlights a broader issue around integration that European countries are grappling with The Danes for example believe in assimilating people back to Danish culture who return from Jihad, do you guys think this is an effective strategy?

No, I am really asking if the Danish method of integration works? If the objective is to prevent locals from being radicalised what methodology is best? I'm not saying the Danes are wrong because there is a valid point that this was a lone gunmen and this doesn't represent any possible terrorist attacks that Denmark may incur But yet if you read Meshuggers posts you will see that this gunman has received some widespread support from some of the Muslim community in Denmark, so it begs the question "has the Danish approach really been effective?" If you look at the French situation there attempts of integration with the Algerian community haven't been effective, you have these ghettos of Algerians who are disillusioned and feel outside French society. But that didn't appear to be the situation in Denmark. Yet you had this incident in Copenhagen, which could be attributed as an act of criminality and not ideology, yet you still see support for his actions? I have posted the link below so you can familiarize yourself, if you haven't already, with what I mean by the " Danish approach to homegrown extremism". Its a unique concept as far as I know http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/23/how-denmark-learnt-its-own-charlie-hebdo-moment-299065.html

This is interesting personal insight from someone who lives in the region So do you think the Danish social model of real attempts at integration and understanding is the way to go, or do you feel if someone leaves a country to fight Jihad they then forfeit there European citizenship and if they return they could be arrrested and or refused entry? I feel that if you choose to join groups like ISIS then you need to realize you can't just come home when convenient. So I'm not sure I agree with the Danish approach which is very conciliatory and still attempts to bring people who have been possibly radicalised back into Danish culture?

Thanks Vals, I appreciate your sincere support around my posts But this Danish attack is actually relevant because it leads to how effective integration is or isn't. In other words you can integrate people as much as possible but that still doesn't guarantee you won't face an attack, so now the Europeans are grappling with how they can reduce internal attacks from extremists and what is the best approach to this? Is heavy handedness the right way? Or the way the Danes have been dealing with it. That Newsweek link is particularly pertinent because it shows us just how far the Danes have gone to ensure people don't feel marginalized These are questions we all should be asking ourselves, how do we make immigrants feel truly part of a country and culture of a country . The objective being " if they feel integrated they wouldn't join a jihad and they definitely wouldn't attack the country that gave them a home " ?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/danish-police-kill-suspect-in-copenhagen-shootings-1423989155 This type of event is sadly not uncommon, last weekend Copenhagen was subjected to terror attacks by a lone gunmen with ideological sympathies to ISIS The gunman was killed but this incident raises an interesting question around how Denmark has been dealing with Islamic extremism and how they treat Danish fighters who leave Denmark to join groups like ISIS http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/23/how-denmark-learnt-its-own-charlie-hebdo-moment-299065.html Basically after the infamous Danish Cartoons of 2005 the Danes started a program of real integration for the Muslim community, probably more effective than any other European country. They even provide social workers and psychologists for returning Jihadists, very different to most other countries where citizens who leave to join terrorists organisations are monitored and are considered real threats to their home country Up to now Denmark has avoided homegrown terrorists attacking their own country but this latest incident has possibly changed this. Because the questions now I imagine being asked is "does being understanding and offering the carrot really work when addressing extremism"? So what do you think? Do the Danes with their methodology of reconciliation and integration provide the best system to reduce extremism? Or are they too soft and the French and British have a better way of dealing with internal terror threats where fighters who come back are considered real threats Maybe this was a one off incident in Denmark and the Danes need to stay the course? All opinions welcome and of course views from our Danish members especially welcome

Its interesting they have that view because the Baltic states are traditionally very anti-USSR and were very glad when Communism ended With Russia annexing parts of Ukraine the Baltic states have been very nervous and have been solidifying there support for NATO and the West, Obama has committed to stand by them against any Russia aggression. The thought of the Baltic states falling under the domain of Russia again is something which they consider anathema http://www.nytimes.com/video/multimedia/100000003089662/obama-affirms-rock-solid-support-for-baltic-states.html

Yes security is one factor in many that make up a successful government and happy, progressive society

Nothing. Road police had battons to regulate traffic. Normal police on the street while they I'm sure had guns somewhere they didn't carry them. Violent street crime was practically nonexistent. Women could leave their baby carts with the baby outside a shop's door and it would be safe because even if something happened the random passers by would take care of it. It is unthinkable today but it was real. This was of course a small town, bigger cities were a little more hectic but only slightly. It sounds you are suggesting life was better under the USSR?

Oh Nonek, thats clever and cheeky..I like it

Well you flounced out of that thread several times after just stoking things up, so does seem like you were just trolling the thread with your silly act. Which is fine really, just don't pretend it was anything more than that - I highly doubt someone like you would ever be won over or something to make your purpose in there for something more lofty. And there you go again, suggesting I was acting in the GG thread. As I mentioned I did want to engage on certain topics in that thread but I wasn't following some parts of the whole GG story as intently as others so I thought it was best I disengaged because I was asked to give my opinion on things I had no idea what people were talking about. I explained this all, so going forward I tried to only comment on topics related to GG that I was well versed in, like the CNN story And remember in a debate you may not agree 100 % with someone but that doesn't mean you can't recognise a good or valid point. That was how I looked at the whole GG debates I participated in

Is that better or worse when being offensive is considered politically correct? ... Oh man, that was deep thoughts. Too much coffee again. You funny

Oh no need to worry about that Nonek, as someone who has had several debates with you I can assure you can be quite rude and dismissive at times and since you don't believe in political correctness its obviously got nothing to do with that. So bad manners and poor posting etiquette are definitely not just related to people who believe in political correctness

You constantly seen to think less of me or doubt my posting intentions I went to the GG thread to discuss the GG movement, yes I didn't agree with most of it but there were some valid points raised. I didn't think it was correct the CNN assessment of GG and I raised that. I also didn't like the fact that certain elements of anti-GG were also sexist and dismissive of women who supported GG, like the criticism of that porn star. She raised some very valid points about the right of women to work in the porn industry and all the good they did to help disenfranchised women...yet her money wasn't good enough for some and she was criticised for her endeavors to help other women. I thought this was wrong and I unequivocally stated that So I'm not sure why you think I kept trying to snipe at people, disagreeing with people and stating that disagreement is not sniping...its called debate

example? The GG thread is a good example of this, it was fine and interesting in the beginning but then it just never ended and there were more than enough examples of people in that thread displaying outrage over issues that really weren't issues. This is in turn lead to a constant and subtle perception of sexism and dislike of anything related to feminism. Granted not everyone demonstrated this view on that thread but enough people did where the end result was most people just didn't feel comfortable going to that thread to discuss topics related to GG

But it's not like it's ever been any different. It's you who has grown up and become wiser and more critical - if you believe it used to be different it's probably because you remember accepting things without a thought as a youngster. I would argue we are in the greatest era of mankind ever seen. We have made so many technological advancements in fields like medicine and science...how can this not be a fantastic time to live ? Oh no argument there. I was just commenting on how hard it is to trust anyone anymore. To quote Robert Hess "I wake up every day hoping to meet an honest man. I go to bed disappointed almost every night" Ah yes, okay I see your point. My bad

But it's not like it's ever been any different. It's you who has grown up and become wiser and more critical - if you believe it used to be different it's probably because you remember accepting things without a thought as a youngster. I would argue we are in the greatest era of mankind ever seen. We have made so many technological advancements in fields like medicine and science...how can this not be a fantastic time to live ?

I have been asking this for the last two pages. Please define it yourself and we take it from there. And I did! "Expecting people to not behave like racist/sexist/etc. ****wads" is pretty much my definition. I want something more formal, do better! So the definition may differ because its based on the word "political " which will differ from region to region and within cultures. So political correctness will be different in Saudi Arabia than Sweden...I think we all understand that But this is a Western forum where there are clear rules that are defined that you will not discriminate against people based on sexual orientation or race or sex or many other things So "political correctness " in this context is that you won't use offensive or derogatory comments when addressing these groups or encourage dislike of these groups through some discussion Thats just one example of what political correctness means Ok, i will play nice here. How can a vibrant and open society grow if it depends on the sensibilities of the one feeling most offended? Excellent question, but you are misunderstanding something. We don't concern ourselves with the feelings of minority groups, for example, because this helps us grow as a society. We do it to prevent us going backwards. In the Western world we should be striving for a society that is completely tolerant of all groups so if you allow offensive comments to run rampant on a forum you are taking that forum backwards...this applies to the general level of how a society is measured nowadays. So in summary societies don't grow based on how they treat victims of abuse but they can get taken backwards. Russia is a good example of this

I have been asking this for the last two pages. Please define it yourself and we take it from there. And I did! "Expecting people to not behave like racist/sexist/etc. ****wads" is pretty much my definition. I want something more formal, do better! So the definition may differ because its based on the word "political " which will differ from region to region and within cultures. So political correctness will be different in Saudi Arabia than Sweden...I think we all understand that But this is a Western forum where there are clear rules that are defined that you will not discriminate against people based on sexual orientation or race or sex or many other things So "political correctness " in this context is that you won't use offensive or derogatory comments when addressing these groups or encourage dislike of these groups through some discussion Thats just one example of what political correctness means

If you define "boring" by "not populated by libertarian-leaning straight white men to the point of almost-exclusivity because everybody else finds it an unwelcoming environment", then yeah, sure, sign me up for boring. We need more boring. You've polled the race and political leanings of this forum ? What exactly are you whining about here - was there some drive to purge the place of blacks or communists or gays ? Funnily enough I don't think anyone's defined it. What is it to you then and how does that "benefit us all" (amazing how propagandist that saying is, heh) Its more to do with the subtle changes to the forum environment that make many people uncomfortable, Malc this is not something new. You know the criticisms directed towards the forum by some where even that Obsidian lady developer didn't feel comfortable contributing towards discussions

No he actually makes loads of sense but as usual people look to dismiss that type of insight with hyperbole and strange definitions of what "politically correct " means. They refuse to recognise how political correctness actually benefits us all

As most people know I firmly believe in Feminism\Gender equality But I have come to realize that for certain audiences that word feminism has negative connotations to it so I tell people I believe in gender equality. And its not just on these forums where the word feminism immediately causes venting and outrage by some. I find in RL its better to tell people you support gender equality. I get a more constructive debate if I just don't say "feminism " Is this wrong that the meaning of a word has been hijacked to mean something negative. Yes it is but I am more concerned with a discussion over the issues than debating semantics And since I fairly regularly debate these types of SJ issues on forums and RL I prefer using the word gender equality, I'm in the trenches and I like to use the most effective tools to achieve my goals in debates

Everyone says that about sanctions in the beginning and I'm not surprised this is Putins stance. He is still very popular and feels somehow it his duty to the homeland. Also the level of sanctions are relatively minor But as time goes on and things become harder he will change...they all change. The days of countries like Russia fighting interminable wars where you not suppose to be involved are basically over. The situation in eastern Ukraine for Russia can never be won militarily, he would have to invade western Ukraine to ensure capitulation and that would mean Russia involvement would be obvious. If he doesn't defeat the Ukrainian government militarily they will constantly be involved in fighting the separatists which means constant involvement by Russia. Putin was probably told this would be same as Georgia, over in a few months but Ukraine is different. The West is firmly behind Ukraine in this case and will provide aid so that the Ukrainian government can continue to confront the separatists I feel the only viable solution to end the conflict for both sides is a diplomatic one

You posted what I wanted to say. "great minds think alike " In depends on how you want to contribute towards conversations when older game are discussed For example the oldest game I played was probably IWD released in 2000 but I played it 2 years ago. So my knowledge of games in the 1990's is very limited Also youmay want to go back and play older games after really enjoying a later one. I played Gothic 3 first and then went back and played the other two

Bruce, dear fellow, you agreeing with me is one of the things that would get me to question whether I was right. Fortunately, your opinion just reinforces that I am accurate. Gromnir know! Gromnir not need to prove! Man, what an utter, utter cop out. You asserted so either provide the evidence that I said what you claimed- or admit you're a Weasel and in future refrain from asserting what you cannot prove. Since you brought up Norway: here's the graph of the krone over 1 year. It too mirrors the oil rate pretty closely, without sanctions. There are a few articles about it, but the big difference is that Norway is a small country of a few million with the best part of 1 trillion dollars in its sovereign wealth fund. And yet they still saw their currency tank. You can't pick a good example to save yourself. I dont get this Zora, you can create doubt and dispute topics like American involvement in the Middle East or the reasons for the Ukrainian conflict but there is no doubt that sanctions are hurting Russia. How anyone can dispute this boggles the mind..and to make things worse I see my friend Sarex is agreeing with you..not a complete surprise considering his view on the West. But guys come on !!! Choose your battles and retain some credibility...this is not a necessary battle

I did get the Pizza as part of the indulging ...food always improves an evening of revelry