Politics 2017 Part 3

[Elerond]

 

France is excellent example what happens when you have millions of people in certain minority and then your politicians decide to get some populist points by picking said minority by creating laws and regulations that are designed to harass said minority. And now decade later said minority is full of people that resent majority of French people in such extent that they seem to be easy to incite to commit terrorist attacks against said majority.

Any examples of such laws?

I would say France is an example of what happens when you cater to the minorities to the extreme. If you fulfill all the demands the demands will just grow and grow to the point you are not able to fulfill them. Then the violence starts and if you don't respond to violence but instead encourage and exuse it then it will escalate.

 

 

Burka ban, ban for religious items in schools but not extending to crosses, and quite lot or regional/city ordinances to prevent building mosques, when mosques can be open etc.. Most of this were cancelled by courts, but they have caused protest, riots etc. in past 16 years. 

 

I would not say that Nicolas Sarkozy's policies for example are examples of catering minorities to extreme. But maybe I am wrong and he was very minority loving president.

[213374U]

Burka ban, ban for religious items in schools but not extending to crosses

IIRC any conspicuous symbols are banned, crosses included -- if there were any. There are no crosses in French schools AFAIK.

[Elerond]

 

Burka ban, ban for religious items in schools but not extending to crosses

IIRC any conspicuous symbols are banned, crosses included -- if there were any. There are no crosses in French schools AFAIK.

 

 

I mean that people could wear crosses in full view of everybody and school official didn't see that conspicuous, where things like hijabs of course were always ordered to be removed (but it is long time that I have last time read news about it).

Edited February 12, 2017 by Elerond

[Zoraptor]

It does directly effect Sikhs (turban) and Jews (Kippah?) as well as Muslims. The real test would be if wearing a crescent moon and stars or seal of the prophet necklace or similar got banned while a cross didn't. But Muslims don't wear obvious, specifically Muslim decorations since they have a strong aversion to worshipping symbols, in contrast to Christianity.

[Meshugger]

None of those problems would've occured if there weren't any immigration to begin with from north africa and the middle east. Funny that, a policy of doing nothing wouldn't cause a problem. It's almost like it is of a systematic nature.

[Bartimaeus]

in contrast to Christianity

 

you can blame theodora the whateverth for that

[Elerond]

None of those problems would've occured if there weren't any immigration to begin with from north africa and the middle east. Funny that, a policy of doing nothing wouldn't cause a problem. It's almost like it is of a systematic nature.

 

Some could say that there would be much less people immigrating if France had not conquered quite lot other countries in North Africa, Middle East and Asia.

[Zoraptor]

 

in contrast to Christianity

 

you can blame theodora the whateverth for that

 

 

Realistically, worshipping symbols was far too much of a potential and actual money maker for Catholicism not to do it, whatever happened in the east.

 

Though I should really have said in contrast to most sects of Christianity, given you still have Cromwell/ Zwingli iconoclastic Reformed churches; it's just not really relevant to France given its religious make up and its attitude to religious symbolism being rooted in secularism rather than religious dogma.

[Meshugger]

 

None of those problems would've occured if there weren't any immigration to begin with from north africa and the middle east. Funny that, a policy of doing nothing wouldn't cause a problem. It's almost like it is of a systematic nature.

 

Some could say that there would be much less people immigrating if France had not conquered quite lot other countries in North Africa, Middle East and Asia.

 

 

France had the option to say "nah, too much potential trouble", but they didn't.

[HoonDing]

France is an excellent example of what happens when you shower once a month.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

France is excellent example what happens when you have millions of people in certain minority and then your politicians decide to get some populist points by picking said minority by creating laws and regulations that are designed to harass said minority. And now decade later said minority is full of people that resent majority of French people in such extent that they seem to be easy to incite to commit terrorist attacks against said majority.

Any examples of such laws?

I would say France is an example of what happens when you cater to the minorities to the extreme. If you fulfill all the demands the demands will just grow and grow to the point you are not able to fulfill them. Then the violence starts and if you don't respond to violence but instead encourage and exuse it then it will escalate.

 

 

Burka ban, ban for religious items in schools but not extending to crosses, and quite lot or regional/city ordinances to prevent building mosques, when mosques can be open etc.. Most of this were cancelled by courts, but they have caused protest, riots etc. in past 16 years. 

 

I would not say that Nicolas Sarkozy's policies for example are examples of catering minorities to extreme. But maybe I am wrong and he was very minority loving president.

 

 

Everything you wrote there is a fairly recent reaction to a problem that had already gotten out of hand. I'm not saying that the reactions were good, but the claim that the it was French populism and those measures that caused the current resentment is flat out wrong. It was there long before the French started "reacting".

 

Partly it was due to a wave of Islamism (and Western interventionism) that brought down the nationalist/pseudo-leftist ideology that once formed the majority of the Muslim governments and affects the current mindset of the average Ahmed. Partly Saudi money. Partly the inevitable second class citizen status of muslim immigrants. And partly the fact that strictly adhered to Islam is the complete opposite of French republicanism.  Literally. Not a single thing in common.

 

The guilt of the French was letting them in in the first place in a desperate attempt to hold onto the last vestiges of their colonial empire and then neglecting the issue until it blew up in their face. 

Edited February 12, 2017 by Drowsy Emperor

[Agiel]

This is apparently going out as a $17 print.

 

 

A copy editor working in Trump's media team likely won't go hungry from what we've seen.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by Agiel

[Gromnir]

This is apparently going out as a $17 print.

(image)

A copy editor working in Trump's media team likely won't go hungry from what we've seen.

 

 

 

so hard to imagine.  the trump brand stands for quality, like trump steaks, trump airlines, trump beverages, trump: the game, trump vodka, trump casino, trump university, etc.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

None of those problems would've occured if there weren't any immigration to begin with from north africa and the middle east. Funny that, a policy of doing nothing wouldn't cause a problem. It's almost like it is of a systematic nature.

 

Some could say that there would be much less people immigrating if France had not conquered quite lot other countries in North Africa, Middle East and Asia.

 

In the early 1960's France, like the UK,   gave back all their colonies, there was no more occupation or Colonialism 

 

 

http://www.empathosnationenterprises.com/Consulate/EN-Library/Black-Studies/afindep.html

 

 

So where do we draw the line where countries take responsibility for their own citizens, ensure good governance, stimulate their economies   so there is less immigration? 100 years.....1000 years ?

[Elerond]

 

 

None of those problems would've occured if there weren't any immigration to begin with from north africa and the middle east. Funny that, a policy of doing nothing wouldn't cause a problem. It's almost like it is of a systematic nature.

 

Some could say that there would be much less people immigrating if France had not conquered quite lot other countries in North Africa, Middle East and Asia.

 

In the early 1960's France, like the UK,   gave back all their colonies, there was no more occupation or Colonialism 

 

 

http://www.empathosnationenterprises.com/Consulate/EN-Library/Black-Studies/afindep.html

 

 

So where do we draw the line where countries take responsibility for their own citizens, ensure good governance, stimulate their economies   so there is less immigration? 100 years.....1000 years ?

 

 

The line is where said action don't anymore have impact on people's lives. 

 

But France gave for lots of people in its colonies France citizenship, which is main reason why there is so many Muslims in France today. 

 

They had their assimilation policy where they teach people become French and then become French if it they didn't want to be French.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation_(French_colonialism)

 

Also France had law, passed in 1961 [article 21-19(5º)], that enabled people from former French territories to apply for immediate naturalisation, bypassing the normal five-year residency requirement for would-be French citizens. That was in effect until it was repealed (by article 82 of law 2006-911) on July 25, 2006 under the direction of Nicolas Sarkozy, who was then Minister of the Interior.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Elerond

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

None of those problems would've occured if there weren't any immigration to begin with from north africa and the middle east. Funny that, a policy of doing nothing wouldn't cause a problem. It's almost like it is of a systematic nature.

 

Some could say that there would be much less people immigrating if France had not conquered quite lot other countries in North Africa, Middle East and Asia.

 

In the early 1960's France, like the UK,   gave back all their colonies, there was no more occupation or Colonialism 

 

 

http://www.empathosnationenterprises.com/Consulate/EN-Library/Black-Studies/afindep.html

 

 

So where do we draw the line where countries take responsibility for their own citizens, ensure good governance, stimulate their economies   so there is less immigration? 100 years.....1000 years ?

 

 

The line is where said action don't anymore have impact on people's lives. 

 

But France gave for lots of people in its colonies France citizenship, which is main reason why there is so many Muslims in France today. 

 

They had their assimilation policy where they teach people become French and then become French if it they didn't want to be French.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation_(French_colonialism)

 

Also France had law, passed in 1961 [article 21-19(5º)], that enabled people from former French territories to apply for immediate naturalisation, bypassing the normal five-year residency requirement for would-be French citizens. That was in effect until it was repealed (by article 82 of law 2006-911) on July 25, 2006 under the direction of Nicolas Sarkozy, who was then Minister of the Interior.

 

So are we now criticizing France for trying to speed up the integration process from there former colonies  or are you saying the integration was correct but the implementation was wrong?

 

And what should they done differently in the 1960's-1980's that would have led to a  different outcome nowadays  where some of the French citizens from former colonies feel marginalized and turn to Islamic extremism and attack France itself ?

[Ben No.3]

You people amuse me.... you recognise that a minority feels oppressed enough to go ahead and shoot people, and your saying that instead of oppressing we should now completely exclude the minority. And this is true both on a national and international level. Great logic guys. Let's answer extremism with hate... cause that always works

Edited February 13, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

None of those problems would've occured if there weren't any immigration to begin with from north africa and the middle east. Funny that, a policy of doing nothing wouldn't cause a problem. It's almost like it is of a systematic nature.

 

Some could say that there would be much less people immigrating if France had not conquered quite lot other countries in North Africa, Middle East and Asia.

 

In the early 1960's France, like the UK,   gave back all their colonies, there was no more occupation or Colonialism 

 

 

http://www.empathosnationenterprises.com/Consulate/EN-Library/Black-Studies/afindep.html

 

 

So where do we draw the line where countries take responsibility for their own citizens, ensure good governance, stimulate their economies   so there is less immigration? 100 years.....1000 years ?

 

 

The line is where said action don't anymore have impact on people's lives. 

 

But France gave for lots of people in its colonies France citizenship, which is main reason why there is so many Muslims in France today. 

 

They had their assimilation policy where they teach people become French and then become French if it they didn't want to be French.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation_(French_colonialism)

 

Also France had law, passed in 1961 [article 21-19(5º)], that enabled people from former French territories to apply for immediate naturalisation, bypassing the normal five-year residency requirement for would-be French citizens. That was in effect until it was repealed (by article 82 of law 2006-911) on July 25, 2006 under the direction of Nicolas Sarkozy, who was then Minister of the Interior.

 

So are we now criticizing France for trying to speed up the integration process from there former colonies  or are you saying the integration was correct but the implementation was wrong?

 

And what should they done differently in the 1960's-1980's that would have led to a  different outcome nowadays  where some of the French citizens from former colonies feel marginalized and turn to Islamic extremism and attack France itself ?

 

 

There is no right or wrong, they are just things that effect in current situation in France regardless of do people like it or not. Because there is no changing past and ignoring and denying past don't help either. Current policies need to be made by taking account effects of past actions and look ways to make countries work in their current situations and not hoping some fairytale where past didn't happen.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Elerond

[Meshugger]

You people amuse me.... you recognise that a minority feels oppressed enough to go ahead and shoot people, and your saying that instead of oppressing we should now completely exclude the minority. And this is true both on a national and international level. Great logic guys. Let's answer extremism with hate... cause that always works

 

"Be nice to muslims or they will kill you, because islam is the religion of peace", the post.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Meshugger

[Ben No.3]

 

You people amuse me.... you recognise that a minority feels oppressed enough to go ahead and shoot people, and your saying that instead of oppressing we should now completely exclude the minority. And this is true both on a national and international level. Great logic guys. Let's answer extremism with hate... cause that always works

"Be nice to muslims or they will kill you, because islam is the religion of peace", the post.

No

 

The message is "if someone becomes an extremist, help him and solve the problems that made him an extremist, don't just radicalise him further by showing more hate". Is that really so difficult to understand?

[BruceVC]

You people amuse me.... you recognise that a minority feels oppressed enough to go ahead and shoot people, and your saying that instead of oppressing we should now completely exclude the minority. And this is true both on a national and international level. Great logic guys. Let's answer extremism with hate... cause that always works

No there is no doubt on the strategy, the way you address a group like ISIS  is to annihilate them in there  so called " caliphate " which basically exists in 2 cities and one is under siege by various ME  forces. These cities are Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria

 

Once ISIS  is militarily defeated in these cities you vastly reduce the effectiveness of there ideological message that resonates with some people. Then you work with the Muslim community in various Western countries to eradicate  any extremist element that exists in these countries 

Edited February 13, 2017 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

 

You people amuse me.... you recognise that a minority feels oppressed enough to go ahead and shoot people, and your saying that instead of oppressing we should now completely exclude the minority. And this is true both on a national and international level. Great logic guys. Let's answer extremism with hate... cause that always works

"Be nice to muslims or they will kill you, because islam is the religion of peace", the post.

No

 

The message is "if someone becomes an extremist, help him and solve the problems that made him an extremist, don't just radicalise him further by showing more hate". Is that really so difficult to understand?

 

How do you help an ex-ISIS  member who has been fighting for ISIS in one form or another for the last 5 years?

[Ben No.3]

Oh my Bruce.... I'm disappointed.

 

This deserves a more thought through answer. Give me a bit time.

[Elerond]

Fight against it like we fought against communism. Invite people in, promise them freedom and self control. It was communists that build wall to prevent people leaving their country not western people building wall to prevent people coming in from communistic regimes. Now days we fight more like authoritarians than people from the free world.

 

Like people are saying that Muslims will take over our countries are same fear that communist had towards western people, it is wear that our way of living isn't appealing enough to people and outside philosophy will over run it if we don't protect our way philosophy even if it means to go against our own values and ideologies.

[Elerond]

https://youtu.be/xecEV4dSAXE

 

Look from 21:19 forward

Edited February 13, 2017 by Elerond