What is politics of toleration?

[iNow]

We shall respectfully disagree then.

That's just it, though. We're quite likely much closer together on this topic than you seem to believe. You're putting up strawmen to knock down as opposed to engaging with my actual position. I grasp that you don't yet know me very well given your fewer than 30 posts in this community, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that it's understandable for such miscommunication to occur.

 

So which was the overreaction? The evacuation? Or the shutting down of transport hubs and shutting the airport down?

Clearly, neither. That's not what I was referring to at all.

 

I was referring to your original comment asking why "ALL systems" weren't shutdown immediately after the first blast. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intended meaning, as use of the word ALL implied to me you may have been overreacting. You've since clarified, so no worries.

 

If people are incapable of recognising, discussing and fixing what is clearly broken in the intelligence community in Belgium and Europe, then more people will die.

Seems to me that this is quite a leap in our actual conversation topic for you to now assume that people are for any reason incapable of recognizing or fixing / improving intelligence issues in Belgium, but I respect that you feel passionately about this and appreciate you sharing your opinion.

 

If you think identifying obvious weaknesses, and these weaknesses have been noted for a while now, since the first attacks in Paris and since they have consistently failed to keep track of returning Jihadists, despite warnings from other countries of the dangers these people posed to Belgium and Europe, is an 'emotional overreaction driven by little more than our reptilian brains and baser instincts', then I suggest you drive your car at high speed without wearing a seatbelt

Given that I don't actually think any those things, I suppose that means we're good here, right?

 

Personally, I would pick the increased security. But that's just me.

My argument boils down to remaining balanced and rational. No more Patriot Acts. No more destroying from within that which we're trying to defend from without.

 

Why you feel the need to attack this position so vociferously is strange to me. Your approach is too emotive for my taste and the immediacy with which you launch into attack is both distasteful and unproductive, but you be you. No worries.

 

Either way, since words seem to be failing, here's an image to summarize the basic concept I'm conveying (it's not the best possible example, but gets the basics right):

 

[Ten oz]

Using violence to stop violence has seldom been successful. Wars and conflicts just transform into other problems. We stopped Hilter in WW2 but that then transformed into the Cold War and from the Korean war, Vietnam War, Soviet-Aghan war, and etc millions continued to die. Collateral damage from those wars transformed into other problems like Islamic Terror and North Korea. It is myopic vision to just look at a handful of years in isolation and label tem as tolerant or whatever. Much of the foundation for what we are experiencing was land long before any of us were born; an immediate cause and effect tit for tat response will only perpetuate the problem.

 

Since Sept.11th 2001 the western world has been very tough on terrorism. From Iraq & Afghanistan, Libya & Syria, and our drone attacks in Pakistan millions have been killed and yet it hasn't seemed to improve anything!!! Yet every time a terror group acts their are always voices demanding we need to get tougher. How much tougher can we get? Iraq, Afghanastan, Pakistan, and Syria are shadows of what they once were. The whole region destablized. We have flipped over and drone bombed beneath every rock, twice! Time to start trying something else in my opinion.

[DimaMazin]

 

 

Well, no. You can have your own beliefs (odious or not), but not your own facts.

 

Germany's fertility rate is 1.4 children. England's has risen recently but is still 1.9 — and the rise is because of immigrants, who tend to have more children (at least the first generation of them do)

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1611979/britain-defies-europes-falling-fertility-rate

 

Here's a map. Fertility rates below 2.1 mean the population will fall. There are only a few regions in Europe where it's above 2.1

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5822795/1/

Well. If we,Russians, will arrive in USA and will kill quantity of Americans less than our quantity then it will be the solve of the your problem?

[Strange]

Well. If we,Russians, will arrive in USA and will kill quantity of Americans less than our quantity then it will be the solve of the your problem?

 

If that happened, do you think that the rational response is to ban all Russians entering the USA? Or do you think there might be a more rational approach?

 

BTW, I don't know about the USA but there have been at least two very high profile cases of Russians entering the UK to kill people. One of these used what would normally be described as a terror weapon (radioactive plutonium). Oddly, the UK did not ban all Russians from entering the country. Should they?

[DimaMazin]

 

If that happened, do you think that the rational response is to ban all Russians entering the USA? Or do you think there might be a more rational approach?

 

BTW, I don't know about the USA but there have been at least two very high profile cases of Russians entering the UK to kill people. One of these used what would normally be described as a terror weapon (radioactive plutonium). Oddly, the UK did not ban all Russians from entering the country. Should they?

They should forbid Putin's arrival.

[Strange]

They should forbid Putin's arrival.

 

Why?

 

And by analogy, they shouldn't stop refugees just Assad, is that what you are saying?

[MigL]

I have to address some thing Bells mentioned in post #44.

He mentions how the governments of Europe have done absolutely nothing to alleviate the problems Muslims face, such as unemployment and lack of opportunities.

Now I'm not that familiar with Europe and the situation after the massive influx of refugees, but I am familiar with the North American situation, where I would say Muslims face similar challenges.

 

But Muslims aren't the only group that faces such challenges.

African Americans, Mexican Americans and Native Americans face similar, if not more challenging disadvantages than a lot of Muslims do.

Yet none of these groups feel the need to blow up public places and suicide themselves.

 

Does anyone have any insight on what drives this group to these actions ?

I can ALMOST understand it if your country is oppressed by an occupier, and you wish to wage a type of guerilla warfare against said occupier, but what would be the reasoning for terrorism against a civilian population of a country that has taken you and your family in as refugees ?

[DimaMazin]

 

Why?

 

And by analogy, they shouldn't stop refugees just Assad, is that what you are saying?

Earlier islamic attacks were in UK, therefore all muslim refugees are stoped there. Belgium should identically define who can come in.

[iNow]

These are the types of well intentioned but misguided actions to which I was referring above

[dimreepr]

Earlier islamic attacks were in UK, therefore all muslim refugees are stoped there. Belgium should identically define who can come in.

 

 

Please stop conflating a whole religion with terrorism, it’s ridiculous and only inspires hatred and fear, and will only exaggerate the problem (it’s like saying because the IRA were Catholics then all Catholics are terrorists).

 

I have to ask, why do you bother trying to discus something when you’re so sure of your answer?

[Phi for All]

Does anyone have any insight on what drives this group to these actions ?

I can ALMOST understand it if your country is oppressed by an occupier, and you wish to wage a type of guerilla warfare against said occupier, but what would be the reasoning for terrorism against a civilian population of a country that has taken you and your family in as refugees ?

 

Without being too simplistic, we're seeing what happens when the extreme fundamentalists of a religion are given a world stage, which gives them money and influence to increase their efforts. Normally, their own societies would take care of such extremism, but these sects become armed, dangerous, and very difficult to deal with by normal, societal measures.

 

Imagine the Westboro Baptist Church suddenly getting a big boost of money and weapons. And guidance from experts on waging shadow wars. They would probably also suddenly gain a bunch of new members who aren't as interested in killing LGBT folks as much as just killing in general. Causes like that always attract people for many reasons. They could easily go underground, split up into cells to make it harder for the FBI to identify them. Bob's your uncle, religious extremists become terrorists. Or they would say they're doing the Lord's work, which makes them Christian Soldiers.

[EdEarl]

They have no home in Belgium. Do you think Belgium is warmer than Greece or Turkey?

I think we would all like the world to be a better place, without war and other atrocities in which men respect each other; it's an improbable or impossible ideal. We often react emotionally and demand an eye for an eye, but as Gandhi said, that would make the whole world blind. Someone must stop the chain reaction. The important warmth is in peoples hearts; it makes no difference whether Greece or Turkey is warmer than Belgium.

 

You want to protect yourself, which is natural. You cannot solve the world's problems. You might be able to make you, your family, friends and country men safer by excluding foreigners. However, excluding everyone would create unintended and unforeseeable consequences; others in this thread have mentioned some consequences.

 

Lets consider another ideal. Suppose Belgium excludes people and creates an ideal society, in which everyone has everything the want, but the outside world deteriorates into chaos. I contend Belgium would be invaded and your countrymen would loose all. Now, consider a more realistic situation, where there is little difference in lifestyles between Belgium and the rest of the world. Someone villain would surreptitiously cross your border and create chaos. In fact, closed borders would inevitably create some kind of black market with villains crossing regularly. I submit that there is no safety in closing borders, it is an illusion.

 

I need to go play with my grandson now; otherwise, I would continue to try to make a case for being kind and open as our best opportunity for (almost) global peace. bbl

[swansont]

Well. If we,Russians, will arrive in USA and will kill quantity of Americans less than our quantity then it will be the solve of the your problem?

 

 

If you arrive in the US? There are close to 400,000 Russians in the US as of 2014

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_B05006&prodType=table

 

Immigrants are statistically LESS likely to be a problem (at least here in the US)

 

numerous studies going back more than a century have shown that immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

 

All you are peddling is fear-mongering based on something you made up. You can stop being intellectually dishonest any time now.

[Strange]

Earlier islamic attacks were in UK, therefore all muslim refugees are stoped there. Belgium should identically define who can come in.

 

It is very hard to have a discussion with you when you change the subject in response to questions. Please stop doing that.

 

Firstly, the UK has not stopped all Muslim refugees. Neither have they stopped all Russians.

 

So, again: why should they have stopped only Putin and not all Russians after Russian terrorists killed people in the UK?

And doesn't that mean they should only stop Assad and not all Muslims?

I have to ask, why do you bother trying to discus something when you’re so sure of your answer?

 

And so wrong on the basic facts.

[DimaMazin]

 

 

If you arrive in the US? There are close to 400,000 Russians in the US as of 2014

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_B05006&prodType=table

 

Immigrants are statistically LESS likely to be a problem (at least here in the US)

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

 

All you are peddling is fear-mongering based on something you made up. You can stop being intellectually dishonest any time now.

I'd apply another statistics here.

(quantity of Muslims in the world ) / (quantity of terrorist attacks created by Muslims)=k (quantity of Belgians - Muslims of Belgium) / (quantity of terrorist attacks created by Belgians without Muslims)

during last five years

Do you think k>1 ?

[EdEarl]

I'd apply another statistics here.

(quantity of Muslims in the world ) / (quantity of terrorist attacks created by Muslims)=k (quantity of Belgians - Muslims of Belgium) / (quantity of terrorist attacks created by Belgians without Muslims)

during last five years

Do you think k>1 ?

IDK your purpose, but there are about 1.6B Muslims in the world and there have been about 250 terrorist attacks since 2012. I didn't try to characterize the attacks as Muslim or otherwise. Wikipedia says there were about 1M Muslims as of 2011. 1.6B/250=6,400,000

Edited March 25, 2016 by EdEarl

[DimaMazin]

 

If that happened, do you think that the rational response is to ban all Russians entering the USA? Or do you think there might be a more rational approach?

 

BTW, I don't know about the USA but there have been at least two very high profile cases of Russians entering the UK to kill people. One of these used what would normally be described as a terror weapon (radioactive plutonium). Oddly, the UK did not ban all Russians from entering the country. Should they?

You should use the equation

(arrived Russians in UK) / (terrorist attacks created by Russians in UK) = k (citizens of UK - arrived Russians) / (quantity of terrorist attacks created by citizens of UK without Russians)

[Strange]

You should use the equation

 

You should try answering the questions instead of just posting random nonsense. As this thread makes even less sense than your attempts at physics (which is quite an achievement) I think I will put you on ignore.

[CharonY]

I have to address some thing Bells mentioned in post #44.

He mentions how the governments of Europe have done absolutely nothing to alleviate the problems Muslims face, such as unemployment and lack of opportunities.

Now I'm not that familiar with Europe and the situation after the massive influx of refugees, but I am familiar with the North American situation, where I would say Muslims face similar challenges.

 

But Muslims aren't the only group that faces such challenges.

African Americans, Mexican Americans and Native Americans face similar, if not more challenging disadvantages than a lot of Muslims do.

Yet none of these groups feel the need to blow up public places and suicide themselves.

 

Does anyone have any insight on what drives this group to these actions ?

I can ALMOST understand it if your country is oppressed by an occupier, and you wish to wage a type of guerilla warfare against said occupier, but what would be the reasoning for terrorism against a civilian population of a country that has taken you and your family in as refugees ?

 

To even scratch any of these questions would require very, very long responses. But a few things I'd like to add: the (modern) immigrant experience in the US and Canada is quite different from Europe and as a result the muslim community has quite different structure in many metrics (including affluence).

To the broader question to links to terrorism, it is because islamic terrorist group exist (though other lengthy research would be required to explain why it exist). Ultimately they represent an attractive outlet for their misgivings (probably with goals between extreme vagues ones such as as RAF and NSU and those with more specific goals such as ETA and IRA).

[Bells]

That's just it, though. We're quite likely much closer together on this topic than you seem to believe. You're putting up strawmen to knock down as opposed to engaging with my actual position. I grasp that you don't yet know me very well given your fewer than 30 posts in this community, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that it's understandable for such miscommunication to occur.

 

Clearly, neither. That's not what I was referring to at all.

 

I was referring to your original comment asking why "ALL systems" weren't shutdown immediately after the first blast. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intended meaning, as use of the word ALL implied to me you may have been overreacting. You've since clarified, so no worries.

 

Seems to me that this is quite a leap in our actual conversation topic for you to now assume that people are for any reason incapable of recognizing or fixing / improving intelligence issues in Belgium, but I respect that you feel passionately about this and appreciate you sharing your opinion.

 

Given that I don't actually think any those things, I suppose that means we're good here, right?

 

My argument boils down to remaining balanced and rational. No more Patriot Acts. No more destroying from within that which we're trying to defend from without.

 

Why you feel the need to attack this position so vociferously is strange to me. Your approach is too emotive for my taste and the immediacy with which you launch into attack is both distasteful and unproductive, but you be you. No worries.

 

Either way, since words seem to be failing, here's an image to summarize the basic concept I'm conveying (it's not the best possible example, but gets the basics right):

 

 

That is a terrific cartoon.

 

I abhor the Government's reactions to terror attacks, from laws like the Patriot Act, to laws and policies that specifically target Muslims, such as Hijab and halal meat bans. For a variety of reasons. From denying equal rights and protections to all, to Government overreach over people's personal and individual rights, to such laws and policies driving a wedge in society in general and having a different set of sub-set of rules depending on one's religious beliefs. Most of all, it is such laws and policies, such as over-policing of Muslims (the incarceration rate of Muslims is much higher than non-Muslims in Europe, not because they commit more crimes, but because they are policed more and targeted more than others). The rise of the right wing and these policies and laws will only drive Muslims further towards radicalisation, because they feel left out of society, lack of employment prospects or possibilities, reduced access to education, which all drive poverty.. Which in turn increases the risk of radicalisation.

 

It becomes a vicious cycle.

 

 

I have to address some thing Bells mentioned in post #44.

He mentions how the governments of Europe have done absolutely nothing to alleviate the problems Muslims face, such as unemployment and lack of opportunities.

Now I'm not that familiar with Europe and the situation after the massive influx of refugees, but I am familiar with the North American situation, where I would say Muslims face similar challenges.

 

But Muslims aren't the only group that faces such challenges.

African Americans, Mexican Americans and Native Americans face similar, if not more challenging disadvantages than a lot of Muslims do.

Yet none of these groups feel the need to blow up public places and suicide themselves.

 

 

Not exactly. Groups that have been marginalised and denied rights in America's history have pretty much all been connected to acts that would, by today's standard, be classified as terrorist attacks. And it is not just those who are actually marginalised. There have been many white terrorist groups who have committed acts of terrorism because of ideological differences or because they are simply racist and bigoted and disagreed with policies that allowed non-whites equal rights or women the right to control over their own reproductive organs - ergo, these particular terrorists caused mass terror because they perceived they were losing their rights because minorities were given rights.

 

Look at Ireland or Spain as a prime example of the non-Muslims committing acts of terror. Or Kony in Africa.

 

 

 

Does anyone have any insight on what drives this group to these actions ?

I can ALMOST understand it if your country is oppressed by an occupier, and you wish to wage a type of guerilla warfare against said occupier, but what would be the reasoning for terrorism against a civilian population of a country that has taken you and your family in as refugees ?

 

Decades of Western involvement and policies in the Middle East for one. From deep involvement in the politics in the region, to supporting one side over the other to disastrous results (Iraq and/or Iran anyone?). The result has been decades to a generation of oppression by leaders that we helped put in place and then of course comes the instability from the wars we started in the region. Then of course comes the decades of supporting despotic regimes and overlooking gross human rights violations committed against their populations and in many instances, providing them with military and financial support to do so. Not to mention the laws and policies the West has put in place that marginalises Muslims and denies them their rights, from over policing which leads to over-representation in the criminal justice system, to downright racist and bigoted policies that target how they dress, what they eat, where they live, what education they are able to access and supporting racist and bigoted attitudes towards them.

 

Secondly, the terrorists striking Europe are not refugees. So it is neither appropriate or correct to make such a statement.

[Willie71]

Using violence to stop violence has seldom been successful. Wars and conflicts just transform into other problems. We stopped Hilter in WW2 but that then transformed into the Cold War and from the Korean war, Vietnam War, Soviet-Aghan war, and etc millions continued to die. Collateral damage from those wars transformed into other problems like Islamic Terror and North Korea. It is myopic vision to just look at a handful of years in isolation and label tem as tolerant or whatever. Much of the foundation for what we are experiencing was land long before any of us were born; an immediate cause and effect tit for tat response will only perpetuate the problem.

 

Since Sept.11th 2001 the western world has been very tough on terrorism. From Iraq & Afghanistan, Libya & Syria, and our drone attacks in Pakistan millions have been killed and yet it hasn't seemed to improve anything!!! Yet every time a terror group acts their are always voices demanding we need to get tougher. How much tougher can we get? Iraq, Afghanastan, Pakistan, and Syria are shadows of what they once were. The whole region destablized. We have flipped over and drone bombed beneath every rock, twice! Time to start trying something else in my opinion.

People seem to forget that radical Islam was supported by Reagan. They were seen as anti communist during the Cold War. Another great byproduct of American imperialism.

 

In the 1950s and ’60s, Afghanistan was a somewhat secular country in which women were granted relatively equal rights. What turned Afghanistan into the hotbed for extremism it is today? Decades of Western meddling.

 

Throughout the 1980s, the CIA, through the Pakistani government — more specifically Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) — supported and armed the mujahedin in Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviet Union, in what was dubbed Operation Cyclone. President Ronald Reagan famously met with the mujahedin in the Oval Office in 1983. “To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom,” Reagan declared.

 

President Reagan meeting with the Afghan Mujahideen in the Oval Office in 1983 (Credit: U.S. government)

President Reagan meeting with the Afghan Mujahideen in the Oval Office in 1983 (Credit: U.S. government)

 

Those “freedom fighters” are the forefathers of ISIS and al-Qaida. When the last Soviet troops were withdrawn in 1989, the mujahedin did not simply leave; a civil war of sorts followed, with various Islamist militant groups fighting for control in the power vacuum. The Taliban came out on top, and established a medieval theocratic regime to replace the former “godless” socialist government.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_created_islamic_extremism_those_blaming_islam_for_isis_would_have_supported_osama_bin_laden_in_the_80s/

 

What would the media say today if Obama was in this picture?

[Delta1212]

Just to point out, in light of the "what if Russians came to the US and killed our citizens" point, the last major terrorist attack on US soil was carried out by a pair of ethnic Chechen brothers.

[Willie71]

I have to admit I'm getting quite tired of the bigotry and racism being sold as "safety" or "patriotism." It's just racism and bigotry.

[iNow]

Unfortunately, this behavior is nothing new and it's only the target that shifts. We see it during most elections, economic downturns, and obviously after tragedies.

[Bill Angel]

I abhor the Government's reactions to terror attacks, from laws like the Patriot Act, to laws and policies that specifically target Muslims, such as Hijab and halal meat bans. For a variety of reasons. From denying equal rights and protections to all, to Government overreach over people's personal and individual rights, to such laws and policies driving a wedge in society in general and having a different set of sub-set of rules depending on one's religious beliefs. Most of all, it is such laws and policies, such as over-policing of Muslims (the incarceration rate of Muslims is much higher than non-Muslims in Europe, not because they commit more crimes, but because they are policed more and targeted more than others). The rise of the right wing and these policies and laws will only drive Muslims further towards radicalisation, because they feel left out of society, lack of employment prospects or possibilities, reduced access to education, which all drive poverty.. Which in turn increases the risk of radicalisation.

 

It becomes a vicious cycle.

 

Here is an interesting posting on this subject: Why Are So Many Muslims in Prison? http://www.meforum.org/blog/2015/08/islam-prison

 

Muslims are overrepresented in the French prison population by 7.5 times their percentage of the population. In the United States, although their overall percentage is smaller, Muslims are overrepresented in the prison population by 11.25 times their percentage of the population....

Why? A couple of possible explanations spring to mind, neither one of which is exclusive.

 

One possibility is that Muslims may be committing crimes at a higher rate than other groups.

 

Another is that large numbers of prisoners are converting to Islam. There is evidence that this is in fact the case. The New Yorker article offers a sociological explanation of why and how this happens in French prisons. Conversion also appears to be common in U.S. prisons.

 

What makes this truly disturbing is the form of Islam to which prisoners are converting. Much has been written about the radicalization of Muslims in French prisons...It is also happening in U.S. prisons