Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Erkki]

It's very much the WAY you are saying it. As if no other group in France ever turns to terror.

Which is very much not the case. But incidences by white men, especially, are perceived as one offs, isolated incidences. It is a matter of perception.

Minorities committing an act of terror speak for everyone, the majority members doing it are lone wolves.

Yes, there are act of crimes from all peoples within a country more or less equally. We were I believe specifically talking about acts of terror (with a religious inspiration or some other) which are rare yet very devastating to a nation and its peoples on many levels.

[TD1]

It's very much the WAY you are saying it. As if no other group in France ever turns to terror.

Which is very much not the case. But incidences by white men, especially, are perceived as one offs, isolated incidences. It is a matter of perception.

Minorities committing an act of terror speak for everyone, the majority members doing it are lone wolves.

You realise a black Frenchman is just as likely to attack a Muslim as a white one? It's not race, it's religion.

[smeeprocket]

It's very much the WAY you are saying it. As if no other group in France ever turns to terror.

Which is very much not the case. But incidences by white men, especially, are perceived as one offs, isolated incidences. It is a matter of perception.

Minorities committing an act of terror speak for everyone, the majority members doing it are lone wolves.

Yes, there are act of crimes from all peoples within a country more or less equally. We were I believe specifically talking about acts of terror (with a religious inspiration or some other) which are rare yet very devastating to a nation and its peoples on many levels.

act of terror is a relative term. I don't know whether religious backing is even relevant though.

Like I said, here, an act of terror is usually isolated to anything muslim. Everything else is considered a one off. Including christianity based violence.

Dwarf, I don't think neo-nazis accept black people, is France different (also,I doubt that point, there are far fewer blacks in france)

[Erkki]

It's very much the WAY you are saying it. As if no other group in France ever turns to terror.

Which is very much not the case. But incidences by white men, especially, are perceived as one offs, isolated incidences. It is a matter of perception.

Minorities committing an act of terror speak for everyone, the majority members doing it are lone wolves.

Yes, there are act of crimes from all peoples within a country more or less equally. We were I believe specifically talking about acts of terror (with a religious inspiration or some other) which are rare yet very devastating to a nation and its peoples on many levels.

act of terror is a relative term. I don't know whether religious backing is even relevant though.

Like I said, here, an act of terror is usually isolated to anything muslim. Everything else is considered a one off. Including christianity based violence.

Dwarf, I don't think neo-nazis accept black people, is France different (also,I doubt that point, there are far fewer blacks in france)

In Europe, no, terrorism has been traditionally associated with various freedom fighters, anarchists and ultra lefties/righties. Jihadists as the main threat is a fairly new thing.

[FearfulJesuit]

No, what i am saying is that you are fear mongering and that the chances of something serious happening to Muslims/Arabs is far less likely than something serious happening to Jews or Policemen. i would be far more scared being a Jew or a police officer in France right now than being a Muslim Arab, that's for sure.

actually, you are fear mongering as well.

What I am saying is, taking time to be concerned about only the white majority is a dangerous view. Feeling that harm that might come to a marginalized, brown skinned, minority is of less consequence (in the face of strong examples, including the death of an infant and the assault of a pregnant woman) is extremely dangerous and represents what I saw happen in America.

For the record, none of our responses were good or just, and none of them were worth it.

There are multiple minorities in France and not all of them are brown skinned or have islam for their religion. There have been no armed assaults by the white-ish majority on the minorities. There are tens of millions of people capable of, say, striking a mosque, yet there have been none. However, a certain minority group has people joining terrorist groups abroad literally in the thousands and those individuals have been radicalized, and they possess a very real threat to everyone, not just majority. But since the majority are infidels to them, they are a more clear target even if the purpose of attacks would be to just inflict terror.

That said, even the local religious authorities of that certain minority has condemned the latest terrorist attacks, as have most of the countries with an islamic majority around the globe. We all know that, and nobody has suggested that somehow every single individual of that majority in France is a potential terrorist. One of the goals of such strikes is exactly further polarization and increase of tensions between various minorities and the majority, they don't care if people sharing sharing their language, skin color, culture or many aspects of faith will suffer. Everyone will suffer. They're Jihadists.

This is so incredibly racist I'm just going to repost it as it is. This is the kind of thing I fear. This is where you are headed.

Do white french people never commit crimes in France? We have a lot of mass killers here, and when they are white men they are lone wolves and mentally ill. When they are Muslim they are terrorists and extremists.

Christianity has brought so much suffering and oppression to our country, but no one expects christians to apologize for abortion clinic bombersor the KKK.

The double standards the first world possesses is terrifying.

I assure you, there are plenty of minorities and the majority as well that contribute to terror. What group do you think the neo-nazis in France are composed of?

Wait, Christianity is best represented by the KKK and abortion clinic bombers? Didn't you just post a screed about how anyone who complains about Muslims™ as a bloc is acting Problematically?

You're not merely spouting half-baked academic Marxist critical theory of the worst sort, as you usually do- you're being willfully ignorant of basic theology.

Also...well, he's right; there are a lot of members of Western minorities, often Muslim, who have gone abroad and become radicalized. We can speculate about motives and causes all day long, but I'm not exactly sure which part of what he's said has been racist. People leave the West, go abroad, radicalize, and become threats to their home societies. That's incontrovertible.

[misko27]

We need to keep cool. Someone saying something you don't like isn't a reason to lose your cool, no matter how bad it is. Someone could come in here and quote Mein Kampf, but that doesn't mean everyone should lose their shit and try shouting at them through their monitor. Not actually achieving anything, getting mad does.

It's very much the WAY you are saying it. As if no other group in France ever turns to terror.

Which is very much not the case. But incidences by white men, especially, are perceived as one offs, isolated incidences. It is a matter of perception.

Minorities committing an act of terror speak for everyone, the majority members doing it are lone wolves.

Yes, there are act of crimes from all peoples within a country more or less equally. We were I believe specifically talking about acts of terror (with a religious inspiration or some other) which are rare yet very devastating to a nation and its peoples on many levels.

act of terror is a relative term. I don't know whether religious backing is even relevant though.

Like I said, here, an act of terror is usually isolated to anything muslim. Everything else is considered a one off. Including christianity based violence.

Dwarf, I don't think neo-nazis accept black people, is France different (also,I doubt that point, there are far fewer blacks in france)

Act of terror has a definition you know. The UN uses: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

I would disagree with smeeprocket's argument. I agree with the point, but the whole "lone wolves are majorities" thing isn't. There are plenty (read: tons) of lone wolf attacks by every group; the Boston Bombers were lone-wolves (as Chechans went out of its way to explain). It's just a problem when people perceive lone-wolves as a group; but lone wolf attacks themselves are pretty common, since to be a group you need to meet multiple people with your specific brand of crazy. It is far more likely for multiple people in one group to do the same thing, but they aren't working cooperatively so much as doing individual attacks collectively.

For my part, I've heard of an increase in harassment of mosques and such. It looks to me like France is coming down with it's own little race issue.

[smeeprocket]

It's very much the WAY you are saying it. As if no other group in France ever turns to terror.

Which is very much not the case. But incidences by white men, especially, are perceived as one offs, isolated incidences. It is a matter of perception.

Minorities committing an act of terror speak for everyone, the majority members doing it are lone wolves.

Yes, there are act of crimes from all peoples within a country more or less equally. We were I believe specifically talking about acts of terror (with a religious inspiration or some other) which are rare yet very devastating to a nation and its peoples on many levels.

act of terror is a relative term. I don't know whether religious backing is even relevant though.

Like I said, here, an act of terror is usually isolated to anything muslim. Everything else is considered a one off. Including christianity based violence.

Dwarf, I don't think neo-nazis accept black people, is France different (also,I doubt that point, there are far fewer blacks in france)

In Europe, no, terrorism has been traditionally associated with various freedom fighters, anarchists and ultra lefties/righties. Jihadists as the main threat is a fairly new thing.

but you were just saying only jihadists were a source of terror.

Terror is not just brown faced. It comes in all sizes and colors. SIngling out one amongst the others as the enemy is xenophobic, but France already has those draconian laws about hijabs, niqabs, and burqas, so it is sort of icing on the cake.

Jesuit, I'm saying those actions are the work of christianity, but no one blames christians for them. This should be held true for everyone, not just white christians. I am not actually blaming christianity for abortion bombers or the KKK.

Also, I am nothing if not a thorough baker, and bake all my ideals completely. 350 degrees, 30 minutes.

[FearfulJesuit]

It's very much the WAY you are saying it. As if no other group in France ever turns to terror.

Which is very much not the case. But incidences by white men, especially, are perceived as one offs, isolated incidences. It is a matter of perception.

Minorities committing an act of terror speak for everyone, the majority members doing it are lone wolves.

Yes, there are act of crimes from all peoples within a country more or less equally. We were I believe specifically talking about acts of terror (with a religious inspiration or some other) which are rare yet very devastating to a nation and its peoples on many levels.

act of terror is a relative term. I don't know whether religious backing is even relevant though.

Like I said, here, an act of terror is usually isolated to anything muslim. Everything else is considered a one off. Including christianity based violence.

Dwarf, I don't think neo-nazis accept black people, is France different (also,I doubt that point, there are far fewer blacks in france)

In Europe, no, terrorism has been traditionally associated with various freedom fighters, anarchists and ultra lefties/righties. Jihadists as the main threat is a fairly new thing.

but you were just saying only jihadists were a source of terror.

Terror is not just brown faced. It comes in all sizes and colors. SIngling out one amongst the others as the enemy is xenophobic, but France already has those draconian laws about hijabs, niqabs, and burqas, so it is sort of icing on the cake.

Jesuit, I'm saying those actions are the work of christianity, but no one blames christians for them. This should be held true for everyone, not just white christians. I am not actually blaming christianity for abortion bombers or the KKK.

Also, I am nothing if not a thorough baker, and bake all my ideals completely. 350 degrees, 30 minutes.

Er, no, those actions are the work of lunatics who used very bad theology to justify their heinous crimes.

Words mean things. "Christianity" means things. It doesn't mean Evangelical-Sounding People Whom I Dislike- it has a real definition, plus more commentary on that definition than you could ever want. If you are under the impression that David Duke represents Christianity better than Thomas Aquinas, I really don't know what to say- that's like defining everyone left of center as the Khmer Rouge.

As for France's burqa law- well, France is officially secular. You can't get away with wearing a crucifix in public, either, or a Star of David, or what have you. There's certainly xenophobia and Islamism in France, but the bans on Islamic headgear were the extension of prior precedent.

[misko27]

Since we're talking about Christianity, can we for the love of sweet Jesus trim those damn quotes down? Please?

[Erkki]

but you were just saying only jihadists were a source of terror.

Terror is not just brown faced. It comes in all sizes and colors. SIngling out one amongst the others as the enemy is xenophobic, but France already has those draconian laws about hijabs, niqabs, and burqas, so it is sort of icing on the cake.

Jesuit, I'm saying those actions are the work of christianity, but no one blames christians for them. This should be held true for everyone, not just white christians. I am not actually blaming christianity for abortion bombers or the KKK.

Also, I am nothing if not a thorough baker, and bake all my ideals completely. 350 degrees, 30 minutes.

No, I was not. You are over analyzing again. In my very previous post that you even quote I say that Jihadists as the main threat is a fairly new thing in Europe. In my original post you consider wildly racist I also did not say the only terrorists are Jihadists. For the 3rd time, I never said that all muslims are Jihadists either. You have for Nth time accused me of something that I am not and then just ignore what is said and pointed out to you.

What if I were a brown skinned Muslim myself? Assalaam aleykum.

[smeeprocket]

It's very much the WAY you are saying it. As if no other group in France ever turns to terror.

Which is very much not the case. But incidences by white men, especially, are perceived as one offs, isolated incidences. It is a matter of perception.

Minorities committing an act of terror speak for everyone, the majority members doing it are lone wolves.

Yes, there are act of crimes from all peoples within a country more or less equally. We were I believe specifically talking about acts of terror (with a religious inspiration or some other) which are rare yet very devastating to a nation and its peoples on many levels.

act of terror is a relative term. I don't know whether religious backing is even relevant though.

Like I said, here, an act of terror is usually isolated to anything muslim. Everything else is considered a one off. Including christianity based violence.

Dwarf, I don't think neo-nazis accept black people, is France different (also,I doubt that point, there are far fewer blacks in france)

In Europe, no, terrorism has been traditionally associated with various freedom fighters, anarchists and ultra lefties/righties. Jihadists as the main threat is a fairly new thing.

but you were just saying only jihadists were a source of terror.

Terror is not just brown faced. It comes in all sizes and colors. SIngling out one amongst the others as the enemy is xenophobic, but France already has those draconian laws about hijabs, niqabs, and burqas, so it is sort of icing on the cake.

Jesuit, I'm saying those actions are the work of christianity, but no one blames christians for them. This should be held true for everyone, not just white christians. I am not actually blaming christianity for abortion bombers or the KKK.

Also, I am nothing if not a thorough baker, and bake all my ideals completely. 350 degrees, 30 minutes.

Er, no, those actions are the work of lunatics who used very bad theology to justify their heinous crimes.

Words mean things. "Christianity" means things. It doesn't mean Evangelical-Sounding People Whom I Dislike- it has a real definition.

As for France's burqa law- well, France is officially secular. You can't get away with wearing a crucifix in public, either, or a Star of David, or what have you. There's certainly xenophobia and Islamism in France, but the bans on Islamic headgear were the extension of prior precedent.

Ahh but now you are proving my point. The actions of christian extremists don't count against christians, but that is not equally true for muslims. Why?

I don't know what you are talking about with those other religious symbols, pretty damn sure that is not at all true. Either way, it is further oppression of women via dictating what they can and can not wear. You don't "liberate" women by forcing them to take your stance on things.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Should christians have apologized for this? yes/no?

[FearfulJesuit]

It's very much the WAY you are saying it. As if no other group in France ever turns to terror.

Which is very much not the case. But incidences by white men, especially, are perceived as one offs, isolated incidences. It is a matter of perception.

Minorities committing an act of terror speak for everyone, the majority members doing it are lone wolves.

Yes, there are act of crimes from all peoples within a country more or less equally. We were I believe specifically talking about acts of terror (with a religious inspiration or some other) which are rare yet very devastating to a nation and its peoples on many levels.

act of terror is a relative term. I don't know whether religious backing is even relevant though.

Like I said, here, an act of terror is usually isolated to anything muslim. Everything else is considered a one off. Including christianity based violence.

Dwarf, I don't think neo-nazis accept black people, is France different (also,I doubt that point, there are far fewer blacks in france)

In Europe, no, terrorism has been traditionally associated with various freedom fighters, anarchists and ultra lefties/righties. Jihadists as the main threat is a fairly new thing.

but you were just saying only jihadists were a source of terror.

Terror is not just brown faced. It comes in all sizes and colors. SIngling out one amongst the others as the enemy is xenophobic, but France already has those draconian laws about hijabs, niqabs, and burqas, so it is sort of icing on the cake.

Jesuit, I'm saying those actions are the work of christianity, but no one blames christians for them. This should be held true for everyone, not just white christians. I am not actually blaming christianity for abortion bombers or the KKK.

Also, I am nothing if not a thorough baker, and bake all my ideals completely. 350 degrees, 30 minutes.

Er, no, those actions are the work of lunatics who used very bad theology to justify their heinous crimes.

Words mean things. "Christianity" means things. It doesn't mean Evangelical-Sounding People Whom I Dislike- it has a real definition.

As for France's burqa law- well, France is officially secular. You can't get away with wearing a crucifix in public, either, or a Star of David, or what have you. There's certainly xenophobia and Islamism in France, but the bans on Islamic headgear were the extension of prior precedent.

Ahh but now you are proving my point. The actions of christian extremists don't count against christians, but that is not equally true for muslims. Why?

I don't know what you are talking about with those other religious symbols, pretty damn sure that is not at all true. Either way, it is further oppression of women via dictating what they can and can not wear. You don't "liberate" women by forcing them to take your stance on things.

I'm not attacking Muslims™. Other people were, or at least you believed they were, and chastised us all for attacking Muslims™, then turned around and attacked Christianity.

And, no, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You cannot wear overtly religious symbolism in public in France. Period. No crucifixes, no Stars of David, no burqas. It doesn't matter whether you're a Muslim woman or a Catholic priest- you can't wear them. We can debate whether or not this is a good ban, but it's an equal ban.

(Unless it's not equal because some religions require more public displays of faith than others? But that is not France's problem. That's the adherents'.)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Should christians have apologized for this? yes/no?

Oh, grow up.

[Erkki]

Breivik was not religiously motivated. He didn't keep yelling "for Jesus!"

[misko27]

I find that in political discussions the height of quote pyramids is correlated with how passionate the writers are, as they tend more to forget to clean up their comments.

[Graknorke]

Pyramids guys. Pyramids.