What should France do?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:seva - i feel you're dying to quote the koran. why don't you just do it?

You are not feeling rightly, Max.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:seva - i feel you're dying to quote the koran. why don't you just do it?

You are not feeling rightly, Max.

isn't that the usual progression? i say i don't know to your questions, and then you cite chapter and verse from the koran and then exclaim, see it's written in their holy book!

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:
Cd
How is publishing cartoons psuedo bravadoism?
What is wrong with securing airports as long as there is a threat?

Because we altered the way we live, in every other aspect.

What does that have to do with anything, Comrade? Flailing much? We didn't need passports either a while back.

The Times. They're a changin'

Were passports enforced for the same reason security was tightened in the airports and other places?

Comrade, answering a question with an unrelated question is your forte. The point is we adapt to the situation and deal with it. If you think having security in airports only started after 9/11, you're more demented than I thought. Hijackings, etc. happened long before that and there were security procedures in place even then.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Because we altered the way we live, in every other aspect.

What does that have to do with anything, Comrade? Flailing much? We didn't need passports either a while back.

The Times. They're a changin'

Were passports enforced for the same reason security was tightened in the airports and other places?

Comrade, answering a question with an unrelated question is your forte. The point is we adapt to the situation and deal with it. If you think having security in airports only started after 9/11, you're more demented than I thought. Hijackings, etc. happened long before that and there were security procedures in place even then.

It is very relevant and valid. Who are you kidding, tightening of security has begun after 9/11, before that I was able to go all the way to the boarding gate to see people off

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

What does that have to do with anything, Comrade? Flailing much? We didn't need passports either a while back.

The Times. They're a changin'

Were passports enforced for the same reason security was tightened in the airports and other places?

Comrade, answering a question with an unrelated question is your forte. The point is we adapt to the situation and deal with it. If you think having security in airports only started after 9/11, you're more demented than I thought. Hijackings, etc. happened long before that and there were security procedures in place even then.

It is very relevant and valid. Who are you kidding, tightening of security has begun after 9/11, before that I was able to go all the way to the boarding gate to see people off

When gas prices go up, people try to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles and drive less. Again, the point is, we adapt to the situation. So if you think having security procedures in place is some sort of defeat, then pat yourself well on the back.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Were passports enforced for the same reason security was tightened in the airports and other places?

Comrade, answering a question with an unrelated question is your forte. The point is we adapt to the situation and deal with it. If you think having security in airports only started after 9/11, you're more demented than I thought. Hijackings, etc. happened long before that and there were security procedures in place even then.

It is very relevant and valid. Who are you kidding, tightening of security has begun after 9/11, before that I was able to go all the way to the boarding gate to see people off

When gas prices go up, people try to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles and drive less. Again, the point is, we adapt to the situation. So if you think having security procedures in place is some sort of defeat, then pat yourself well on the back.

You're preaching to the choir, wasn't that my point to begin with? which you & TBT twisted as trampling freedom of speech.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Comrade, answering a question with an unrelated question is your forte. The point is we adapt to the situation and deal with it. If you think having security in airports only started after 9/11, you're more demented than I thought. Hijackings, etc. happened long before that and there were security procedures in place even then.

It is very relevant and valid. Who are you kidding, tightening of security has begun after 9/11, before that I was able to go all the way to the boarding gate to see people off

When gas prices go up, people try to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles and drive less. Again, the point is, we adapt to the situation. So if you think having security procedures in place is some sort of defeat, then pat yourself well on the back.

You're preaching to the choir, wasn't that my point to begin with? which you & TBT twisted as trampling freedom of speech.

Yeah, sure. Keep lying to yourself. When you said journalists should ignore it, that's what you were saying. Let's go with that.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
It is very relevant and valid. Who are you kidding, tightening of security has begun after 9/11, before that I was able to go all the way to the boarding gate to see people off

When gas prices go up, people try to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles and drive less. Again, the point is, we adapt to the situation. So if you think having security procedures in place is some sort of defeat, then pat yourself well on the back.

You're preaching to the choir, wasn't that my point to begin with? which you & TBT twisted as trampling freedom of speech.

Yeah, sure. Keep lying to yourself. When you said journalists should ignore it, that's what you were saying. Let's go with that.

And, you are not!

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:11 jurnos  were dead. You got a request from French president for an advice on what should France do?

What would you advice France?
How would you protect French press?

>>>Monitor mosques, take a strict law and order approach and not get cowed by political correctness, let go of the idea that multi-culturalism works, even when one segment does not buy into pluralism and tweak immigration laws to scrutinize and screen out radical elements, work with other European countries that are on the receiving end of terrorism. This is a time bomb waiting to explode. It is a double whammy with the increasing Islamic radicalism and second, with the reactionary groups gaining traction because of public perception that the governments (western european)are not cracking down. That clash can become very ugly. Unlike Americans, Europeans still have a strong sense of nationhood closely tied to ethnicity. They too are new at this pluralism game and it is easy to upset the apple cart.

i get the sense that european multiculturalism is far more fragile than america's because europe does not have the painful experience that americans went through, right from the civil war and abolition,  japanese internment during world war II,  to the civil rights era. it seems to me that while the US has had a more militaristic response to islamic terrorism abroad, legal protections of minorities at home in the US including muslims are more robust. whereas they seem to be blundering along in europe letting the events shape them.

Hellsangel wrote:More on Comrade's desperate  lone wolf argument:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/world/europe/paris-terror-attack-suspects.html

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:More on Comrade's desperate  lone wolf argument:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/world/europe/paris-terror-attack-suspects.html

Twisteran, I was curious..

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:After the French arrest and convict the handful of criminals, they should be pardoned as they were only brainwashed.

Then the French muslims should be given a Ramazan bonus of 10K Francs next August, establish a quota for education and jobs for the muslim - this sure will move them away from the radicals and practice their pieceful religion with everyone else.

It is THAT simple.

truthbetold wrote:Max

1. I am sure there are few avenues and households in the wider Islamic world that are open to such discussion. But based on available information from islamic world those avenues are not widespread or well known.  The Muslim intellectual has realize the moment in history requires wider action from within. Lack of action is fatalistic approach to the realities.

2. Muslim immigrant community in the west is huge. Just because few of them went to Syria does not mean that their generation is with them. 

3. Muslim intellectuals inside and sensible outside should work to separate the problems of terror attacks on opponents and Islamic cultural transformation. Two centuries back Islam may have lot of time to adapt but globalized economic interaction is shortening the adaptation time.  So more work is required from Muslim intellectuals to train their own families and younger generations.

The rash of horrific attacks in the name of Islam is spurring an anguished debate among Muslims here in the heart of the Islamic world about why their religion appears cited so often as a cause for violence and bloodshed.

The majority of scholars and the faithful say Islam is no more inherently violent than other religions. But some Muslims — most notably the president of Egypt — argue that the contemporary


“It is unbelievable that the thought we hold holy pushes the Muslim community to be a source of worry, fear, danger, murder and destruction to all the world,” President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt lamented last week in a speech to the clerics of the official religious establishment. “You need to stand sternly,” he told them, calling for no less than “a religious revolution.”

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Max

1. I am sure there are few avenues and households in the wider Islamic world that are open to such discussion. But based on available information from islamic world those avenues are not widespread or well known.  The Muslim intellectual has realize the moment in history requires wider action from within. Lack of action is fatalistic approach to the realities.

2. Muslim immigrant community in the west is huge. Just because few of them went to Syria does not mean that their generation is with them. 

3. Muslim intellectuals inside and sensible outside should work to separate the problems of terror attacks on opponents and Islamic cultural transformation. Two centuries back Islam may have lot of time to adapt but globalized economic interaction is shortening the adaptation time.  So more work is required from Muslim intellectuals to train their own families and younger generations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/world/europe/raising-questions-within-islam-after-france-shooting.html?_r=0

The rash of horrific attacks in the name of Islam is spurring an anguished debate among Muslims here in the heart of the Islamic world about why their religion appears cited so often as a cause for violence and bloodshed.

The majority of scholars and the faithful say Islam is no more inherently violent than other religions. But some Muslims — most notably the president of Egypt — argue that the contemporary understanding of their religion is infected with justifications for violence, requiring the government and its official clerics to correct the teaching of Islam.


“It is unbelievable that the thought we hold holy pushes the Muslim community to be a source of worry, fear, danger, murder and destruction to all the world,” President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt lamented last week in a speech to the clerics of the official religious establishment. “You need to stand sternly,” he told them, calling for no less than “a religious revolution.”

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Max

1. I am sure there are few avenues and households in the wider Islamic world that are open to such discussion. But based on available information from islamic world those avenues are not widespread or well known.  The Muslim intellectual has realize the moment in history requires wider action from within. Lack of action is fatalistic approach to the realities.

2. Muslim immigrant community in the west is huge. Just because few of them went to Syria does not mean that their generation is with them. 

3. Muslim intellectuals inside and sensible outside should work to separate the problems of terror attacks on opponents and Islamic cultural transformation. Two centuries back Islam may have lot of time to adapt but globalized economic interaction is shortening the adaptation time.  So more work is required from Muslim intellectuals to train their own families and younger generations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/world/europe/raising-questions-within-islam-after-france-shooting.html?_r=0

The rash of horrific attacks in the name of Islam is spurring an anguished debate among Muslims here in the heart of the Islamic world about why their religion appears cited so often as a cause for violence and bloodshed.

The majority of scholars and the faithful say Islam is no more inherently violent than other religions. But some Muslims — most notably the president of Egypt — argue that the contemporary understanding of their religion is infected with justifications for violence, requiring the government and its official clerics to correct the teaching of Islam.


“It is unbelievable that the thought we hold holy pushes the Muslim community to be a source of worry, fear, danger, murder and destruction to all the world,” President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt lamented last week in a speech to the clerics of the official religious establishment. “You need to stand sternly,” he told them, calling for no less than “a religious revolution.”

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

right that is why i posted it. the question that was asked earlier is why there wasn't any internal dialogue about why so many young muslims turn to jihad and terrorism. what can be a more public conversation than a president of egypt talking to the clergy about it?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:meanwhile why don't we pay attention to what the insiders in the middle east are saying about their own governments and stop propping them up?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:meanwhile why don't we pay attention to what the insiders in the middle east are saying about their own governments and stop propping them up?

You like playing ringa-ringa-roses, I guess.

The so-called insiders complaining about human rights violations in their Governments are Brotherhood, Islamic State, Hamas, and Taliban.

In the muslim world only 2 kinds of people can rule - 1. those who think they are the Prophets and 2. those who think are directly getting instructions from THE Prophet.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:meanwhile why don't we pay attention to what the insiders in the middle east are saying about their own governments and stop propping them up?

pravalika nanda wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:meanwhile why don't we pay attention to what the insiders in the middle east are saying about their own governments and stop propping them up?

You like playing ringa-ringa-roses, I guess.

The so-called insiders complaining about human rights violations in their Governments are Brotherhood, Islamic State, Hamas, and Taliban.

In the muslim world only 2 kinds of people can rule - 1. those who think they are the Prophets and 2. those who think are directly getting instructions from THE Prophet.

oh, uppili's back and he has all the answers. don't nobody mess with him.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:meanwhile why don't we pay attention to what the insiders in the middle east are saying about their own governments and stop propping them up?

You like playing ringa-ringa-roses, I guess.

The so-called insiders complaining about human rights violations in their Governments are Brotherhood, Islamic State, Hamas, and Taliban.

In the muslim world only 2 kinds of people can rule - 1. those who think they are the Prophets and 2. those who think are directly getting instructions from THE Prophet.

Saudi Arabia has long evaded effective international scrutiny for its dire human rights record. It remains one of the USA’s long-standing allies in the “war on terror” including the recent air strikes against the Islamic State (IS) armed group in Iraq and Syria.

“Saudi Arabia’s allies must show that international human rights standards apply equally to all. Without international condemnation and concrete pressure on the authorities, Saudi Arabia will continue to flagrantly violate the most basic human rights principles unchecked,” said Said Boumedouha.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:meanwhile why don't we pay attention to what the insiders in the middle east are saying about their own governments and stop propping them up?

You like playing ringa-ringa-roses, I guess.

The so-called insiders complaining about human rights violations in their Governments are Brotherhood, Islamic State, Hamas, and Taliban.

In the muslim world only 2 kinds of people can rule - 1. those who think they are the Prophets and 2. those who think are directly getting instructions from THE Prophet.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/flogging-raif-badawi-saudi-arabia-vicious-act-cruelty-2015-01-09
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/7-ways-saudi-arabia-silencing-people-online-2014-12-06
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE23/037/2014/en
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE23/034/2014/en
http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/saudi-arabia-appalling-death-sentence-against-shi-cleric-must-be-quashed-20
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE23/025/2014/en
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE23/017/2014/en
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE23/007/2014/en

which of these people are the brotherhood, IS, hamas, or the Taliban?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/muzzling-dissent-saudi-arabia-s-efforts-choke-civil-society-2014-10-09

Saudi Arabia has long evaded effective international scrutiny for its dire human rights record. It remains one of the USA’s long-standing allies in the “war on terror” including the recent air strikes against the Islamic State (IS) armed group in Iraq and Syria.

“Saudi Arabia’s allies must show that international human rights standards apply equally to all. Without international condemnation and concrete pressure on the authorities, Saudi Arabia will continue to flagrantly violate the most basic human rights principles unchecked,” said Said Boumedouha.

IMO playing nice with a state violator of human rights is the same as aiding and abetting terrorism. islamic terrorism needs to be dealt with for sure. nobody wants it any other way. but what does it say about us when we call saudi arabia an ally?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:[quote="Marathadi-Saamiyaar
ok...so you are only being naive.  Whenever such miitary dictators were replaced in islamic countries, they were replaced by Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic staters, Iranian Mullahs or Talibans.

YOU tell us how many of the 57 OIC members are governed democratically? Also,  tell us why it is the job of the outside world to bring about this change to this "mooronic" world but not their job to criticize, correct, coerce, or condemn "this" muslim world ?

Hellsangel wrote:

Did you petition Obama for it? After all you were gung ho when it was the other way when it came to Cuba.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:[quote="Marathadi-Saamiyaar
ok...so you are only being naive.  Whenever such miitary dictators were replaced in islamic countries, they were replaced by Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic staters, Iranian Mullahs or Talibans.

YOU tell us how many of the 57 OIC members are governed democratically? Also,  tell us why it is the job of the outside world to bring about this change to this "mooronic" world but not their job to criticize, correct, coerce, or condemn "this" muslim world ?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Did you petition Obama for it? After all you were gung ho when it was the other way when it came to Cuba.

a) yes i have. repeatedly. w too when he and his band of thugs were in charge.
b) i only said opinion in your party was divided since you went to your immediate knee jerk whining when obama took action on cuba. i personally don't have strong opinions on cuba.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

hahaha  rite....There is a better chance for Owaisi to convert to hinduism.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Did you petition Obama for it? After all you were gung ho when it was the other way when it came to Cuba.

a) yes i have. repeatedly. w too when he and his band of thugs were in charge.
b) i only said opinion in your party was divided since you went to your immediate knee jerk whining when obama took action on cuba. i personally don't have strong opinions on cuba.

Knee jerk is what you do when it comes to NRA. Maybe you should also recognize that other people have strong opinions about something you are not bothered about. What was the boiler plate response from the White House in each case?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

hahaha  rite....There is a better chance for Owaisi to convert to hinduism.

well that was my original criticism -- that all this moral outrage is convenient and not based on any fundamental principle. thanks for admitting it.