France gets tough

[CapelDodger]

I can venture a guess. I was just asking if the concepts were equivalent, because the word "jihad" was offered as evidence of Islam's uniqueness in producing suicide bombers. If the an equivalent concept also exists for Christians, I didn't quite see how the relevance.

Quite. The relevant question, I think, is why Islam is producing suicide attackers nowadays? Why did the Japanese in WW2, or Tamils in Sri Lanka? It doesn't automatically come with those cultures.

In the case of Islam it seems to derive from the Iran-Iraq War, when the Iranians used suicidal human-wave attacks to clear minefields and disrupt Iraqi defences before the professional troops went in. A martyr-spirit was promoted by the Iranian regime, and it next cropped-up in Lebanon. It seems to have been short-lived amongst the Shia, but has transferred to the Sunnis in a much bigger way. Now suicide attacks are being used against Shia in Iraq. Ironic, really.

 

[epepke]

I do think the reasons the US hasn't been bombed on its soil since then have to do with improved safety in air travel, though immigration laws, the lack of common borders/proximity with the countries of origin of radical muslims, the lack of a base of frustrated second or third generation immigrants, the absence of a large influx of fanatic imams financed by Saudi Arabia with the goal of recruiting said frustrated immigrants, etc.

You're the first person I've seen who is not from the far right who has said that efforts at improved safety in air travel are anything other than ludicrous and useless.

As far as a base of frustrated second- or third-generation immigrants, we have that in the US, too. Not everywhere, and not overall, but Dearborn, Lansing, and some other Michigan suburbs have been predominantly Muslim for a long time now.

The absence of fanatical Imams may be a factor, though we did get enough fanatical Saudis to cause 9/11.

Muslim immigrants in Europe live 24/24 with the resentment due to the history of colonisation, and the way they (sometimes feel they are, sometimes actually) are treated as second-rate citizens, etc.

I don't see a lot of acknowledgement amongst other than right-wingers that Muslim immigrants are treated less as second-class citizens in America. I don't know if it's true, but it may be. There's already been a mosque burned in England (I heard it on BBC News last night), but there were no mosques burned in the US after 9/11, which killed about 60 times as many people. There was a fair amount of verbal abuse, and a Sikh got shot (which is ironic), and a couple of windows broken, but no burnings of mosques.

 

[CapelDodger]

Muslim immigrants in Europe live 24/24 with the resentment due to the history of colonisation, and the way they (sometimes feel they are, sometimes actually) are treated as second-rate citizens, etc.

This, I think, throws up a major difference between Muslim migration to the US and to European, ex-colonial countries such as France, Italy and the UK. The German experience with Turkish guest-workers is different again.

Speaking just for the British experience, Muslim migrants came principally from Bangladesh and Pakistan in the expectation of finding a better-paid way of life. They were encouraged, and subsidised to do so by the UK government, because there was a post-war labour shortage; they brought part of the empire back with them as they withdrew from it. First-world manufacturing with almost third-world labour costs. (I suspect the same was true in France.) The people coming over had a cultural expectation of being wage-earners.

This only staved off the inevitable as far as mass-employment manufacturing was concerned, and when it did go to the wall it left large communities of Muslims in such places as Leicester and Bradford adrift from the wider economy. The same phaenomenon can be seen in the Welsh valleys, where entire communities have been left high-and-dry by the virtual end of mining and heavy engineering, but they aren't Muslim so they don't have that to blame it on. Welsh Nationalism has never been anything but a joke, so they shrug and turn to drink, drugs and organised crime as any rational community would.

Indian immigrants, on the other hand, mostly came over looking to become entrepreneurs, businesmen. They might have to start by selling their labour while they sussed the situation out and organised capital, but that's what they were aimed at. A basic cutural difference. Mostly they weren't Muslim.

The US experience of Muslim immigration is, I think, like the UK experience of Indian immigration. Not mass immigration to work the factories - there were Southerners and Hispanics for that - but ambitious people who went to the Land of Opportunity. Not so many Bangladeshi villagers.

A long historic memory is one of the characteristics of the muslim world ...

You should check out the Irish. They remember EVERYTHING!.

 

[dsm]

No, their true enemy is one who will fight them, at whatever cost, until they are destroyed.

Ah! And, of course, the "eye for an eye" principle comes into play here...

 

[dsm]

But the issue right now is Islamic fundamentalist terror. Why does anyone need to prove it's unique to Islam before we discuss the relationship between Islam and terror?

Ah! And, of course, the principle of "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" comes into play here...

 

[dsm]

I don't see a lot of acknowledgement amongst other than right-wingers that Muslim immigrants are treated less as second-class citizens in America. I don't know if it's true, but it may be. There's already been a mosque burned in England (I heard it on BBC News last night), but there were no mosques burned in the US after 9/11, which killed about 60 times as many people. There was a fair amount of verbal abuse, and a Sikh got shot (which is ironic), and a couple of windows broken, but no burnings of mosques.

Don't forget the Patriot Act and Gitmo...

 

[BPSCG]

Ah! And, of course, the "eye for an eye" principle comes into play here...

If you're being sarcastic, then you're also being ridiculous, for two reasons:

1) The biblical injunction of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth..." was to be a limitation on retribution; you were to take no more than an eye for an eye.

2) The hoary old warning that "an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind" assumes a situation where injury is exchanged for injury, which in turn is exchanged for injury, in a never-ending "cycle of violence"; the thinking behind it is if one side decides to not avenge its latest injury, the "cycle of violence" will be broken.

But what happens if when one side decides not to avenge an injury, the other side keeps inflicting them?

Is it still "an eye for an eye"?

 

[Orwell]

You the hell is talking about "not avenging injury", BPSCG?

Terrorists are criminals who have to be stopped and brought to justice. Is that clear? I have never, ever suggested that we shouldn't be fighting terrorism. What I have been saying is that we should be fighting terrorism differently.

 

[demon]

BPSCG:
"Now this is interesting.

The supposed rationale for the Madrid bombings was that Spain was supporting the illegal, unjustified war to overthrow Saddam and the U.S. attempts to help Iraq establish government of the people, by the people, and for the people."



You need to pay closer attention to history.
It wasn't a war to overthrow Saddam; it was an invasion to disarm Iraq of its alleged nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, which threatened the rest of the world. Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush were content for Saddam's government to remain, provided that he disarmed. It was not even that there were several reasons for the invasion, all of which justified war independently: disarmament -and disarmament alone- was the issue upon which we invaded.

"So far as our objective, it is disarmament, not régime change - that is our objective. Now I happen to believe the regime of Saddam is a very brutal and repressive regime, I think it does enormous damage to the Iraqi people... so I have got no doubt Saddam is very bad for Iraq, but on the other hand I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge from the United Nations is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change."
(Tony Blair, November 14, 2002 http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/PMO/uk-pmo-blair-111402.htm)

You are surely not saying that Mr. Blair is a liar?

"Saddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm, for the sake of peace, we, along with others, will go disarm Saddam Hussein."
George Bush, January 31, 2003. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/31/sprj.irq.bush.blair.topics/ )

"Today the path to peace is clear. Saddam can co-operate fully with the inspectors. He can voluntarily disarm. He can even leave the country peacefully. But he cannot avoid disarmament."
Tony Blair, February 23rd 2003, Commons statement. (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2797945.stm )

Other reasons may have been thrown into the mix when it became clear that mythical WMD weren't frightening enough people but none of them were the condition upon which we invaded. That is clear. "Bringing democracy and freedom" -which is the standard cry of all invaders in recent decades- was merely the justification used after the invasion when the WMD pretext was revealed incontrovertibly to be a lie.

 

[demon]

Flo:
"Quite a large number of French and other continental muslims have been going to London to hear the radical imams and get indoctrinated further there. They then have been sent to the same training camps, Iraq being one of them now due to what I'll charitably call a miscalculation, unfortunately.

It's been a point of contention between France, Germany, Belgium on one side and the UK on the other for quite a number of years now, the formers asking London to put a stop to their policy of welcoming radical muslims from their countries.

Fanatic preachers have been capitalising on all the (real or perceived) sins of the West, from colonialism to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, from the support for Israel and Arabian autocraties to the abandonment of Bosnian muslims, etc.

If you really listen to what fanatics say, you'll notice they may at times differentiate between countries but the core of the matter is the same for all Western countries."


So how long has Russia been a western country then?
Your own evidence defeats your argument: you provide a list of various specific greivances motivating a variety of different groups that are currently grouped under the heading "islamic terrorism". You then conclude, in the face of this evidence, that it's still fundamentally the same, theocratic anti-westernism. The geographic location of most of the countries with which they have a problem is clearly not the organising principle -the example of Russia demonstrates this.

 

[Mycroft]

Ah! And, of course, the principle of "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" comes into play here...

I'm all for learning from history. It's the people that can't tell the past from the present that I have a problem with.

 

[Flo]

So how long has Russia been a western country then?
Your own evidence defeats your argument: you provide a list of various specific greivances motivating a variety of different groups that are currently grouped under the heading "islamic terrorism". You then conclude, in the face of this evidence, that it's still fundamentally the same, theocratic anti-westernism. The geographic location of most of the countries with which they have a problem is clearly not the organising principle -the example of Russia demonstrates this.

The example of Russia demonstrates nothing. Russia has a specific problem with Chechnya, not with the whole muslim world. Should this problem keep on festering, and the West get involved, Russia will be in the fanatic islamist radar as a member of the "atheist-immoral West". It isn't yet, due to its particular history and links with muslims countries (like Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.), dissents with Israel, etc.

 

[Flo]

You're the first person I've seen who is not from the far right who has said that efforts at improved safety in air travel are anything other than ludicrous and useless.

I wouldn't say they are THE turning point, but from what I've seen about safety in US airports before 9/11, there definitely was space for improvement. More controls and restrictions on access and on what you can take onboard have certainly complicated the life of would-be replicators, I suppose.

As far as a base of frustrated second- or third-generation immigrants, we have that in the US, too. Not everywhere, and not overall, but Dearborn, Lansing, and some other Michigan suburbs have been predominantly Muslim for a long time now.

But they are not in the situation described by Capeldodger, that applies for almost all post-colonial countries in Europe: people who have been called en masse to rebuild the country after WW2, and then dumped in tenth rate housing away from all commodities, told or shown they were unwanted, etc.

The absence of fanatical Imams may be a factor, though we did get enough fanatical Saudis to cause 9/11.

But they weren't sitting there long enough to stir resentment and recruit from the local muslim communities.

I don't see a lot of acknowledgement amongst other than right-wingers that Muslim immigrants are treated less as second-class citizens in America. I don't know if it's true, but it may be. There's already been a mosque burned in England (I heard it on BBC News last night), but there were no mosques burned in the US after 9/11, which killed about 60 times as many people. There was a fair amount of verbal abuse, and a Sikh got shot (which is ironic), and a couple of windows broken, but no burnings of mosques.

Mosque being burnt or daubed with racist comments are pretty common in Europe now. Muslims are often denied appartments outside of certain areas, jobs, entry in dancings, etc. There's 50% more unemployment in areas where immigrants (mostly from Africa and Northern Africa) live than in the rest of the French population, for exemple, even for people with excellent education.

It is therefore very easy for a radical preacher to capitalise on all that misery to radicalise the younger generations, and to use it for the "general" jihad.

 

[dsm]

If you're being sarcastic, then you're also being ridiculous, for two reasons:

1) The biblical injunction of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth..." was to be a limitation on retribution; you were to take no more than an eye for an eye.

2) The hoary old warning that "an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind" assumes a situation where injury is exchanged for injury, which in turn is exchanged for injury, in a never-ending "cycle of violence"; the thinking behind it is if one side decides to not avenge its latest injury, the "cycle of violence" will be broken.

But what happens if when one side decides not to avenge an injury, the other side keeps inflicting them?

Is it still "an eye for an eye"?

Of course the answer to that is that it's in the eye of the beholder. Really, the limitation on retribution is up to interpretation when the law is not precise on the subject (what do you do when you get beyond an eye or a tooth?). And, so, unless we provide the necessary propaganda (is that not what the Bible is?) to teach how this limitation should be interpretted and, thus, break the cycle of violence, is not continuing to fight at all costs simply propagating the cycle?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Of course it doesn't follow that the solution would be to bomb Boston! That's my point all along!

And that was his point. Sheesh. The implication in your comment is that bombing Boston is like bombing Afghanistan, which is just ridiculous.

Why did the US invade Iraq? Some people have suggested that it had something to do with the "war against terrorism". I know it doesn't, and I think you do too.

Care to justify that ridiculous assertion, or do you just expect us to believe anything you say?

The present day "war on terrorism" isn't sponsored by a single state.

No, it's sponsored by several states. So what?

Actually, all middle eastern governments more or less officially oppose Islamic extremism!

But unoffically, it's a different story.

There's no city to bomb this time.

Mostly, that's because we already bombed them. This like saying in 1946 that the invasion of Germany was unjustified because Germany wasn't presenting any current threat. What does the state of Germany in 1946 have to do with actions of 1944 and 1945?

It has nothing to do with appeasement and everything to do with actually efficiently fighting terrorism.

But if people see that legitimate grievances get more attention if advertised through terrorism, won't that encourage terrorism?

Now, these people are aware of the price they risk paying for supporting terrorism (i.e. the stick). But what do they gain for opposing terrorism (i.e. the carrot)?

Why do you put supporting terroism in a category separate from terrorism itself?

demon

Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush were content for Saddam's government to remain, provided that he disarmed.

Sheesh, do you have no concern for your credibility? Your own post claims that Blair said "I happen to believe the regime of Saddam is a very brutal and repressive regime", and yet you claim that he was "content" with the regime? Are "willing" and "content" synonyms in your world?

was merely the justification used after the invasion when the WMD pretext was revealed incontrovertibly to be a lie.

More leftist propaganda. Only to people like you is it "incontrovertible" that it was a lie.

 

[Darat]

The only thing unique about Islam is you have a small number of people who, for various motivations, are stoking the fires of radical violent fundamentalism.

How is that unique to Islam?

Today, July 30th, 2005 this is unique to Islam, but it could happen in any religion from Christianity to Scientology. It's unique to Islam only in the sense that it's not happening within other religions.

So if it could happen in any religion have you considered that perhaps the reason it is happening today is not solely because of religion?

 

[Darat]

It's not saying that at all, Darat. That's an interpretation you're placing on it.

There is no point in speculating if these people would be terrorists if they were not Muslims. That's just speculating that the world would be different if it were different. The world we need to understand and deal with is the world we live in, which includes fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.

I totally disagree with your approach.

If we want to stop suicide bombers then we need to understand why people are willing to be suicide bombers. If there is something unique about Islam that produces suicide bombers then either the Islamic faith needs to be destroyed or it needs to be changed so that it doesn’t cause suicide bombers. However if there is nothing unique about Islam in the sense of causing suicide bombers then that approach will not work as it may not remove the reasons why people are willing to become suicide bombers.

The evidence presented so far is that there is nothing unique about Islam that causes suicide bombers. In fact the evidence so far is that suicide bombers can come from a wide variety of political and religious backgrounds. Therefore to understand the reasons behind suicide bombers, so we can take action to stop them, it is very appropriate to consider the common elements behind all suicide bombers and we know that cannot be the Islamic faith.

By the way, I'll remind you again this thread isn't limited to suicide terror, but covers all terrorism.

If you want to bring other types of terrorism into the mix then your proposition that this is "today it is an Islamic problem" is completely sunk since terrorism is happening everyday in the world carried out by people of a vast array of political and religious backgrounds. Many of us never see or hear much about this since the popular media concentrates on the terrorism that seems to be focused against us and “high profile” attacks. (For examples look at what is happening in many, many African countries right now.)

We've already covered this. The only thing unique to Islam is that right now it's the religion that's producing terrorists. Decades ago Christianity was producing (a few) terrorists, and back then it was a Christian problem. It could be decades in the future that Buddhists will produce terrorists.

You still have not presented the evidence that it is Islam that is causing the terrorisms and not other circumstances. And again if you are not limiting yourself to just suicide bombers then terrorism is certainly not just an Islamic problem.

But the issue right now is Islamic fundamentalist terror. Why does anyone need to prove it's unique to Islam before we discuss the relationship between Islam and terror?

You don’t need to prove anything, however surely you wish to approach an issue of such importance as terrorism with evidence and sound reasoning? I don’t know why you object to other people wanting you to support your starting premise before moving on in the discussion.

My personal position is at the moment I am “agnostic” about Islam being at the root of the problem of the current terrorism that interests us. Certainly it is being used by some people to provide “reasons” for at least some terrorist activities (as can be proven by using various speeches and comments made by some Muslims and if you wish some links I can provide them). However for me that is not the same as saying Islam causes terrorism.

Before I can accept that the Islamic faith causes terrorism I need evidence an reasoning that supports that conclusion.

So far you have not provided any such evidence.

(Edited for formatting.)

 

[epepke]

Don't forget the Patriot Act and Gitmo...

Thanks. Yes, those are frequently cited as supporting the notion that the US is especially bad for Muslims.

Flo, however, is saying something different, and I'd like to bring it out.

 

[epepke]

I wouldn't say they are THE turning point, but from what I've seen about safety in US airports before 9/11, there definitely was space for improvement. More controls and restrictions on access and on what you can take onboard have certainly complicated the life of would-be replicators, I suppose.

I appreciate hearing from you, because I like hearing different viewpoints, and I often find that more interesting than actually arguing a viewpoint of my own.

However, if you're referring to 9/11, I think that could only have worked once, simply because prior to that, no commercial airliner that left from a US port had been brought down by a terrorist action, ever. So the policy was, with respect to hijackers, to give them what they want. That won't happen again, with or without airport security.

My personal experiences when flying in the US are that security got really annoying for about a year and a half after 9/11 but has settled back to normal, with a few differences. I can't carry my Swiss Army knife on airplanes any more, and one is more likely to be searched, which is generally a mild pat-down and a sweep with a metal detector.

The big security problem that would have made a difference for 9/11 is that people on watch lists were not flagged at the counter. I am not privy to whether that has been changed, or not, but being in the computer business myself, I don't have a lot of faith that an effective system is in place.

But they weren't sitting there long enough to stir resentment and recruit from the local muslim communities.

Well, they were there for a number of years, off and on. At least long enough to become regulars at the strip clubs. And there are Muslim neighborhoods in the US. They are probably not as common as in Europe, but they exist.

Mosque being burnt or daubed with racist comments are pretty common in Europe now. Muslims are often denied appartments outside of certain areas, jobs, entry in dancings, etc. There's 50% more unemployment in areas where immigrants (mostly from Africa and Northern Africa) live than in the rest of the French population, for exemple, even for people with excellent education.

Here's a serious question, about which I'm generally curious. Do equal housing laws not exist in Europe?

As for employment, I'm similarly ignorant, although when I was training to become a teacher of English as a foreign language, we spent a day learning about the international CV. It contains a fair amount of information that employers are legally prohibited from asking before a hire, including marital status and date of birth. Religion is right out. I guess they could guess by last name, but in the US at least it would be ineffective, as there are plenty of Christians with Arabic names.

I also must admit that I am ignorant as to what an "entry in dancing" means. Do you mean admission to nightclubs? I would think that the 9/11 attackers' predilection for strip clubs would indicate that doesn't happen much in the US. There are some snooty nightclubs where the patrons line up outside and are chosen on an individual basis, but they're rare. In any event, I am reminded of an old lover of mine who went to Stringfellow's in London and was propositioned by a group of Egyptians, so it seems like that is not much of a problem in the UK, either, or at least was not at the time.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

As for employment, I'm similarly ignorant, although when I was training to become a teacher of English as a foreign language, we spent a day learning about the international CV. It contains a fair amount of information that employers are legally prohibited from asking before a hire, including marital status and date of birth. Religion is right out. I guess they could guess by last name, but in the US at least it would be ineffective, as there are plenty of Christians with Arabic names.

...snip...

On this point there have been several reports in the UK of identical CVs, apart from one having a "Muslim sounding" name, receiving very different feedback, here is a link to one such report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4079064.stm