Over seventy dead in vehicular attack in Nice, France

[RaikuFA]

I'm really sick of this. Why? Just no more.

 

[Bobular]

With the huge amount of unregulated immigration we have we get

Except that you don't get that. At all. For example, in UK during the past 8-ish years the yearly asylum application percentage (yes that's not the entirety of the immigration rate, hence why it's just an example) per 1000 inhabitants always hovered around half a percentage point. That's way below other Western European nations.

To call it unregulated is silly and untrue as well. I'm not up to snuff on the legal details, but I do know that it's not easy to move to the UK. There's plenty of regulation.

OK, I was exaggerating when I said unregulated, I know its not a free for all, a friend of mine was having difficulty getting her sons wife into the country and a friend of my mum was asking her recently for help filling in forms so he could get his wife over. When I said unregulated I meant the huge relative numbers, the BBC recently said net migration was over 300,000 which is almost three times the size of the large town I live in. These people are going to have to live somewhere and they are not going to be able to just slip into the odd empty house here and there. Add to that the desire to be with others of your own kind (I know if I moved to another country I would probably tend towards groups of people who thought and spoke like I did) and you get these bubbles of immigrants that don't have to interact with the natives, and if humans don't have to do something that is slightly harder then they probably wont.

The point isn't the numbers, the point is that this is closer. Its not unusual nor wrong to worry about the attack across the border on people more like yourself then to worry about an attack on people in a far off country that I will probably never be anywhere near.

Yes we should still worry, and if possible our governments should do something about both but focusing on problems closer to home is nothing strange.

And any pretense at caring for these human lives are thrown away to admit the fear for one's own safety. Righty ho! Just as suspected. I understand, make no mistake. Or at least I used to. But the hypocrisy to sustain a particular narrative is quite sickening to endure these days.

I don't see the hypocrisy of caring about danger that is closer to you then danger that is farther away. I don't expect people in the Middle East to care about what has just gone on in France to any where near the same level that Europeans will do. I care more about attacks in France than I do attacks in America and I would care about attacks in Manchester more than attacks in London for just the same reason.

 

[Parasondox]

Snip and going legit

Shall I flip this?

Sources on the 50% thing please.

Didn't 70% of people in the US thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11?

Aren't you making assumptions too?

49 minute will take a while. Let's go.

I'll have to apologize for my mistake in misreading the statistic about this. Previously my post said that around 50% supported the actions of al quada, when in reality, around 50% disapproved. I've edited my post to reflect the reality, but I'm posting this to make clear that I'm not hiding my mistake.

Source: http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

--------

Doesn't mean you still made an assumption about me that was already disproven in the thread, btw. Do what you like, but I think an apology for that would reflect well on you.

No? Don't assume it will reflect well on me... oh I stopped caring.

Gonna watch Stranger Things on Netflix. Just came out. I apologise for being an arsehole. I get that way at times. Not apologizing for anything else.

 

[Cowabungaa]

snip

See my post above.

Good, but even saying that is sloppy considering the complexity of the entire PEW investigation. How it massively differs between countries just for starters and the fact that only dominantly Muslim countries were investigated, not minority Muslim population in Western countries. The latter being, obviously, more relevant for us.

When I said unregulated I meant the huge relative numbers, the BBC recently said net migration was over 300,000 which is almost three times the size of the large town I live in.

Which isn't an honest depiction either. If anything, 300.000 can be a huge absolute number, but it's anything but a huge relative number when you consider that around 64 million people live in the UK. Relative to that, 300.000 is very little.

That number is also meaningless without looking at what makes up those 300.000 people. How large a percentage would be from non-Western cultures for instance, that sort of thing. Honestly, and I'm sorry, but your worrying isn't exactly rational or based on reality.

 

[Leg End]

This is going to be a lovely thread.

...Could someone give me a nudge when the world wants to be civilized again? I think I want to hole up in a corner with a blanket.

By your definition, the world has never been civilized. There has not been a single minute on this Earth with humans inhabiting it where someone wasn't murdering someone else because they didn't like them.

The best solution would be to close the borders and deport anyone openly supporting sharia law. Otherwise there's gonna be civil war and eventually WW3. This world is getting gradually worse as time goes by

How would you deport a native, born and raised?

Globalization is the problem at least in my opinion it's a bad thing because terrorist groups exploit it also another good argument against globalization is simply plague.

The basic issue with it is that everyone gets in the business of everyone else which makes more problems than it solves.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Half a percent of net immigration per year is a significant number.

You're not even making an argument why it wouldn't be rational or based on reality.

I was making an argument, but you didn't read it well apparently. It's not rational or based on reality because it's based on faulty, incomplete and sloppy information.

And how do you even judge whether it's significant or not anyway? Significant compared to what? Compared to most other Western European countries it's very low in any case.

The basic issue with it is that everyone gets in the business of everyone else which makes more problems than it solves.

That's not an issue, that's how humans work. We're not solitary animals. It's a ridiculous thing to say.

 

[Bobular]

When I said unregulated I meant the huge relative numbers, the BBC recently said net migration was over 300,000 which is almost three times the size of the large town I live in.

Which isn't an honest depiction either. If anything, 300.000 can be a huge absolute number, but it's anything but a huge relative number when you consider that around 64 million people live in the UK. Relative to that, 300.000 is very little.

That number is also meaningless without looking at what makes up those 300.000 people. How large a percentage would be from non-Western cultures for instance, that sort of thing.

I'm not saying 300,000 people is going to change the nature of British culture like some members of UKIP are, I'm saying 300,000 is a lot of people to fit into a small crowded country at once and that is net immigration, the total number of immigrants coming each year for the last few years was over 600,000. In 2014 there were just under 700,000 births in England, which will also include immigrants giving birth, and relative to that it is a massive increase in population.

Once again I am not saying that we should ban immigrants from coming here, I'm not saying we should kick out people who are already here, what I am saying is that we need to better control who comes in to more manageable numbers.

I've never actually been to France, but I have known French people and they have told me that the problem of immigrants moving to an area and sticking to that area is more of a problem over there than it is here and I know from personal experience its bad here.

The best solution would be to forcibly integrate people by ensuring an even distribution of immigrants across the country, but you can't force people to live where you want them too and you can't prevent people from buying houses because there are already to many of a certain culture there already so that isn't really an option.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I'm not saying 300,000 people is going to change the nature of British culture like some members of UKIP are, I'm saying 300,000 is a lot of people to fit into a small crowded country at once and that is net immigration, the total number of immigrants coming each year for the last few years was over 600,000. In 2014 there were just under 700,000 births in England, which will also include immigrants giving birth, and relative to that it is a massive increase in population.

That honestly doesn't change much. 600.000 Is still only a small relative number compared to 64 million. You also still don't know what the makeup is of that number, so I'm sorry but your "These people are too different and stick together too much" feeling, because that's what that argument boils down to, still doesn't really hold much ground. And how do you prove that the UK is 'crowded' as you call it?

As for population growth, calling that "massive" is plain faulty as well. A quick Google reveals that in the last decade UK population growth hasn't even topped one percent total. That's not even enough to keep up with the ageing of the population. If anything, the UK's population is growing too slowly.

You say that immigration should be curbed to 'manageable numbers' but the facts don't support that idea at all. The UK's immigration numbers aren't unmanageable to begin with. The numbers aren't stacked against you, there's no need to worry about the number of immigrants.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The way I see it, Islam should be treated as a political movement across the spectrum and lose the privileges of freedom of religion in western countries. I'd be fine separating fanatics from regular people, but there's a huge grey zone where (Some? Many?) muslims want a political and cultural influence in the western countries they live in, which I am in no way alright with.
So where does the Religion of Peace end and the dogmatic fanaticism start? No one really knows and everyone is shitting their pants for even thinking of doing something about it, for fear of being stamped as some sort of "ist".
Meanwhile, it's appreciated when muslims speak up against these actions (as well as do a lot of charity work, city clean up and loads of other nice gestures), but at what point do you distance yourself from the entirety of "Islam" and say there have been enough innocent bodies to prove that something is entirely wrong here?

You can make much the same argument about Christianity, which functions almost as the de facto state religion of many nations.

 

[Cowabungaa]

You can make much the same argument about Christianity, which functions almost as the de facto state religion of many nations.

Not that I agree with much of that person you quoted say, but you can't really make that argument to the extent as you can make it to Islam. Islam as such is much stronger interwoven with a political project and law than Christianity is. Christianity has indeed been employed for such projects, but deep down Christianity as such does not share that inherent nature with the Islam. For instance, going all the way back to Augustine, the 'Civitate Dei' was never a literal city or state but one of the heart and mind. He said, if I recall correctly, that even the Pope could live in Satan's city.

Compared to that, the Islam has a much closer relationship with a real-world political project and real-world law. That has very important implications with modern secular liberalism. For centuries, and very notably in the 19th century, Islamic scholars have been attempting to reconcile this political nature of Islam with secular liberalism. And as of yet there hasn't really been a good answer yet. I think on the first page I linked towards an interesting article regarding this subject. You might find it a good read.

In a very simple, almost poetic way you could summarize it by saying that Christianity arose from a desire to escape hell on earth and Islam arose from a desire to create Paradise on Earth.

 

[Zhukov]

The way I see it, Islam should be treated as a political movement across the spectrum and lose the privileges of freedom of religion in western countries.

You seriously think that would help?

"Hey, see that group who have an issue with radicalized youth committing terrorist acts? Yeah, I say we massively piss them off! Actively persecute them! That'll calm them right down."

Brilliance, sheer brilliance. I'm dazzled.

 

[Bobular]

That honestly doesn't change much. 600.000 Is still only a small relative number compared to 64 million. You also still don't know what the makes up that number, so I'm sorry but your "These people are too different" feeling, because that's what that argument boils down to, still doesn't really hold much ground. And how do you prove that the UK is 'crowded' as you call it?

As for population growth, calling that "massive" is plain faulty as well. A quick Google reveals that in the last decade UK population growth hasn't even topped one percent total. That's not even enough to keep up with the ageing of the population. If anything, the UK's population is growing too slowly.

You say that immigration should be curbed to 'manageable numbers' but the facts don't support that idea at all. The UK's immigration numbers aren't unmanageable to begin with. The numbers aren't on your side, there's no need to worry about the number of immigrants.

I'm not saying that "These people are too different", I'm saying that it would be better if they interacted with the greater community more, bring their differences with them.

And I can prove that the UK is 'crowded' using stats (and the fact I live here)

People per km2

Belgium: 371
UK: 262
Germany: 226
Italy: 201
France: 118
Denmark: 131
Spain: 92
Greece: 84
USA: 32
Sweden: 22

We are also one of the smallest countries in Europe.

If the numbers weren't unmanageable then why would schools, hospitals and housing be in crisis (other than mismanagement by the government, but that's always been the case.) I've worked for the NHS since I left uni and in the time I've worked there the number of patients has increased so much that in my department we've gone from 4 new patient clinics a week with about 13 patients to 8 with about 20 and they frequently have to have extra patients put on.

This is all getting away from the point of the topic though. I don't know what your point is, I'm saying that immigrants need to integrate more to prevent home grown terrorism, are you really saying that immigrants are fine sticking to their own little corners where they don't interact with other communities? because it feels like your not arguing against that, your just arguing my numbers.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You can make much the same argument about Christianity, which functions almost as the de facto state religion of many nations.

Not that I agree with much of that person you quoted say, but you can't really make that argument to the extent as you can make it to Islam. Islam as such is much stronger interwoven with a political project and law than Christianity is. Christianity has indeed been employed for such projects, but deep down Christianity as such does not share that inherent nature with the Islam. For instance, going all the way back to Augustine, the 'Civitate Dei' was never a literal city or state but one of the heart and mind. He said, if I recall correctly, that even the Pope could live in Satan's city.

Compared to that, the Islam has a much closer relationship with a real-world political project and real-world law. That has very important implications with modern secular liberalism. For centuries, and very notably in the 19th century, Islamic scholars have been attempting to reconcile this political nature of Islam with secular liberalism. And as of yet there hasn't really been a good answer yet. I think on the first page I linked towards an interesting article regarding this subject. You might find it a good read.

I read that, yes, but regardless of the nature of the two religions, Christianity has important political power in the West. It is because of religious reasons that evolution is controversial, much of the hostility towards abortions and LGBT people comes from Christian doctrine. If either Clinton or Trump were to say that they weren't Christian, we'd see the other in the White House.

Whether or not they are supposed to be, Christianity is intertwined with secular power in the west.

You can make much the same argument about Christianity, which functions almost as the de facto state religion of many nations.

Sure, I have nothing invested in any religion anyway and whomever that uses it as an excuse to spread political influence should (in my opinion) promptly be kicked out. As for how much of a comparison as well as how applicable it is, I have my doubts.

Fair enough.

 

[Zhukov]

Edit; Also see the post above this one to see why people hesitate to do anything, let alone talk about it rationally. You get instantly outed as scum or worse.

I didn't call you scum or indeed anything at all.

I sarcastically suggested that your idea was not brilliant.

Losing privileges of freedom of religion means you can't excuse a long list of behaviours by saying "muh religion", it doesn't mean being persecuted in the streets. There's a huge difference between having your religion recognized (despite its size and influence in the world) and being specifically targeted and sent off to camps.

You can dance around the exact meaning "lose privileges of religion" all you like.

One undeniable effect it would have would be to really, really, really piss off Muslims, no matter how many times you assured them that hey, at least we aren't sending you off to camps.

I ask you again, do you seriously think that would help?

 

[cleric of the order]

I read that as nice, france and i didn't know there was a city named Nice. found it a bit morbid

I noticed hardly anybody mentioned it anywhere at the time. I guess not important enough, right? Why? The numbers are higher, you like numbers, don't you? Well they're higher there.

Nah I don't like numbers, kill one man it's a tragedy kill a million it's a statistic.
More importantly France doesn't happen to be a country that the a large terrorist group bent on world conquest formed in and Nice wasn't one of the cities they enjoyed a lot of presence in while being formed out of the soldiers of the former regime and the cities citizens.
Or put in a better way, what's going on in Iraq is expected because the large scale conflict there is a depressing continuing tragedy.
What's going in France is a shocking tragedy and behind the want show how moral you are and give your hopes and prays. And the media's focus on it, it's closer, far closer and far more like our civilization than the country that has been fucked by war for the century more or less (progressively more in the last 30 years but hey).