Should the civilized world unite against Barbarians?

[cantdog]

I'm not saying they migrate to become parasites Doc. I'm saying just arriving here isn't enough, you have to be willing to roll your sleeves up and go to work. Not just go to work as in get a job, but learn the language, learn the customs, become an active member of the society. If you refuse to put in the kind of effort that is needed to be considered one of the community, you are unlikely to land a better job, get a promotion, move up the scocio-economic ladder.

The Irish had a rough time, but they made a go of it. The old time image of the Irish "bull" or police man in NYC is there beacuse the job wasn't that great and a lot of irish immigrants became policemen. or joined themilitary, Like Martin Maher.

The chinese were very insular when they first began ariving in numbers, it's why you have a china town in most every major port city of the day. The same with little Italy in NYC, or German towns all over the country.

None of these groups had instant success and most didn't really start gaining until they left chinatown or little italy or german town and started to try and fit in with the population that was "american" rather than the small enclaves that were more like home.

My point was not that they are parasites, it was that you have to give something to get something. You can't just show up and it's all better. And you can't show up and expect to keep all your old traditions, adapt nothing new and still prosper in another society.

In fact, historically, it has been their children who did the adapting, having grown up in the midst of the culture and the language. The new immigrants needed the mutual support of an enclave. I do not see evidence that muslim immigrants as a class "turn back to their roots so strongly and reject western values." Not to any greater extent than any other Asians.

Colly is correct to put this in historical context.

The 'melting pot' is a silly idea that never quite applies, unless a particular immigrant buys it. The Minutemen along the border seem to think the place more of a crucible, where heat is applied to drive off impurities, than a melting pot where sound metals can form a new alloy. They have sympathizers all over, trying to emplace "English-only" laws. Time is the repair system. Sooner or later, the descendents of immigrants weave into the fabric of the new country. The web is richer if the new threads retain some of their color.

 

[cantdog]

P. S.:

Sometimes they never do integrate. Racism is unholy persistent and works both ways.

 

[Couture]

Ted E Bare....


I rather expected OBL to be captured early on. As you well know, a world wide search still continues.
amicus...

Bullshit. We gave Afghanistan an ultimatum....give us Bin Laden or suffer a regime change. Then Bin Laden moves to Pakistan. Same deal, furnish him or get the fuck out of the way.

Oh, but wait, that's OUR dictator. Then again, wasn't Saddam?

This is not a policy to discourage terrorism, but to encourage it. The population needs to be afraid ... in order to be better managed. With the USSR gone, we had to make our own bogeyman.

 

[Couture]

We in the west pride ourselves on our committment to individual freedom, and in America we like to tell ourselves that we're a vast melting pot where we all can get along, but when you have these people who positively are opposed to the core values of the culture and want to remake it in their own image, you have to wonder what the point is.

I wonder if probably every generation has said these same things. There has pretty well always been this fear of the immigrant in the US - whether they were African, Asian, Irish, or Arab. And while each of these cultures has influenced America in some way - they have in turn been influenced.

That said - there is a point at which I send them back to their country of origin. I don't know that we've had sufficient cause to do that in the US, but if I was Tony Blair, I would send everyone who attended the terrorist's mosque in London back to the country formerly known as Palestine. The way to keep these fundamentalist churches from inciting people to violence, is to hit them where it hurts - their pocket books.

 

[Pure]

Couture said,

That said - there is a point at which I send them back to their country of origin. I don't know that we've had sufficient cause to do that in the US, but if I was Tony Blair, I would send everyone who attended the terrorist's mosque in London back to the country formerly known as Palestine. The way to keep these fundamentalist churches from inciting people to violence, is to hit them where it hurts - their pocket books.

Well, it does seem like a mosque in Leeds was attended by three of the four. But the imam, iirc, claims to know nothing. Sending back everyone who's attended the mosque seem like it's 99% INaccurate.

In New York, a while back, there was a radical cleric, this blind guy Rahman, and he eventually went to prison. That do not hinder 9-11.
In fact, as far as I remember, the 9-11 folks *inconspicuously* attended quite normal mosques (if they did--often they tried to appear secular).

So while there is something to the idea of shutting down radical mosques (or deporting their members), doing so in the handful of 'radical mosques' in US, England, Spain, etc. would, I think have little effect. Now if you could shut down the 'madrassas' and 'radical mosques' in Pakistan, that might help. But rounding up the people would be a problem.

It seems to me the West has to get very serious about *linking* with muslims, and, for instance employing some of them--e.g., as 'moles' in radical mosques. BUT as someone once said, a CIA person wants a desk, he does not want to sleep in a cave in Afghanistan for five years.
It's become quite clear that the US and Britain etc have virtually NO ONE on the inside of these radical groups, and indeed lack those who can even understand the language.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

As for voting republican... Colly, I don't think it'll make that much difference seeing as they have a tendency to win elections, whether people vote for them or not
[/I]

*snicker* Good one!

 

[Couture]

Well, it does seem like a mosque in Leeds was attended by three of the four. But the imam, iirc, claims to know nothing. Sending back everyone who's attended the mosque seem like it's 99% INaccurate.

He may not know specifically that there would be an attack, however, if he is spreading intolerance at his mosque, then he is partially responsible. And it is my understanding that these men didn't get their radical ideas in Israel, but in London.

You brought up the terrorists from 9/11, but you will note that I also said this wasn't the case in the US. It is clear that they were radicalized back in Saudi Arabia, and taking putative action against people who had nothing to do with the attack does not serve as a deterant for future terrorists.

 

[Pure]

iirc, a couple of them (lax muslims) 'converted'--i.e., took up some rigorous (or hardline) form of Islam after trips to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, respectively.

they may have formed a secret 'cell' within the mosque.

putative=punitive? (early in the morning)

pursuant to what you say, i do remember an article in the Times about how London has been, for a decade or more-- a crossroads for terrorists (to meet) and had a number of fiery preachers of jihad-- but I'm not sure about the connections in the present case.

 

[Pure]

A Muslim mother on British Muslim culture

Hey couture, I thought you might be interested:

Jul. 15, 2005. 01:00 AM


Stopping the devil from stealing young souls

We must teach young Muslims in Canada to raise their voices against all violence, says Raheel Raza



The heart-rending loss of humanity in the wake of the London bombings is a tragedy that affects all, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Despite the cause-and-effect theories trotted out extensively by commentators, the atrocity was a homegrown problem. It can be solved only within the community that allowed it to grow. That community is not necessarily a religious one, but a multicultural community like the one we have here in Canada.

I say this with feeling because I am a Pakistani Muslim woman with two sons, the same age as some of the suicide bombers in London. The difference is, my sons are secular in public and knowledgeable and religious in private. They have grown up in an environment of respect for other faiths and of life. More important, they know how to balance both.

Early this year, my 20-year-old son, Saif, went to Birmingham, England to visit a friend. When he returned, he was quite troubled. He confessed he was disturbed by the religious ideology of his English counterparts. And at Friday prayer in a mosque, he was shocked at the fire-and-brimstone spouted from the pulpit.

Later, he took a drive with his friend. The vehicle they were in developed a flat tire. My son suggested they take the vehicle to be fixed at a gas station they had just passed. To his surprise and dismay, the three British-Muslim boys with him said they would rather walk than take their business to a non-Muslim. They proceeded to try and indoctrinate my son about the ills of the West and how important it was not to integrate with locals.

Saif says he was alarmed at their attitude. He found their views dishonest and disconnected from the reality of living in the West. I've seen this trend on visits to Britain. There is a growing sense of frustration among young people and it's dangerous.Last week's events are symbolic of this malaise.

Granted, there are many political, economic and social factors that come into play when we talk about terrorism today. Anyone with half a brain is aware that the war in Iraq and U.S. foreign policy plays a strong role in any reaction to the West. But it does not, and never will, justify the death of innocents.

Can this happen in Canada? Perhaps, unless we wake up and smell the coffee. I don't mean only Muslims, although public opinion would like to treat this as an exclusively Islamic problem. When the bubble bursts, it affects all of us.

Before we are left blaming each other, let's find solutions. I don't believe surveillance, airport checks, limiting immigration and picking up bearded Muslim men at random is the answer. Targeting one community won't solve anything either. The solution lies with parents and guardians, peers and advisers, teachers and religious institutions.

All of us need to be more vigilant about the kind of rhetoric being spouted, about the ideology of hate being exported to Canada, about Muslim youth becoming targets for Al Qaeda recruiters in places of education and worship. Most important, perhaps, is teaching our youth to raise their voices in condemning all acts of violence and being aware about what is going on around them.

Last month, two of the largest centres of Islamic learning, Al Azhar, in Egypt and Qum, in Iran, issued a joint fatwa calling suicide bombing a sin that is unacceptable under any circumstance. In Amman, Jordan, more than 170 Muslim scholars who gathered for an International Islamic conference agreed to forbid labelling anyone with apostasy, condemning extremists who used hatred to fire up sentiments against others.

To those who want to know where moderate Muslims are hiding, we are alive and well and working around the clock to undo the damage done by 30 years of indoctrination by an ideology of hate. We work hard to get our voices heard above the babble of the extremists.

Last week's bombing in London struck close to home. My brother-in-law was on a train just ahead of one that was bombed. Like hundreds of others going through the same experience in Britain, we worried ourselves sick until we knew he was safe. Today, many families mourn their dead and so do we.

However, our loss is greater. We mourn not only the dead and wounded, we also mourn the living who have lost their souls. Before the souls of our youth are sucked away by the devil in disguise, let's join hands for the greatest of all jihads — the struggle to respect the dignity of human life.

Raheel Raza is a Toronto media consultant and freelance writer.
======
Toronto Star
Jul. 10, 2005. 01:00 AM

Does violence reside in a dark part of the human psyche?


`What we're seeing is a new kind of radicalism that is not practised by people who are poor and oppressed, but by the young and middle class'

by OLIVIA WARD
TORONTO STAR

On a frigid winter's morning in the British Midlands, 200 young men listened raptly to a speech that cut through the crowd like a blowtorch. Would they stand silent, they were asked, while murderers killed and raped their brothers and sisters in Muslim lands?

Some in the small town square shed icy tears at the list of atrocities attributed to the United States, Britain and their allies. Others shouted defiance and punched their fists in the air. When the speech was over, dozens filed after the speaker, asking how they could enlist to fight for the cause.

This was 2001, a year fraught with anger, grief and confusion, as hundreds of young, Western-born Muslims flocked to join Al Qaeda and fight the "crusaders" who had invaded Afghanistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Now the "war on terrorism" has moved on, and so has the globalized jihad.

The bombings in London this week, terrorism experts say, are likely the work of radicalized Muslims with strong ties to the West — educated if not born in countries far from their original roots. Young men who are brought up in peaceful societies but are ready to embrace the violence of a secret war.

"What we're seeing is a new kind of radicalism that is not practised by people who are poor and oppressed, but by the young and middle class. They are not going to the streets, but to the internet for their inspiration," says Olivier Roy, author of Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah.

The phenomenon of middle-class political violence is not new. Throughout history, the best educated have often led bloody revolutions and rebellions.

France's leader of the 18th century Reign of Terror, Maximilien Robespierre, was a lawyer, as was Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin. Bosnian Serb warlord Radovan Karadzic is a physician and psychologist. And Pol Pot, instigator of the 1970s genocide in Cambodia, was an engineer who ruthlessly destroyed higher education in his country.

The new generation of jihadists is less flamboyant, but their acceptance of killing is no less perplexing. And through the nerve-like synapses of the Internet, emotions as well as information are transmitted rapidly to receptive minds and bodies.

"Fighting is above all a spiritual journey," says Roy. "It is the ultimate proof of the reform of the self."

Furthermore, the new terrorist cells are as fluid as cyberspace and as difficult to pin down: "They are being replaced as fast as we can kill or capture them," Bruce Hoffman of Rand Corporation told the Washington Post. "Al Qaeda has this capacity to sustain itself. Even if they are reduced as an organization, they've been able to enlist any number of others to do their bidding."

But underlying the tactical issues of combating terrorism, is the more troubling question of violence in human society. If those who are carrying out the most appalling acts are not forced into it by unbearable conditions, is there a dark part of the human psyche that makes such actions inevitable?

Next month the annual Couchiching Conference will bring more than a dozen experts together in Orillia to discuss violence on the battlefield and in society, at a conference titled Handcuffs and Hand Grenades: The Use of Force Within and Between Nations. It will take place from Aug. 4 to 7 at the Geneva Park YMCA.

And, says University of Montreal professor Richard Tremblay, the penchant for violence should be studied urgently if we are to understand the elements that have caused millions of people to be attacked and killed throughout the world for centuries without apparent provocation.

"One of the prevailing theories is that humans are born good and society makes them bad," he says. "Until I began to study children's behaviour I also thought that way. Now it's obvious that instead, society is what makes children good rather than bad."

During his 20-year study of child aggression, Tremblay found that violence is more "natural" than he had first supposed.

"I was looking at how children learn to use aggression," he says. "but they don't. Humans naturally use physical aggression. It's a means of survival from an evolutionary point of view. We must be able to attack if we want to eat. And we need to defend ourselves."

However, he adds, "When children find they don't need to be aggressive they stop. That's what they learn from their environment."

In a peaceful environment, where there are controls on behaviour, most children set aside violence for more productive behaviour, Tremblay found. But in an atmosphere of lawlessness — or under the influence of powerful persuasion — aggression can turn murderous, as happens with young militant recruits and child soldiers who are brutally indoctrinated to kill.