---

I saw a good opportunity and I couldn't resist! :P Now back to what I originally came here for. Cheerio! :D

There is no such thing as a safe place. It's one of the factors that lead to the Beaumont children getting kidnapped. I made that mistake myself not so long ago. My cousin had a motel in a small town (he's trying to sell it now). When I went there the first time I thought the place was an innocent hamlet where you didn't have to worry about crime. Then I found out the place has a serious meth problem.

Criminals want privacy and less populated areas are perfect for that. This one time there was a shoot out in one of the rooms of my cousin's motel.

TL;DR: TinyE's post.

---

ROFL !!! :o)

Today, life went on as usual. My town (around 21.000 citizens) is a former mining town in the countryside with its share of poverty (between 20/30% of unemployment depending how you make the statistics) and "casual" criminality. I don't think it's much different than the mining towns in UK. We have around 10% of foreigners but most of them (including the naturalized ones) are Italian (family of miners) or French (as we're next to the border) there is just a small minority of Africans, Arabs and Asians who are much or less "integrated" as it's the kind of town where you generally know and chat with your neighbors or strangers. In terms of confessions, i can give a rough estimate as I worked a few years ago at preparing the public schools hot dishes, so on roughly 300 meals, I did generally 5-6 dishes without pork. Veiled women are rare. The most religious guy was a Belgian who converted himself, grew a beard and walked around in a djelabba (yeah, he was kind of "overdoing" it) but he was kind of rejected and he doesn't live here anymore I think. So as you can see, it's a bit different from other towns like Verviers (Belgium, where they found a terrorist crew, two dead in the shootout) or Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray (France, where the priest got killed this week) where there are a much bigger muslim community. So overall, the most prevalent sentiment here is surprise, it's the topic of the moment but life will goes on and next week we're probably gonna talk about the burned cars or another shop closing :o)

EDIT: Naturally, we don't believe his plan was to attack our village but rather to commit an attack in a city like Liege where he had moved in March. (the news reports currently don't say if the convicted one was the one which moved)

http://imgur.com/a/CsvTR

You were making a point of highlighting that there were nominally Muslim countries whose populations indicated that religion didn't play a major role in their lives, and that there are secular Muslim countries. Which is true, make no mistake. To which I countered that such facts are next to irrelevant when presented with a transversal radical minority, which has demonstrably proven to always be able to assert itself. As rightly pointed out in the video link I posted. This is part of why I accused you of false moral equivalences (see below). First off, there's zero complexity in these matters. None of the countries you mention were "stable" when they turned (not in the sense that, say, Portugal is stable, economic warts and all). In all of those cases, there was either an unstable undercurrent that tipped to boiling point, with largely predictable results, or, in the case of Bosnia, an unsolved socio-cultural matter that can and is currently being used to the advantage of radical Islam. It's only hard to defend against when you have feckless politicians and pusillanimous leaders in charge. Add to that a population that grew largely soft and neutered in countries that are the most appealing targets, and you have the perfect recipe for jihad disaster. Case in point, Europe. Fair enough. I butted into another conversation and took you to task for something that wasn't even related to the specific point you were making, when I should be lambasting the other poster for it. My bad. Sure thing. Moral relativism, as it pertains to the overall theme of this discussion, can be summed up as an unwillingness to take an actual stand on matters, to which moral fence-sitting is preferable. The last one harkens back to your justifying (or "explaining") terrorism with poverty and denouncing of "a black and white morality and absolutist world view", a mindset that is all well and good in the personal sphere and when enjoying the storyline of a game like the Witcher, but only leads to ruin in the political sphere - yours and that of whatever it is you uphold.

As for virtue signalling, you're expressing and promoting viewpoints that are especially valued in a social group or social context, in this case, Europe's suicidal zeitgeist, in which it is fashionable to point out that "not all Muslims are like that" and to focus on historical causes (to various degrees of contextual accuracy) to the detriment of actually dealing with the matter at hand. This while on the business end of a dagger, or to the sound of women being overtly molested in public spaces, because the ultimate virtue of being tolerant, open-minded and aware of your [insert-random-favorable-condition-here]privilege cannot be compromised under any circumstance.

Look, I can relate to the gist of your stance, to a point. You want to study a disease to ascertain its causes and be better able to fight it. But that's the work of the medical research department; you also need to quarantine and do some serious surgical interventions before, during and after - do some amputations and maybe even some risky procedures. Because people are dying and seeing their loved ones dying, and they don't much care to hear you say that this particular type of disease has had flare-ups in the past as well and could flare up anywhere else.

So, what's the feeling among the minority population you mentioned? Is there any fear of a backlash?

Sure, the number of citizens who went "Oh, he won't do those terrible things he's promising" was astonishing and even included his secretary Traudl Junge. That's why I keep pulling my hair out over Trump apologists, who are sporting the exact same argumentation schemes.

This whole discussion was launched by a shooting motivated by RIGHT-WING extremism. By a German of Iranian descent ("Iran" means "Land of the Aryans") who officially changed his name from Ali to David so he wouldn't be associated with the Muslim religion (which the press swiftly ignored). Who was proud sharing a birthday with Adolf Hitler. Who supported our spanking new Nazi party, the Afd. Who killed seven muslims plus two with a slightly darker skin tone. And who did all that at the anniversary of right-wing terrorist Anders Breivik's shooting in Norway.

We have a definite problem integrating refugees, there definitely is a clash of cultures, and Merkel has no solutions at all but "steady, folks". But let this not blind you to the absurd and hateful entity that is the so called Western culture, including especially the Christian religion. These peeps have a God that told Moses to conquer the land that rightfully belonged to the Canaanites, and to kill every last one of them.

Am I cherry-picking the bible here? Yes of course I do, but that's what I'm seeing daily when people talk about the Q'ran.

Right-wing male extremism isn't by any means an absolute statistical nothing, it's just that you can't limit it to attacks on abortion clinics.

How about extending the scope to attacks on social democrat gatherings, black community churches, cinemas showing feminist movies, German shopping malls, etc.? This is a real and unfortunately huge threat, very similar to islamist extremism, and that extremism isn't even sparked by the daily terror of war in front of your own door.

All sources I saw are calling right-wing extremism to be a bigger threat than Islamist extremism in Western countries.

As to the victims of "feminist extremism": none to my knowledge. Call me up when the first female shooter storms a peaceful KKK gathering! No, you don't need my number.

Bingo on male, quite sufficient without adding other qualifiers.

Male violence is typically physical, female violence is typically emotional.
Is that a stereotype / statistical reality you are ok with?

Because I'm sure there is a name for this kind of leading arguments rhetoric you like so much.

All sources you saw you say? ;)
Any source criticality / analysis? Just perhaps this sort of "disbelieve my own lying eyes" phenomena requires defining threat in a somewhat interesting way? ;)

I guess if one worries more about the trauma from hate speech and microaggressions - rather than about being blown / trampled / shot on purpose - it might make sense...

Or as I've alluded, if one worries more about identity politics and socialism being undermined by inconvenient facts - showing welfare and multiculturalism being a tad ineffective at integrating diverse communities - contra intentions.

It astonishes me what a strange marriage identity politics is: marxist class analysis putting privilege frames on consumerist individual entitlement.

PS: Do note the on purpose. Spare me the facts (which I already know) about absolute size of accidental death versus intentional one please.

Edit: I forgot raped in the middle of blown / shot / trampled. I apologize for my male privilege.

It kinda depends of what you expect as "backlash". At worst the family (whom I don't personnaly know) will be subject to some vandalism but acts of retaliation are kind of usual here so nothing out of the ordinary. Now, for the people I know with muslim background, it won't really change a lot as like I pointed out it's a small town so people generally know each other so "acquaintance prevails" if I can say so. Naturally, it doesn't prevent them to possibly get insulted on the streets or generally get "bad vibes" by strangers but that was already more or less the case since the Brussels attack.

To respond to both of you, I'm linking the audition (in May 2016) of the director of the French Home Security services. Lots of infos but you can do a keyword search for "ultra" where he says that their services are moving more ressources towards the identification and neutralization of the far-right to prevent them to physically confront the arab/muslim community.
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/cr-cdef/15-16/c1516047.asp

Naturally, it was received with a lot scepticism in France as people naturally wants more ressources geared towards fighting the dhijadists rather than the nationalists as the actual counting of dead and wounded is in the hundreds for the terrorists while the score is zero for the far-right activists.

Actually it's even funny (or absurd) as there's currently an uproar in France because after the killing of the priest, a guy put some bacon in (and on) the mailbox of a mosque. Yesterday, he was condemned to 6 months of "non-effective" jail.
http://www.bfmtv.com/societe/il-depose-des-lardons-devant-une-mosquee-apres-l-attentat-en-normandie-six-mois-avec-sursis-1021175.html

So in reponse to this, the social medias have responded with the funny hashtag #JeSuisLardon
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%23JeSuisLardon&src=tyah

I beg to differ, here is a big list of reference regarding women violence.
[url=http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm]http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm[/url]

men make up of 40% of the victim of domestic violence
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

Statistic from UK government

Other source you may need
http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/
http://www.mintpressnews.com/woman-aggressor-unspoken-truth-domestic-violence/196746/

[Note, had to cut this in pieces as it wouldn't post on the forum in any other way. Treat it as a single reply as it was meant to be.]

1] You slightly miss out how that debate came about. My reply was in response to someone who wanted to "start seeing more women as imams and acceptance of gays in countries which are strongly identified as islamic, that's good enough proof to me that islam too becoming a modern religion, progressing with times." Islam already has shown that, in a number of places - it's potential to turn secular.

2] And I disagree that a majority, of whatever colour, is irrelevant with dealing with the problem. If it were the case than all is hopeless - there'd be no solution to the IRA conflict, there'd been no solution to any armed conflict ever. Even within Hitler's regime there was significant resistance. What I've been arguing against is the broad brush. They are all evil. As that leads down the road to - let's engage in collective punishment. That's precisely the logic of what ISIS wants us to follow. Create a generalised, undifferentiated backlash that will drive more people to radicalise and turn into recruits.

That is something that comes from nearly anyone actually engaged in researching terrorism and how people are radicalised. Quite smart people, too. Included a bit of a mini Biography to highlight specialisms:

See Robert Page, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago:

`The rhetoric that our politicians and journalists use, and how quick we are to worry about all Muslims in the US or all Muslims in Europe as being potential terrorists, is incredibly damaging. It creates the idea that the majority of Muslims in Europe or America can be radicalised, based on a fractional minority. This can become a self-fulfilling prophecy in that people who believe themselves to be labelled as enemies may defend themselves violently. It is up to us to focus on the relatively small number of people taking on violent acts; otherwise, we will feed into ISIS’s ability to recruit from disaffected populations.`

See Harleen Gambhir from the Institute for the Study of War:

'The Islamic State’s strategy is to polarize Western society — to “destroy the grayzone,” as it says in its publications. The group hopes frequent, devastating attacks in its name will provoke overreactions by European governments against innocent Muslims, thereby alienating and radicalizing Muslim communities throughout the continent.

[...]

The strategy is explicit. The Islamic State explained after the January attacks on Charlie Hebdo magazine that such attacks “compel the Crusaders to actively destroy the grayzone themselves. . . . Muslims in the West will quickly find themselves between one of two choices, they either apostatize . . . or they [emigrate] to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the Crusader governments and citizens.” The group calculates that a small number of attackers can profoundly shift the way that European society views its 44 million Muslim members and, as a result, the way European Muslims view themselves. Through this provocation, it seeks to set conditions for an apocalyptic war with the West.'

ISIS - and Al Qaeda tried to do that, too - aim is to play for and hope precisely for a majority of the people in the West to declare anything but their transversal radical minority as irrelevant. Doing so leaves only one thing - repression of Muslims in the West and escalating the conflict. Both things are what ISIS wants us to do.

See also Dr. Jacob Olidort (PhD in Near Eastern Studies, focus on Terrorism / Salafism / Islamism):

A policy of striking at the heart of ISIS recruitment should involve not only countering the ideology, but rather, rewriting the narrative of events. The aim in doing so should be preventing two "psychic moments" from taking place among would-be jihadists: first, the framing of regional conflicts in sectarian terms and, second, the perception that ISIS is the solution to these conflicts. To accomplish both, the West must form a strategy that empowers local actors who want to rebuild stable, inter-sectarian states (and these voices do still exist) and, simultaneously, continue to destroy ISIS' infrastructure and state capabilities. Doing both would show not only that ISIS' narrative is inauthentic, but also that in practice, it is unrealistic. While no partnerships should be made unconditionally, and while no effective strategy on the ground will definitively eliminate the threat of terrorism, an inclusionary approach -- one that engages local groups committed to defeating ISIS -- may be the most vivid, if not realistic way to eliminate ISIS' focal points of radicalization. (Emphasis mine.)

Again - declaring anything but the radical minority as irrelevant will do jot all to end this conflict. The contrary. Everything is complex. To argue otherwise is to argue from ideology, not fact, or research based reasoning. It's sadly a feature of our media and our lives wanting concision that we fail to see, and appreciate that, really, any attempt to deal with problems by favouring the simple and easy to understand will always lead to catastrophe.

Iran was stable and secular from it's establishment as a state in 1924 until the Anglo-Soviet Invasion (British and Soviets) when Reza Shah was deposed and exiled in 1941. There was some backlash against his policies, including banning head scarves, limits on the Islamic clergy (no preaching in public) and mosque activities strictly regulated. But only after he was disposed off by external intervention did the whole thing break apart. It was not a conflict lost to internal forces only.

Egypt was a secular country from 1882 up to 1952. A longer time frame than the current Western Germany even exists for. [And in this case, other than with Iran the British Occupation was beneficial for that to happen.] By and by Ali Abdel Raziq's writings on secularism are interesting - even if quite different from what Western secularist arguments are, at times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Abdel_Raziq). How long does a state have to be secularist for you to accept it as stable? It's interesting that you refer to Portugal here, which has only been a democratic state since 1975 - with a military (left-wing) coup in 1974 instituting that change. Egypt in contrast fell apart through a military coup (in 1952), the rise of Mubarak and his abuse of political power / corruption to the popular uprising in 2011.

Iraq followed a somewhat similar trajectory as Iran, as a secular state from 1932–1968. Saddam Hussein (foolishly included in the war of terrorism targets; given he actually opposed Al Qaeida) turned it over time into a dictatorship.

Afghanistan turned into a secular and independent state in 1919. 1923 elementary education was compulsory for all, slavery abolished in 1923, burqas were prohibited and co-gender educational schools introduced. On many of these 'progressive' issues these countries really weren't far behind the Western countries. Things fell apart in Afghanistan in 1973 through a left / communist coup and it turned into a 'hot spot' of the Cold war after with both Soviet Union and the US influencing and supporting different groups on the ground. The US allies included Osama Bin Laden.

So again, my points here were, that states with a Muslim majority have clearly shown the capability to institute secular and progressive, post religious governments and systems that - in most of the cases - remained stable until external influence helped unsettling them. Military coups and regressive forces thrive on chaos and destabilisation. Nearly always.