Is Paris burning?

What is going on over in France?

What is the source of all this rioting?

I've read several opinions
1. Economically poor young Muslim men acting on anger over being shut out of the best of French society.
2. Islamic Jihad against the French
3. It's Bush's fault
4. It's Israel and the Jewish community's fault.

I go with #1.
This is an illustration of the failure of France's bloated welfare system and liberal immigration policies.

Lessons the French can learn from this.
Multiculturalism does not work.
Appeasement does not work

None of the above. Two kids were running from the police and they somehow got electrocuted in the process. The kids were innocent, and from marginal backgrounds. The authorities apparently didn't care.

Personally, pushing truth aside, I'd prefer #3 best; but then preference has nothing to do with truth does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Lessons the French can learn from this.
Multiculturalism does not work.
Appeasement does not work

---

Explain to me exactly what you mean by appeasment and multiculturalism. Sounds like right-wing pseudo-terminology to me. What's your definition?

There was an interview with a french minister on the BBC last night and he said the following:

- All the arrested rioters were 18 years or younger. So they have hardly any experience with getting jobs and thus discrimination in finding jobs.

- Most of the arrested teenagers were school dropouts who lived on social welfare. They don't even try to get jobs.

So these people shouldn't whine about discrimination while getting jobs.

Ignorance is power.

Quote:

---

Explain to me exactly what you mean by appeasment and multiculturalism. Sounds like right-wing pseudo-terminology to me. What's your definition?

---

multiculturalism is a term used a lot here by the left. I think we've discussed it before
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?t=356204
Basically, it might not be such a good idea to let immigrants form their own separate societies.

To see a definition of appeasement look up Neville Chamberlain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

well i'm off to france on the 19th so hopefully it will have all blown over :p

Appeasment (from wikipedia)

Quote:

---

the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational, negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody and possibly dangerous

---

(i) If you believe in democracy you, by implication, believe in compromise.
(ii) I thought you were rational
(iii) I do not know where you stand on negotiation.

(I know you bring up good ole Chamberlain all the time, but I'd like to see another comparable example!)

Multiculturalism (from wikipedia)

Quote:

---

multiculturalism is a view, or policy, that immigrants, and others, should preserve their cultures with the different cultures interacting peacefully within one nation.

---

(i) Do you believe in peace between cultures?
(ii) Do you object to immigration?

Quote:

---

None of the above. Two kids were running from the police and they somehow got electrocuted in the process. The kids were innocent, and from marginal backgrounds. The authorities apparently didn't care.

---

This is the incident that sparked the riots, but there has to be an underlying anger that fuels the riot. Where does this anger come from?

Some people are claiming that it is not a spontaneous event, but rather something that has been planned for a while just waiting for the spark to signal the right time. I think this is just conspiracy nonsense.

I see these riots as being similar to the race riots we have in this country once in a while. A group of people feel that they don’t have control over their own futures and blame it all on someone else. This builds frustration and resentment in the people who feel repressed until some spark sends them over the edge. Once the riots begin it is a cascading effect that draws more people in.

In a way this is very similar to what is going on with young Muslims around the world. These young men feel frustration about their situations and are taught to resent the rest of the world. Their frustration doesn’t usually boil over into riots, but is instead vented through terrorist acts. This is facilitated by elders who push them into this direction for their own reasons.

A riot or terrorism needs three things, possibly four
1. A target – just someone to blame by using half truths or even lies
2. fodder – the rioters or terrorists who are ripe for the act
3. instigators – someone to push the fodder into the act and keep them on track
4. funding – Many acts of terrorism require funding

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

This is the incident that sparked the riots, but there has to be an underlying anger that fuels the riot. Where does this anger come from?

Some people are claiming that it is not a spontaneous event, but rather something that has been planned for a while just waiting for the spark to signal the right time. I think this is just conspiracy nonsense.

I see these riots as being similar to the race riots we have in this country once in a while. A group of people feel that they don’t have control over their own futures and blame it all on someone else. This builds frustration and resentment in the people who feel repressed until some spark sends them over the edge. Once the riots begin it is a cascading effect that draws more people in.

In a way this is very similar to what is going on with young Muslims around the world. These young men feel frustration about their situations and are taught to resent the rest of the world. Their frustration doesn’t usually boil over into riots, but is instead vented through terrorist acts. This is facilitated by elders who push them into this direction for their own reasons.

A riot or terrorism needs three things, possibly four
1. A target – just someone to blame by using half truths or even lies
2. fodder – the rioters or terrorists who are ripe for the act
3. instigators – someone to push the fodder into the act and keep them on track
4. funding – Many acts of terrorism require funding

---

I agree with most of the above; apart from the 'young Muslims' paragraph. Here, in Europe, the same problems are evident regardless of religion, faith, colour, or creed. I have no idea about how it is in the Americas.

Take the IRA for instance (OK it's almost over now) Causcasian Catholics - nothing at all to do with Islam. What about Eta? What about the anglo-saxon American who blew up the FBI building.

How many more countless acts of terrorism are there that are committed by non-Muslims?

From Merriam-Webster

Appeasement
PACIFY, CONCILIATE; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

Quote:

---

(I know you bring up good ole Chamberlain all the time, but I'd like to see another comparable example!)

---

I think we are seeing one here.

Quote:

---

(i) Do you believe in peace between cultures?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

(ii) Do you object to immigration?

---

No

What I don't think is a good idea is to bring a large number of immigrants into a country without assimilating them. This can only cause problems.

I love your term of assimilation here. What exactly do you mean by that?

Quote:

---

I agree with most of the above; apart from the 'young Muslims' paragraph. Here, in Europe, the same problems are evident regardless of religion, faith, colour, or creed. I have no idea about how it is in the Americas.

Take the IRA for instance (OK it's almost over now) Causcasian Catholics - nothing at all to do with Islam. What about Eta? What about the anglo-saxon American who blew up the FBI building.

How many more countless acts of terrorism are there that are committed by non-Muslims?

---

The IRA was probably a similar situation, I don't know. The Oklahoma City bombing was more of an individual act so that it doesn't fall into the rioting category.

At the current time almost all terrorist acts are committed by someone who claims he follows the Muslim faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

From Merriam-Webster

Appeasement
PACIFY, CONCILIATE; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

---

BTW you asked me to look at wikipedia. I think it's generally bad form to point at your source, and then change it when the definition doesn't fit your purpose.

I know exactly what appeasement is!

I think, for you, it's just some latch you like to throw around to give you some sort of historical context.

Well, if i were you, I'd forget about definition and it's rather inappropriate historical syntatically correctness and start thinking about semantic relevance and it's relative prosody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

At the current time almost all terrorist acts are committed by someone who claims he follows the Muslim faith.

---

I'd like to see the evidence to back that up apart from ABC News at 10 '0 clock or whatever it is that you watch.

There seems to be plenty of non-Muslim terrorist organisations knocking around:http://www.defenddemocracy.org/resea...attrib_id=7450

I am guessing that you don't get listed as a terrorist organisation unless you have committed an atrocity or have been found to be plotting one.

Quote:

---

I'd like to see the evidence to back that up apart from ABC News at 10 '0 clock or whatever it is that you watch.

---

You're right. I see a dozen or more terrorist acts a week perpetrated by Muslims. I suppose the news media could be hiding the dozen more that are committed by non-Muslims. Although given the anti-Western pro-Muslim slant of our media I doubt it.

Quote:

---

I am guessing that you don't get listed as a terrorist organisation unless you have committed an atrocity or have been found to be plotting one.

---

Well... yes.

But to the thread topic though...this has been brewing in France for a considerable amount of time. All countries have accepted that the religion and beliefs of the immigrants must be respected. Then, and only then, can we expect them to integrate (not be assimilated) into the society they now live in. The problem with France is that they consider French to be superior and expect the immigrants to change their way of life to suit them. It is like you moving to Japan and being expected to follow Taoism. This was illustrated well when the French banned any kind of religious attire (head-dresses, jewellry etc) which sparked a lot of rows. This is the result. Many people actually BORN in France, with immigrant ancestors are still seen as immigrants by the French, which is wrong.

However, I do not agree with this rioting. People have basically jumped on the band wagon and using it to vent their frustration by attacking the personal property of innocent civilians. If you want to torch someone's car, do it to Chirac's as at least he has some blame to accept

Yes, the religion and beliefs of the immigrants should be respected as long as they don't violate a countries laws or mores.

What does create problems however, is when a large number of immigrants form what is essentially a separate country inside their new adoptive country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

well i'm off to france on the 19th so hopefully it will have all blown over :p

---

I'm glad I won't be the only one who's killed. I'm going there on the 21st.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I'd like to see the evidence to back that up apart from ABC News at 10 '0 clock or whatever it is that you watch.

---

So would I!

In America, it has become chic to blame terrorism on Muslims. In fact, if you look at the last decade, there have been two acts of terrorism in America by muslims, while there have been two.....or many more....acts of terrorism by white conservatives. The actual count comes down to how you define terrorism.

Two acts by muslims:
WTC bombing #1
9/11

Definite terrorist attacks by white conservatives:
Oklahoma City
Atlanta Olympic Bombing.

Possible terrorist attacks by other groups:
Unibomber (white leftist/anarchist...or something like that)
Mr. Anthrax (unknown perp)
DC Sniper (black, unknown politics)
Ohio Sniper (white, unknown politics)
Columbine (white nihilistic)
Other school shootings (white various politics)
ELF actions (mostly white, eco-terrorism)
KKK actions (white, mostly conservative)
Aryan Nations actions (white, ultra-conservative)


Now, I realize that this is US only, but if you look world-wide, terrorism flares and dies at various times. Eta, NRA, various german groups that I can't spell, etc. have all done their acts at different times. There are some ascendant muslim groups now, but in the long run, they are just one piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

I'm glad I won't be the only one who's killed. I'm going there on the 21st.

---

where abouts? i'll be in bordeux!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

So would I!

In America, it has become chic to blame terrorism on Muslims. In fact, if you look at the last decade, there have been two acts of terrorism in America by muslims, while there have been two.....or many more....acts of terrorism by white conservatives. The actual count comes down to how you define terrorism.

Two acts by muslims:
WTC bombing #1
9/11

Definite terrorist attacks by white conservatives:
Oklahoma City
Atlanta Olympic Bombing.

Possible terrorist attacks by other groups:
Unibomber (white leftist/anarchist...or something like that)
Mr. Anthrax (unknown perp)
DC Sniper (black, unknown politics)
Ohio Sniper (white, unknown politics)
Columbine (white nihilistic)
Other school shootings (white various politics)
ELF actions (mostly white, eco-terrorism)
KKK actions (white, mostly conservative)
Aryan Nations actions (white, ultra-conservative)


Now, I realize that this is US only, but if you look world-wide, terrorism flares and dies at various times. Eta, NRA, various german groups that I can't spell, etc. have all done their acts at different times. There are some ascendant muslim groups now, but in the long run, they are just one piece.

---

some of them listed arnt terrorists just standard crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

some of them listed arnt terrorists just standard crimes.

---

Indeed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

So would I!

In America, it has become chic to blame terrorism on Muslims.

---

What a curious assessment.

November 1979 - Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people.

Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut. 241 US servicemen are killed.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy in Beirut

April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed

Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured.

November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500 servicemen.

August 7, 1998 - simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. They kill 224.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on October 12, 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors.

Sept 11, 2001 - The official Sept. 11 death toll from New York City, the Pentagon and other sources is now 2,976.


Chic indeed.

What I see is terrorism in different guises, which cannot be grouped together. You'll have mind games, suicide missions, wars, bombings and did I mention mind games?

Why do you bother to compare. That's just plain ignorant.

Btw, a bomb blast in Amman: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me....ap/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

some of them listed arnt terrorists just standard crimes.

---

It all depends on how you define terrorism. I haven't heard a very good definition, but I have heard definitions that would include all of the listed events. I care very little what they are called, since I feel that terrorism is a word that is being used for political ends without sound justification. Words have a way of being corrupted in that fashion, so in this case, I think a solid definition should be agreed upon.

If terrorism is an act of violence intended to instill fear into a group of people and thereby influence their behavior, everything I listed is terrorism. Of that group, only the DC snipers may not have been attempting to instill fear. They may have been just out killing people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

What a curious assessment.

November 1979 - Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people.

Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut. 241 US servicemen are killed.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy in Beirut

April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed

Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured.

November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500 servicemen.

August 7, 1998 - simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. They kill 224.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on October 12, 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors.

Sept 11, 2001 - The official Sept. 11 death toll from New York City, the Pentagon and other sources is now 2,976.


Chic indeed.

---

Yes, chic indeed. Here's the statement I find most telling:

Quote:

---

The terrorists then shift their tactics ...

---

All of them? The IRA, Eta, PETA, ELF, KKK, etc? No, just muslims. In fact, some of the groups you lumped together aren't even on speaking terms with each other. The common factor is that they have muslim origins. That is not an exhaustive list of attacks against Americans abroad, in fact, it isn't even an exhaustive list of attacks against Americans by muslims. However, you left out attacks by other groups against Americans abroad, you left out attacks by other groups against Americans domestically, and you lumped together different factions of a broad faith. That would be sort of like lumping Catholics and Protestant terrorist acts together as Christian terrorism, something that the Irish might take exception to (or they might not).

By reciting a series of events conducted by one group, while ignoring similar actions taken by other groups, you support the argument that the one group is more dangerous. This is misleading.

Quote:

---

By reciting a series of events conducted by one group, while ignoring similar actions taken by other groups, you support the argument that the one group is more dangerous. This is misleading.

---

What other group? what other terrorist attacks?

There were some other definitions but i thought this one was the best.

Definitions of Terrorist on the Web:

* One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

That is not an exhaustive list of attacks against Americans abroad, in fact, it isn't even an exhaustive list of attacks against Americans by muslims. However, you left out attacks by other groups against Americans abroad, you left out attacks by other groups against Americans domestically, and you lumped together different factions of a broad faith.

---

Care to enlighten me?

Putting America aside (just for a minute) let's take a look at the UK. How many UK deaths are attributed to acts of terrorism committed by Muslims (al Qaida), and how many do you think have been killed by Christians (IRA)? The mathematics here don't add up to justify the claim that's being made here.

There is a difference, however, but I don't see it expressed here.

There is some sort of comfort in dealing with the IRA; they have a claim that is negoitable, a claim that enables politics and terrorism to get round a table and resolve the issues. This is a form of appeasement, and it's working. The IRA are disbanding, and the violence is now receding. Whether it lasts is something we'll see in time . . .

The difference with Bin Laden's crew is that he will only stop once he's the leader of a global muslim state. We all know that isn't going to happen, there is no negotiation, or rationalisation that we can do.

This makes it all highly convenient. This means we can go to war on sketchy grounds. This means we can erode freedoms (although I see that the UK parliament have stood the ground for the common-man and voted 'no' last night) This means all those lunatics who love to exercise authority and power will draw more power to the state under the guise of 'security' and of 'safety' and of 'protection'

We, as secular states, should hold the higher moral ground. We should embrace our freedoms that we believe in; we should not erode them on the basis of erroneous claims of Muslim terrorist activities. We should not shoot to kill; we should respect self-determination of foreign states; we should hold what we have dearly and treasure it, look after it.

The chances of being killed by a terrorist act are about the same as being hit by a meteorite; I don't see anyone calling for a big roof over the world to protect us from that.

It's time for rational thought not reactionary politic. Let's leave the bigotry, and the hatred at the door shall we?

A good point there yrywddfa.
To the others do not lay the blame of terrorism at the doors of Muslims, they just happen to get the most media attention. Yrywddfa has made a good point in saying that these extremsists cannot be negotiated with. How can you negotiate with someone who will likely strap C4 to his genitals to make a point?

The big question is though, how can Al-Qaeda be stopped? I greatly fear that Bush will get his hands on Bin Laden and make a martyr of him. NOT a good idea.

As for paris (as once again we are diverting from the topic) this could go on for some time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

Care to enlighten me?

---

I'm hardly an expert, but a few that come to mind: Shining Path, a few non-name brand narco-terrorist groups allied with drug cartels in a variety of central and south American countries, that rebel group in the Philipines (whatever their name was). Not very enlightening, I suppose. I'm not even sure if some of those groups have names. They do fit Space_Monkey's terrorism definition, though.

Quote:

---

Let's leave the bigotry, and the hatred at the door shall we?

---

I hope you are talking to the Muslim extremists who teach their children to hate anyone who is not of their faith.

13% of British Muslims approve of terrorism and 1% engaged in terrorist activity at home or abroad. That is about 16,000 Muslims. This is according to a 2004 Home Office Survey.

Earlier German studies showed that a quarter of Muslim school students are ready to use violence on behalf of Islam, the "religion of peace".

Rather than face this reality, many in the west spout such politically correct platitudes.

Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

I hope you are talking to the Muslim extremists who teach their children to hate anyone who is not of their faith.

13% of British Muslims approve of terrorism and 1% engaged in terrorist activity at home or abroad. That is about 16,000 Muslims. This is according to a 2004 Home Office Survey.

Earlier German studies showed that a quarter of Muslim school students are ready to use violence on behalf of Islam, the "religion of peace".

Rather than face this reality, many in the west spout such politically correct platitudes.

---

Why?

After all, there are Christian sects that are similar, but in general, Christianity has moved somewhat away from violence in the name of peace (or at least it seems that way to me, when compared to times like the Inquisition)....well, maybe the Irish wouldn't agree with that statement, nor some of the African nations.

In any event, we all know that there are plenty of members of any faith who do not partake of violence against other beliefs. What is different about the violent sects of Islam? Since most suicide bombers are not drawn from the lower class, poverty can't be the driving force. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated, so lack of education can't drive it. What does?

We should find out. The US seems to be experiencing an upswing in christian alienation, by which I mean that there seem to be increasing numbers of christians in this country who are attempting to divide the population along strict beliefs. One example of this would be the recent KS decision to deprecate the teaching of evolution in schools. The goal there is religious indoctrination. While it isn't violent, what is the line that divides one form of indoctrination from a more violent, virulent form?

Quote:

---

After all, there are Christian sects that are similar, but in general, Christianity has moved somewhat away from violence in the name of peace (or at least it seems that way to me, when compared to times like the Inquisition)

---

Not to mention the Crusades.

This is the point. Other religions have come into the 21st century as peaceful religions, but the Muslim religion seems to be stuck in a past of violence. As such they have to be treated differently than the more peaceful groups

Quote:

---

One example of this would be the recent KS decision to deprecate the teaching of evolution in schools. The goal there is religious indoctrination.

---

Don't remind me. What a bunch of morons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Not to mention the Crusades.

---

Actually secular politics is much much more violent - if you measure violence in fatalities: Top 20 bloodiest events, with the Crusades coming in about 1.25M dead (from another source) In fact some sources estimate 2M dead from American slavery alone, 20M dead from the annihilation of American Indians.

If you choose your beliefs by the lack of violence you are certainly not going to choose secularism.

I guess you could say that "we're enlightened now" and we're "teaching the world the road to peace and harmony"

This is unfortunately the premise that was the cause of most of the top 20 most bloodiest events.

Unfortunately the with the increasing efficiency of technology it has become easier and easier to kill another. As for how this will stop? I don't think it can be, there will always be elements in the population that want things given to them on a plate, and others that consider themselves superior so tension between various groups is inevitable. Such is the way of humans trying to discern our place in the world

There will be plenty of people out to change the world, or die trying, too. Those may be the most dangerous types, as there is no effective deterrent to somebody who is REALLY willing to die. What do you do with them, gve them life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

What I don't think is a good idea is to bring a large number of immigrants into a country without assimilating them.

---

I missed this.

The French actually believe in assimiliation and it's prevalent in their politics. They do not believe in multiculturalism.

What has really infuriated me is they want funding from the EU to pay for it!!

. . . they already have the funding from the EU to pay for it.

Quote:

---

The French actually believe in assimiliation and it's prevalent in their politics.

---

That may be what they believe, but for some reason it is not happening.

I agree.

I think assimiliation will never work.

If you do not wish for people of other nations to live in your country then you should close your borders.

The only other option is multiculturalism.

Quote:

---

I think assimiliation will never work.

---

It worked very well in this country around the turn of the last century when immigration peaked at about 9 million per decade; a rate we easily surpass today. Today the immigrants are less willing to assimilate and we are less willing to require them to do so. And I think that the problems in France are just one indication that that is not a good thing to let happen.

You have a good point there. However, times have changed. People are now far more aware of their rights, and their priveleges, and are far more willing to undertake the necessary to uphold them

Rather like arming bears . . . ;)

Assimilation works best if it is forced on people. That's not such a happy thought, but consider that the folks who don't assimilate into American culture often do so because they don't NEED to. As long as you have enclaves of a different culture, there is a place for a person to go where they don't need to assimilate in any way.

For instance, why learn English if there are parts of Miami where it isn't spoken? Not only does it do someone in that area little good, but they need to be able to speak cuban spanish to be able to communicate. A situation like that actually works against assimilation, because the assimilated individual may be less able to exist in the community they are in.

It may be that if you were to put a small drop of one group into a large pool, it assimilates quite nicely because they need to be able to function in the community. However, once immigration of one group rises to a certain level, the immigrant community can provide all the services to the new arrival, and there is no longer a pressure for assimilation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Ignorance is power.

---

Ignorance is bliss, not power. And I truly believe that, the more I learn the more I wish I hadn't learnt it, so I tend to ignore it.

So, just because two kids were running from the police and were electrocuted in the process means people can start rioting all over the country? If they were innocent wouldn't they be let away by the police/courts? Or has France gone the US way in detaining people without charges indefinitely?

I also read vehicles are routinely burnt in France? No kidding? Must be an awful place to live in then...

It would be interesting to find out if the root cause of this problem was the inability of the French to induct the migrated population into its mainstream, or there is something fundamentally wrong with the migrated community. Sadly the truth will never come out because it's a political issue now.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

. . . they already have the funding from the EU to pay for it.

---

No way!! :eek:
This proves that the EU is just for France and Germany :mad:

Quote:

---

Assimilation works best if it is forced on people. That's not such a happy thought, but...

---

Shaggy! You're sounding more and more like a conservative.

Quote:

---

This proves that the EU is just for France and Germany

---

Ha.. this has always been interchangable in conversation - EU / France and Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Shaggy! You're sounding more and more like a conservative.

---

OUCH!!!

However, there once was a time when that was respectable.

I hadn't heard that cars were routinely burnt in France, why couldn't they be civilized....like this country.....



.....where cars are routinely....put up on blocks in Kentucky.

Or like India - then honeybee would be happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Ignorance is bliss, not power. And I truly believe that, the more I learn the more I wish I hadn't learnt it, so I tend to ignore it.

So, just because two kids were running from the police and were electrocuted in the process means people can start rioting all over the country? If they were innocent wouldn't they be let away by the police/courts? Or has France gone the US way in detaining people without charges indefinitely?

I also read vehicles are routinely burnt in France? No kidding? Must be an awful place to live in then...

It would be interesting to find out if the root cause of this problem was the inability of the French to induct the migrated population into its mainstream, or there is something fundamentally wrong with the migrated community. Sadly the truth will never come out because it's a political issue now.

.

---

They wernt electrocuted i.e tazered by police I think they were killed hiding in a sub station or something!

Indeed they were. Supposedly they fled the police into an electricity substation and was promptly electrocuted. The rioters simply used this tragic incident as an excuse to start some trouble. Pathetic :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FishGuy

They wernt electrocuted i.e tazered by police I think they were killed hiding in a sub station or something!

---

I didn't say they were electrocuted by the police, I just said they were electrocuted.

Well, if they were innocent, why were they running from the police? And if the police chased them on some suspicion and the suspects died during the chase, how does the blame fall on the police?

And does France have a practice of burning vehicles as reported in news?

.

Indeed honeybee. Imagine the situation:

The police speak to the two youths who instantly make a run for it. The police don't know why they are running but it's obvious it's something highly suspect. The youths run into a substation and are electrocuted. I blame the rioters as the police were obviously just doing their job and were not responsible for the accident.

Burning vehicles? Supposedly it's pretty common but not on this scale. I think it would normally be quite common in most cities with poor suburbs :(