Well, first it was France, now it's Denmark. Once again these mysterious "youths" are out rioting and burning cars. You know, there are plenty of youths in my home town. Should I be worried? Is there some virus spreading thru the "youth" culture?
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Bands of youths set fire to cars, buses and schools in Denmark on Saturday, the seventh night of rioting and vandalism in the capital Copenhagen and other Danish cities, police said on Sunday.

Four youths were arrested in the capital for suspected arson and at least 24 fires were reported across the country. Several youths were detained in Denmark's second city Aarhus in Jutland, and in Odense on Funen island.

"It is some of the same groups that have roamed the city for the last couple of nights," police operations leader Preben Jorgensen told Reuters while inspecting fire damage at Tingbjerg School in the outskirts of Copenhagen.

Hundreds of cars and a number of schools have been vandalised or burned in the past week. Police could give no reason, but said unusually mild weather and the closure of schools for a winter break might have contributed.

Authorities have arrested dozens of youths, predominantly with immigrant backgrounds.

Police said that Saturday night was calmer than earlier in the week.

Social workers said an alleged plot to kill a Danish cartoonist for his drawing two years ago of the Prophet Mohammad might have fuelled the riots. Danish newspapers reprinted the cartoon on Wednesday in protest against the plot.

Ten Danish lawmakers cancelled a four-day trip to Iran on Saturday, two days before their departure, after Iranian protests about the republication of the cartoon.

The Danish Foreign Ministry said parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee dropped the trip after the Iranian parliament demanded an apology because Danish newspapers had reprinted the cartoon, one of several whose publication two years ago caused outrage in Islamic countries.

Most Muslims consider depictions of the Prophet Mohammad offensive.

Authorities arrested two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan descent on Tuesday for planning to kill the cartoonist, and 15 Danish newspapers reprinted his drawing on Wednesday in protest against the alleged murder plot. http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-31995320080217?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Oh, it turns out "youth' is just a way of not saying Muslim. So I guess my town should be fine.

well...who let the dogs out? woof woof woof woof...Why did these countries let these guys inside their country ?

Its good to see the immigrants absorbing the Danish values of free expression. Good show.

Its good to see the immigrants absorbing the Danish values of free expression. Good show.

if riots are free expressions than jihad is free expression too

well...who let the dogs out? woof woof woof woof...Why did these countries let these guys inside their country ?
Maybe they figured the greater the number of people practicing the "religion of peace" in their country, the more peaceful their country would become!

That would certainly explain why they refused to publish cartoons of Jesus, but published and now republished caricatures of Mohammed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/06/pressandpublishing.politics

thing is, the ones making riots are the youth...so they have not been exposed to Islam as much, therefore they do not understand Koran fully.

Doesn't matter. They are immigrants, from a culture that holds religion sacred. And are being spat in the face. Like anyone else in the same position, but significantly in a more powerless position, they are offending their offenders.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/danish_cartoons_again_if_at_first_you_dont_succeed/0015714

Doesn't matter. They are immigrants, from a culture that holds religion sacred. And are being spat in the face. Like anyone else in the same position, but significantly in a more powerless position, they are offending their offenders.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/danish_cartoons_again_if_at_first_you_dont_succeed/0015714

but are their offenses not against their own religion they hold so sacred?

but are their offenses not against their own religion they hold so sacred?

Uh please, do you think anyone cares about that?

Could they expect this?

This past July Spanish police carried out raids to remove cartoons that were considered offensive to the Spanish Royal family - “Spanish police were ordered to raid newsagents across the country yesterday to remove copies of a satirical magazine deemed to have offended the country’s royal family by publishing a cartoon of the heir to the throne having sex. The cartoon on the front cover of El Jueves magazine showed Crown Prince Felipe and his wife Letizia in the midst of an ardent session of love-making.”

Also in July - “Israel’s ambassador to Norway has complained to press regulators about a cartoon showing Israeli PM Ehud Olmert as a Nazi concentration camp commander.” and further said this cartoon goes beyond the bounds of free speech.

In September, The Catholic League demanded an apology from The Cavalier Daily, the University of Virginia’s student newspaper for cartoons that it considered anti-Christian cartoons.

In April of 2006 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Pasadena, California school’s decision that a student could not wear a t-shirt that said, “I will not accept what God has condemned” and “Homosexuality is shameful - Romans 1:27” because this violated the rights of gay and lesbian students at the school.

In 1988 “… an Austrian court acting on a complaint submitted by the Catholic diocese of Innsbruck had prohibited the Otto Preminger Institut from showing the film The Council of Love, based on Oskar Panizza’s controversial (and allegedly strongly anti-Catholic) theater play. The judges referred to article 108 of the Austrian Penal Code banning “religious denigration.” In 1994, to the profound dismay of free speech defenders, the sentence was endorsed by the European Court of Human Rights, relying on a provision of the European Convention on the “rights of others.” The ECHR has tended indeed to show far more deference to state interference in freedom of expression where the speech has a religious or moral content than is the case with political or other forms of speech.

“The Life of Brian” a Monty Python film was objected to by both Jews and Christians, and was banned in many communities in Britain.

Pepsi was forced by a boycott and protests to discontinue an ad featuring a video of Madonna singing “Like a Prayer”.

Members of the Harvest Assembly of God Church in Penn Township burned books, videos and CDs that they judged “offensive to their God.”

Christian groups across the U.S. protested a film about the life of sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey, and sought “legislation and will punish sponsors of lewd entertainment.”

Christians in Pakistan protested what they considered “blasphemous” remarks made about Jesus in a newspaper review of the book the “Da Vinci Code”. They demanded that the newspaper be closed, for which they threatened protests outside the Lahore Press Club and other important places.

Christians in the U.S. filed lawsuits, promoted boycotts and launched campaigns aimed at restoring references to Christ in seasonal celebrations.

Hindus demanded withdrawal of a British “Christmas” postage stamp they found insulting to their religion.

45,000 complaints came in, and there were demonstrations in London when the BBC aired a program “Jerry Springer: the Opera” considered “blasphemous” by many Christians. Christian lawyers were contacted, to consider whether it was possible to prosecute the BBC under the Common Blasphemy Law, last used in 1977.

Parents at a Colorado school objected to a library book and got permission to hold a book burning.

Christians protested the change from B.C. to B.C.E. as they saw it as an attack on Christianity.

Christian groups protested a music video by Jessica Simpson that they considered indecent.

Catholic Nuns protested outside of the set for the “Da Vinci Code” film.

Christian groups protested “civil unions” for gays.

Nearly a thousand Catholics gathered and prayed in front of Santa Fe’s Museum of International Folk Art to express their outrage at an exhibit they considered blasphemous.

Catholics protested “blasphemy” in a California art display.

Currently Hindu Americans are protesting against the portrayal of Hinduism in school textbooks in California. The textbooks “call Hanuman, a god worshipped for his loyalty and protection, the “monkey king.” One exercise tells students that Hanuman loved Rama (a Hindu god) so much that some believe he appears every time the Ramayana (ancient Sanskrit epic) is read. “So look around — see any monkeys?” the passage taunts.”

A cartoon that appeared in an American newspaper using the Star of David (a symbol of Judaism, not of Zionism) in a political cartoon was objected to as being an echo of Nazism and anti-Semitic.

Two senior BBC executives, directly involved in the broadcast of “Jerry Springer: the Opera” were provided special security by the corporation following “threatening’’ calls after their telephone numbers were posted on the website of a Christian group, leading the protest. Security was also tightened at a Central London theater showing the opera.

a cartoon published in a University of Oregon student newspaper, The Insurgent, “ ... has angered students, local Catholic organizations and now involves national cable TV commentator Bill O’Reilly. Many say the cartoons in the March issue overstep the First Amendment and want university President Dave Frohnmayer to step in. The conservative O’Reilly says Frohnmayer is a coward who should be fired and that the issue is one of hate, not free speech.”

In response to an art exhibit in New Mexico that was considered blasphemous by Catholics, the Mexican Cardinal Carrera wrote: “We cannot keep silent nor be indifferent before such a monstrous attack on the religious convictions and sentiments of our Mexican people who are mostly Catholic. It seems to us to be deeply lamented that in the name of culture and freedom in your country, our culture should be attacked at its very root.”

In March 2004 over a thousand Orthodox Christians gathered in central Moscow’s Pushkin Square to protest the building of a Hare Krishna temple on the northwestern outskirts of the city. The group said that they were protesting because the Hare Krishna faith was not “traditionally Russian”. The organizers also gathered 20,000 signatures on a petition not to allow the building of the temple.

Uh please, do you think anyone cares about that?

Could they expect this?


In March 2004 over a thousand Orthodox Christians gathered in central Moscow’s Pushkin Square to protest the building of a Hare Krishna temple on the northwestern outskirts of the city. The group said that they were protesting because the Hare Krishna faith was not “traditionally Russian”. The organizers also gathered 20,000 signatures on a petition not to allow the building of the temple.

well that's not right...Moscow already has a Muslim church as well as Jewish synagogues...so Krishna wouldn't hurt. Anyways the protest was peaceful.

I would say the muslim youth reaction is way excessive there.

well that's not right...Moscow already has a Muslim church as well as Jewish synagogues...so Krishna wouldn't hurt. Anyways the protest was peaceful.

I would say the muslim youth reaction is way excessive there.

I wonder why?:rolleyes:

I wonder why?:rolleyes:

ummm...no idea. :confused: the only thoughts coming to mind are: a) when muslim youth read Koran they misunderstood it b) muslim youth have more testosterone

Maybe you could explain why they refused to publish cartoons lampooning Jesus but not Mohammed?

Maybe you could explain why they refused to publish cartoons lampooning Jesus but not Mohammed?

wait...who refused, exactly? And what did they refuse? :bugeye:

wait...who refused, exactly? And what did they refuse? :bugeye:

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.

The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

The illustrator said: "I see the cartoons as an innocent joke, of the type that my Christian grandfather would enjoy."

"I showed them to a few pastors and they thought they were funny."

But the Jyllands-Posten editor in question, Mr Kaiser, said that the case was "ridiculous to bring forward now. It has nothing to do with the Muhammad cartoons.

"In the Muhammad drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons. That's the difference," he said.

"The illustrator thought his cartoons were funny. I did not think so. It would offend some readers, not much but some."

---

well for me answering hate with hate is wrong, so what muslim youth are doing is wrong and those cartoons are wrong to. However the official country view of all this should be to protect the freedom of the press, unless it evokes racial tension, religious tension, or cultural tension.

I have no objections to the cartoons, its the hypocrisy that I cannot stand.

Don't they have religious discrimination laws in Denmark?

I have no objections to the cartoons, its the hypocrisy that I cannot stand.

Don't they have religious discrimination laws in Denmark?

it seems they don't or they don't enforce them.

the Danish national guard should get creative with some Free Expression (TM) of their own

---

Can you imagine Monty Python's Life of Omar being shown om tv in the ME ?

Can you imagine Monty Python's Life of Omar being shown om tv in the ME ?

Considering Monty Python was banned in some places in the UK, does it matter?

the Danish national guard should get creative with some Free Expression (TM) of their own

Would you care to give the same advice to Palestinians? I believe some immigrants are being resistant to assimilation in their land as well.

Maybe you could explain why they refused to publish cartoons lampooning Jesus but not Mohammed?
Do you think Christian "youths" would have rioted if the Jesus cartoons had been published? Here in the US, an "artist"created an exhibit called "piss christ". People protested it, but there was no rioting, no burning of cars, no one was killed.

Why do Muslims erupt into violence over such trivial crap?

Do you think Christian "youths" would have rioted if the Jesus cartoons had been published? Here in the US, an "artist"created an exhibit called "piss christ". People protested it, but there was no rioting, no burning of cars, no one was killed.

Why do Muslims erupt into violence over such trivial crap?

Probably because they are treated differently.

And you're currently occupying two countries you have completely destroyed, killing millions in the process. So I'd say you're a fine one to talk of erupting into violence.

And if the Christians are so hunky dory why did they not publish the Jesus cartoons. And knowing how Muslims feel about the Prophet, why publish the Mohammed cartoons? Same newspaper, same country, so whats the difference?

And if the Christians are so hunky dory why did they not publish the Jesus cartoons. And knowing how Muslims feel about the Prophet, why publish the Mohammed cartoons? Same newspaper, same country, so whats the difference?
It doesn't matter that, in this particular instance, some Jesus cartoon wasn't published. Big deal. Cartoons do not justify violence. If Muslims want ot live in the West, they need to behave like adults. If they want to live in a country that follows all of their religious rules, they should stay in Muslim countries.

The Amish, for instancec have all kind of crazy rules in their religion. But you never see them rioting because the rest of society doesn't follow their rules!

It doesn't matter that, in this particular instance, some Jesus cartoon wasn't published. Big deal. Cartoons do not justify violence. If Muslims want ot live in the West, they need to behave like adults. If they want to live in a country that follows all of their religious rules, they should stay in Muslim countries.

The Amish, for instancec have all kind of crazy rules in their religion. But you never see them rioting because the rest of society doesn't follow their rules!

So why refuse to publish the Jesus cartoons and yet publish the Mohammed ones?

Would you care to give the same advice to Palestinians? I believe some immigrants are being resistant to assimilation in their land as well.

i keep giving you advice, and you keep not taking it.

SEEK PROFESSIONAL TREATMENT FOR YOUR OCD! (btw, 400 posts in 2 days is pretty impressive!)

Well SAM has been on here for the past 24 hours without a break. She is also a Scientist.:rolleyes: er, nutritionist.

Well SAM has been on here for the past 24 hours without a break. She is also a Scientist.:rolleyes: er, nutritionist.

a scientist is that special kind of person who is able to go the extra mile.
24 hours with no break? pfft.
try 24 days on sci with out sleep, and still not losing her job. now THAT is pure charisma.

Considering Monty Python was banned in some places in the UK, does it matter?

I have seen it twice on national telvision. No ban; difficilt to believe, ? I know, but that's what we call freedom of speech. No one would object is someone made Fred, the life of an atheist. That's the difference.

We have some wacky people but not as many as you have per capita of the popuation.

I have seen it twice on national telvision. No ban; difficilt to believe, ? I know, but that's what we call freedom of speech. No one would object is someone made Fred, the life of an atheist. That's the difference.

We have some wacky people but not as many as you have per capita of the popuation.

It was banned. Look it up, Life of Brian I think. Anyway, the point is that freedom of expression is imposed on Muslims, deliberately and provocatively, but seems to be pretty flexible when other groups are targeted.
Its pretty obvious that the motive is to provoke those who are already disenfranchised.

Doesn't matter. They are immigrants, from a culture that holds religion sacred. And are being spat in the face. Like anyone else in the same position, but significantly in a more powerless position, they are offending their offenders.Immigrants who are given a haven in someone else's country have an obligation to assimilate to the host culture, to whatever extent is necessary to coexist peacefully. If you voluntarily choose to live in a country where you know religion is not treated with the respect you're used to, you have exactly two choices:Shut up and get with the program; Go back to the theocratic paradise you came from.Maybe you could explain why they refused to publish cartoons lampooning Jesus but not Mohammed?That's shitty. In the U.S. we lampoon everybody. We believe in equal opportunity. :)

In general Europeans have made far more progress than we have in freeing themselves from the Stone Age tribal constraints of religion. Then they do something anomalous like this, allowing disrespect only of foreign religions. How inexcusably tribal of them.

As for use of the word "youths" rather than identifying them by nationality or religion, France does the same thing. It is in fact illegal in France to keep track of anyone's religion or ethnicity. I only go along with that sentiment part way. I think it's time we stopped identifying people by the color of their skin. It's something they had nothing to do with and can't change. But people can decide which culture (if any) they want to identify with and which religion (if any) they want to practice. If someone chooses to practice Islam in a country where the vast majority of people are Christian (and that in name only), or if somebody chooses to identify himself culturally as Latin American in a country with a northern European culture, I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging it.

Immigrants who are given a haven in someone else's country have an obligation to assimilate to the host culture, to whatever extent is necessary to coexist peacefully. If you voluntarily choose to live in a country where you know religion is not treated with the respect you're used to, you have exactly two choices:Shut up and get with the program; Go back to the theocratic paradise you came from.

You should tell that to the native Americans. The US has yet to sign the UN resolution on indigenous rights, fuggedabout assmilating with the host culture.


That's shitty. In the U.S. we lampoon everybody. We believe in equal opportunity. :)

In general Europeans have made far more progress than we have in freeing themselves from the Stone Age tribal constraints of religion. Then they do something anomalous like this, allowing disrespect only of foreign religions. How inexcusably tribal of them.

Isn't it? Shows that the apple hasn't fallen all that far from the tree.

i keep giving you advice, and you keep not taking it.

SEEK PROFESSIONAL TREATMENT FOR YOUR OCD! (btw, 400 posts in 2 days is pretty impressive!)

I think the manic cycles are affecting her judgment. She's gotten to the point where being off be three or four decimal places on a statistic doesn't even seem to catch her attention. Did you ever see the movie Rainman? He thought a car, and a candy bar both cost "bout a hundred dollars". SAM is there.

In general Europeans have made far more progress than we have in freeing themselves from the Stone Age tribal constraints of religion. Then they do something anomalous like this, allowing disrespect only of foreign religions. How inexcusably tribal of them.

Did you base that on any form of reality?:shrug:

The only thing i can thinl where you may be getting that idea is the Jesus cartoon mentioned in this thread. Did you ever think that maybe it was just not very good?

these riots show one thing, and one thing only: that these "youths" feel comfortable enough to be burning European cities with impudence and with out fear. had they actually been discriminated against and abused they would leave or put up with it quietly for fear of that abuse. just as other minority have had to do all over history when faced with real discrimination and abuses.

examples:
* black slaves in the US ran away from the US to Canada
* Jews ran away from Germany
* Zoroastrian Parsees ran away from Persia to India
* countless other examples

i'm not sure about the Parsees, but i am sure about the blacks and Jews cases - there was no violent backlashes (except the ghetto uprisings but that was because Jews weren't allowed to leave.

these "youths" are free to leave or take their cases to court. but they burn anything in their way, issue belligerant and aggressive statements with no shame, and STILL more and more come to Europe every day.

maybe what they need is some real discrimination

I think the manic cycles are affecting her judgment. She's gotten to the point where being off be three or four decimal places on a statistic doesn't even seem to catch her attention. Did you ever see the movie Rainman? He thought a car, and a candy bar both cost "bout a hundred dollars". SAM is there.

are you suggesting SAM is as smart as Rainman?
she ain't even as smart as Dustin Hoffman, who's an actor and not a mathematician

these riots show one thing, and one thing only: that these "youths" feel comfortable enough to be burning European cities with impudence and with out fear. had they actually been discriminated against and abused they would leave or put up with it quietly for fear of that abuse. just as other minority have had to do all over history when faced with real discrimination and abuses.

examples:
* black slaves in the US ran away from the US to Canada
* Jews ran away from Germany
* Zoroastrian Parsees ran away from Persia to India
* countless other examples

i'm not sure about the Parsees, but i am sure about the blacks and Jews cases - there was no violent backlashes (except the ghetto uprisings but that was because Jews weren't allowed to leave.

these "youths" are free to leave or take their cases to court. but they burn anything in their way, issue belligerant and aggressive statements with no shame, and STILL more and more come to Europe every day.

maybe what they need is some real discrimination


Hmm so the fact that Israelis are imposing themselves on Palestinians shows that they need more discrimination?

Interesting theory.

How do you suggest the Palestinians really discriminate against the Israelis to show them they mean business?

dude i'm not even taking you seriously. why don't you see a professional psychiatrist... you seem to be stuck on something that dominates every part of your life...

Some immigrants being more equal than others I suppose.

SAM, before Fraggle took the obligatory swipe at Christians he was absolutely correct. When you decide to live in a new country you respect their laws or dont go there. No one asks anyone to emigrate to their country.

'Please, please come live here'[??????]

Some immigrants being more equal than others I suppose.

agreed.

some immigrants burn and riot their "grievances" away, while others do it the civilized way.

SAM, before Fraggle took the obligatory swipe at Christians he was absolutely correct. When you decide to live in a new country you respect their laws or dont go there. No one asks anyone to emigrate to their country.

'Please, please come live here'[??????]

ktal�nixsi h�ch

Can you decipher that?

agreed.

some immigrants burn and riot their "grievances" away, while others do it the civilized way.

Uh, by enclosing natives in walls, depriving them of food and fuel and bombing them with missiles, while snipering their kids. All the while insisting that its their religious state but a secular one where only a demographically non-threatening number of natives are permitted to live.

So thats what the Muslim immigrants should be doing?:confused:

Can you decipher that?

Its Lenape. I assumed you were assimilated enough to figure it out.

Uh, by enclosing natives in walls, depriving them of food and fuel and bombing them with missiles, while snipering their kids. All the while insisting that its their religious state but a secular one where only a demographically non-threatening number of natives are permitted to live.

So thats what the Muslim immigrants should be doing?:confused:

speaking of natives... First Nations tribes in Canada (and probably the US) are in an absolutely terrible shape. i haven't heard of a single incident of violence by them other than rare demonstrations.

speaking of natives... First Nations tribes in Canada (and probably the US) are in an absolutely terrible shape. i haven't heard of a single incident of violence by them other than rare demonstrations.

Did you miss the first 200 years when they were fighting? Guess the Europeans will eventually give up too, huh?

Did you miss the first 200 years when they were fighting? Guess the Europeans will eventually give up too, huh?

did you miss the fact there was war, and that now there isn't?

jeezus how the hell did you get hired? i'm surprised you can tie your shoelaces without injuring yourself. please see a psychiatrist ASAP!
and eat lots of fish. it does the greymatter good!

You dont hear about them because youve destroyed them so much they cant do anything. And are you trying to justifiy the mass-slaughter of the natives?

???
welcome to Sci, SAM's little brother

Nice to be here, little ignorant fascist

LOL
it's a complement to be called a fascist by SAM's little bro

Your welcome

Uh, by enclosing natives in walls, depriving them of food and fuel and bombing them with missiles, while snipering their kids. All the while insisting that its their religious state but a secular one where only a demographically non-threatening number of natives are permitted to live.

I'm sorry: is this what Denmark has been doing to them?

Doesn't matter. They are immigrants, from a culture that holds religion sacred. And are being spat in the face. Like anyone else in the same position, but significantly in a more powerless position, they are offending their offenders.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/danish_cartoons_again_if_at_first_you_dont_succeed/0015714

You seem to be fine with that only so long as it's not Jewish people doing it.

Uh, by enclosing natives in walls, depriving them of food and fuel and bombing them with missiles, while snipering their kids. All the while insisting that its their religious state but a secular one where only a demographically non-threatening number of natives are permitted to live.

So thats what the Muslim immigrants should be doing?:confused:Why can't you stay on topic? We're discussing the behavior of immigrants in Europe, not the treatment of minorities in Israel. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Nor does the treatment of Indians in the US hundreds of years ago.

madanthonywayne: "We're discussing the behavior of immigrants in Europe, not the treatment of minorities in Israel."

Yeah, how dare you associate ethnic strife in Europe with Israel? Friends of Israel would never stoop so low as to suggest any such connection. For shame, Anti-Semite!

People are tense about their religion when they perceive it to be under attack. and perceive we do.

P.S. Nice Post Hyper :D....

nice tangent there, waders.
though it doesn't excuse the barbaric begging-for-a-batton-in-the-face fire-starting "youths" from Denmark
For shame, Anti-Semite! on you, and your tangent.

"For shame, Anti-Semite! on you, and your tangent."

:spank:

madanthonywayne: "We're discussing the behavior of immigrants in Europe, not the treatment of minorities in Israel."

Yeah, how dare you associate ethnic strife in Europe with Israel? Friends of Israel would never stoop so low as to suggest any such connection. For shame, Anti-Semite!

So...Israel exists...so muslim youths must attack...Danes. Why, you've hit the issue right on the head.

Or wait, not the head: the other end. That's right.

Although anti-Semitic violence is on the vast increase both in N Am and Europe.

All immigrants who don't like it in the country to which they came ought to leave and go back to where they came from. Why did they come to a country that does not seem welcoming to them?

What an odd question. It speaks to logic, reasonability and sense.

On that basis, I imagine it might be ignored. You should try more invective.

We'd prolly have this shit in Kanada, if it wasn't so cold. Thank god for the cold, it often forces people to just get along.

It's also keeps lazy rifraf from coming in sometimes.

But it's cold in Denmark, too. Not as cold as in northernmost regions of Canada, but still quite cold, rainy, snowy, and dreary.

Not Dreary here, maybe that's it.

You should tell that to the native Americans. The US has yet to sign the UN resolution on indigenous rights, fuggedabout assmilating with the host culture.I can't argue with that. Nonetheless as a member of a family that assimilated to American culture I feel the American cultural motif of dismissing complaints about anything that happened before my grandparents were alive. I'm hardly going to use something that happened 150 years ago, when my ancestors were busy being persecuted in another country, to analyze a contemporary situation. By today's standards, just about everybody was jerks back then.Did you base that on any form of reality? The only thing i can think where you may be getting that idea is the Jesus cartoon mentioned in this thread. Did you ever think that maybe it was just not very good?I was just taking the statements in this thread at face value. I assumed that the nation in question only tolerates disrespect for a certain foreign religion because that seems to be what people were implying. I apologize if I was wrong.speaking of natives... First Nations tribes in Canada (and probably the US) are in an absolutely terrible shape. i haven't heard of a single incident of violence by them other than rare demonstrations.The European occupiers did a really thorough job on them. Many tribes have disappeared through assimilation, illness or military violence. Most others have been reduced below the critical mass needed to mount a demonstration, much less an attack. The Cherokee and the Navajo are the only tribes I can think of who still have much power and, each for their own reasons, neither of them is complaining.People are tense about their religion when they perceive it to be under attack. and perceive we do.Then they should probably not choose neighbors who have a reputation for attacking it.

Then they should probably not choose neighbors who have a reputation for attacking it.

LOL I was saying to Shorty's Dad yesterday(he calls it Politiking) about it. He's olde school and has little patience for this B.S about moving to a country and expecting it to conform to you. He was to be put to death by the NAZI's, but they sent him to a punishment camp instead.

Anyway I said, If Germany kicks over the Dutch again, then let the middle east liberate it...

I know a few Canadian WWII vets who lament what has happened to the country they liberated from the NAZIs.

All immigrants who don't like it in the country to which they came ought to leave and go back to where they came from. Why did they come to a country that does not seem welcoming to them?

I agree. Do the native Americans want their country back?

I agree. Do the native Americans want their country back?

What does that have to do with anything. But, in case you really want to know, I don't think they care at this point. Most no longer live by the ways of those years when the land was theirs. That, and their ideas of land ownership....

I can't argue with that. Nonetheless as a member of a family that assimilated to American culture I feel the American cultural motif of dismissing complaints about anything that happened before my grandparents were alive. I'm hardly going to use something that happened 150 years ago, when my ancestors were busy being persecuted in another country, to analyze a contemporary situation. By today's standards, just about everybody was jerks back then..

So you're not ready to recognise the indigenous rights of native Americans either. What a surprise.

Or not. It never ceases to surprise me that the countries that scream the loudest about assimilation of immigrants are themselves colonies of people who destroyed the culture of every land they moved to.

I agree. Do the native Americans want their country back?

lol they never had a "country". Most of them had no concept of "Land ownership". Probably that little lack of innovation - hurt them more than a lack of guns or a lack of cohesion.

I agree. Do the native Americans want their country back?

Some of them do, yes. I think they should be given as much leeway as possible. Is dar-al-islam willing to extend the same leeway to their religious minorities, since we're wandering well off topic?

Saddest thing is, S.A.M. doesn't give two shits about Native Americans, she merely likes to yell about them in random arguments. I don't think Native Americans would've had a better life in, say, Dubai.

Saddest thing is, S.A.M. doesn't give two shits about Native Americans, she merely likes to yell about them in random arguments. I don't think Native Americans would've had a better life in, say, Dubai.

The Mongolians did pretty well for themselves there, so I fail to see the basis of your claims.

Saddest thing is, S.A.M. doesn't give two shits about Native Americans, she merely likes to yell about them in random arguments. I don't think Native Americans would've had a better life in, say, Dubai.

SAM doesn't give a shit about anybody, but herself. She just pretends to care about people and cultures she knows nothing about to distract from the topic at hand.

The Mongolians did pretty well for themselves there, so I fail to see the basis of your claims.

Uh, because they conquered them and were horrifying powerful?

So can you point them out to me?

Nope. Your point being?

Now look at native Americans. Can you point them out?

All immigrants who don't like it in the country to which they came ought to leave and go back to where they came from.


Why?

I was born and raised in Britain, though I love this country there are many things that I do not like (hate) about living here (things I would like changed), should I leave? Do you seriously think you have to love everything about the country in order to stay there, I have White English friends that actually hate and curse England (any Asian heard saying the same thing would be branded a racist) – should they leave too?

Why did they come to a country that does not seem welcoming to them?


Western European Governments are extremely welcoming to all immigrants. Anyway most of these youths would have had zero control over where they were born and raised.

So you're not ready to recognise the indigenous rights of native Americans either.No, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I just don't think anyone has figured out what to do about the problem. The vast majority of tribes in the South Forty-Eight have very nearly lost their identity and there's no way to turn back the clock even if we could agree to do so. With the exception of the Hopi and the Navajo, and perhaps a couple of others in the wide open spaces of the Southwest, virtually all Indians in the South Forty-Eight have already assimilated to American culture and even into its gene pool. They speak English, eat pizza, drive Chevys, live in apartments and have jobs in the mainstream economy. Their children go to our schools and our universities and become more assimilated with every generation. With the exception of the Navajo, the Tohono O'odham ("Papago") and a few other tribes in lightly populated areas, you couldn't give any group of Indians a tract of undeveloped land approximately equal to their historical homeland and expect them to recreate the idyllic Stone Age conditions in which their ancestors lived in the 15th Century--or want to do so.

They have found a place in contemporary America. They may not be totally happy with it but there's no going back. We've learned the hard way that just throwing money and preferential treatment at people not only doesn't work but backfires. We do everything we can to preserve the lamentably small remains of their native cultures, sending linguists to record their languages, other scholars to help record their traditions, and devoting an entire gigantic Smithsonian museum to them so the whole world can spend a couple of days learning about a rotating group of fifty tribes.

The Cherokee are relatively prosperous and successful, but not by the measure of how well they've protected their indigenous culture. They were forcibly relocated to a new homeland that happened to have rich petroleum deposits, which were discovered in an era when it was too late to swindle them out of the profits.

I don't know what else we can do, 500 years after the fact. With some things what's important is not to determine whether they're right or wrong, but to determine how best to make peace with them.

The Serenity Prayer comes to mind:

Goddess, grant me the strength to change what I can,
The serenity to accept what I cannot,
And the wisdom to know the difference.It never ceases to surprise me that the countries that scream the loudest about assimilation of immigrants are themselves colonies of people who destroyed the culture of every land they moved to.Just about every ethnic group on earth has done that at one or more times in its history. It's too facile to single out only the ones who did it most recently. Your beloved Indians were running each other out of their territories for millennia before my ancestors ever heard of America. Are we supposed to give all of Europe back to the Celts? Or to the pre-Indo-European people who lived there first and are now represented only by the Basques and Stonehenge?

Europe has only been populated by Homo sapiens for about 20,000 years. How are you going to resolve the claims to the lands of Asia, where this has been going on for more like 60,000 years?

The fact that most of the earth's ethnic groups have achieved an uneasy parity and can now negotiate the rights of immigrant versus host is progress. Are we not supposed to learn from the mistakes of everyone's ancestors? The fate of the Indians, after unrestricted immigration of a people who demanded that their lands be renovated to please them, should be a warning to us all not to let it happen again, rather than a mandate to do precisely the opposite.

In other words, do as I say, not as I do.

FRAGGLE,

Where did you get that version of the prayer?

The best i can find out is from here:
http://skdesigns.com/internet/articles/prose/niebuhr/serenity_prayer/

Ironically, there was an article by Yahoo! yesterday that denmark is the happiest place in the world.

In other words, do as I say, not as I do. Or, rephrased: learn from the mistakes of others.
I agree. Do the native Americans want their country back? Some of the Navajo want the land the Hopi are on "back".

The Chippewa might like some land back, but the Sioux have prior claim to some of it - or was that the other way around ? No, it was the Chippewa who drove the Sioux west, when the Scotch Irish drove the Chippewa west, which was a consequence of the Scotch Irish winning a big battle with the Iroquois who had allied themselves with the British to expand their terrotory against the southern and western nations, no that was the French, wait it was both depending, so Wisconsin - - - -

Hard to say, SAM. The people who were living in the Missippippi Valley when Columbus landed died of smallpox and a couple other diseases, most without ever seeing a white face. We can't give it back to them, if we wanted to.

Now look at native Americans. Can you point them out?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Whadda point?

Why?

I was born and raised in Britain, though I love this country there are many things that I do not like (hate) about living here (things I would like changed), should I leave? Do you seriously think you have to love everything about the country in order to stay there, I have White English friends that actually hate and curse England (any Asian heard saying the same thing would be branded a racist) – should they leave too?




Western European Governments are extremely welcoming to all immigrants. Anyway most of these youths would have had zero control over where they were born and raised.

i guess theres a spectrum of people who hate Britain (or any other country) with "purely British" on the one side and "purely foreign" on the other

and the closer you are to the "purely British" end, the more right you have to talk shit... although in the old times even if you were "purely British" you wouldn't have the right to talk shit or you'd be jailed / exiled / executed for treason or other charges

but today, regardless who you are on that spectrum, you either put up and shut up, or you try to change things, but through the legal and civilized way. rioting, burning and calling for Denmark to be bombed and its people beheaded, in my mind, earns you at least a baseball bat to the head.

i guess theres a spectrum of people who hate Britain (or any other country) with "purely British" on the one side and "purely foreign" on the other

and the closer you are to the "purely British" end, the more right you have to talk shit... although in the old times even if you were "purely British" you wouldn't have the right to talk shit or you'd be jailed / exiled / executed for treason or other charges

but today, regardless who you are on that spectrum, you either put up and shut up, or you try to change things, but through the legal and civilized way. rioting, burning and calling for Denmark to be bombed and its people beheaded, in my mind, earns you at least a baseball bat to the head.

Ghost (and the others defending violence in reaction to comics, bears, and bad films), do you see what you've done here? Do you? You've got me agreeing with pot. Don't you realize how wrong that is?

The vast majority of tribes in the South Forty-Eight have very nearly lost their identity and there's no way to turn back the clock even if we could agree to do so.
Indeed, I think my wife (a DAR) has some Indian in her. Many Americans do. It's no big deal. None of them want to go back to living a stone age life.

But the broader point is, you're falling for SAM's typical strategy of changing the subject to excuse the behavior of Muslims. Try to discuss an issue such as the rioting of "youths", and she'll start talking about the Indians, or nuking Japan, or the Crusades.

If she were really interested in discussing the Indians, she'd give a much better response to your lengthy and thoughful post than "do as I say, not as I do".

Ghost (and the others defending violence in reaction to comics, bears, and bad films), do you see what you've done here? Do you? You've got me agreeing with pot. Don't you realize how wrong that is?

LOL!

i feel your pain buddy:D

I was born and raised in Britain, though I love this country there are many things that I do not like (hate) about living here (things I would like changed), should I leave?

Obviously not, you love the country. There are always going to be things that you don't like (hate) about it, that would be with anywhere you go.

I have White English friends that actually hate and curse England (any Asian heard saying the same thing would be branded a racist) – should they leave too?

Yes. If they hate and curse England, why do they go on living there? Seems pretty silly.

'cause they don't really.


if they did, they'd move. but they won't. so they should just STFU.

people who genuinely don't like the place they live in, MOVE. i personally know people who did just that.

but people who talk shit and DONT move, are full of that shit, and even though they are TALKING shit, they will never run out of it.

In other words, do as I say, not as I do.I did not DO any of these things. I was raised to not even notice people's ethnicity and when I got old enough to realize not everyone was like that I became a quasi-hippie (always had a job) with a picket sign. I've been run over by the Affirmative Action Steamroller three times and just chalked it up to "living during interesting times," as the Chinese put it. I have nothing to apologize for. I can't help feeling a certain frustration with people who want to hold me responsible--not even for things my ancestors did, but for things somebody else's ancestors did. My ancestors came here to escape persecution in Europe, not to join in the persecution of Indians, which was nearly over anyway. I wonder if they even knew about it.FRAGGLE, Where did you get that version of the prayer?As most members know, I am not religious. I have to take great pains to make satirical adjustments to prayers.

I did not DO any of these things. I was raised to not even notice people's ethnicity and when I got old enough to realize not everyone was like that I became a quasi-hippie (always had a job) with a picket sign. I've been run over by the Affirmative Action Steamroller three times and just chalked it up to "living during interesting times," as the Chinese put it. I have nothing to apologize for. I can't help feeling a certain frustration with people who want to hold me responsible--not even for things my ancestors did, but for things somebody else's ancestors did. My ancestors came here to escape persecution in Europe, not to join in the persecution of Indians, which was nearly over anyway. I wonder if they even knew about it.

I meant your response to the nonassimilation of Americans to native culture is nonassimilation to future immigrants. IOW, its still other peoples job to adjust. Considering your idea of "other people" usually involves the nomenclature of other different social systems as 'tribal' groups fighting each other (which is ironic, since those very same tribal groups are now occupied by your very advanced culture), that is not really surprising.

I suppose the native Americans should be grateful for whatever they can get. Future immigrants must beware, however, from disrupting the status quo in any way. Or else. Don't you find that ironic?


If she were really interested in discussing the Indians, she'd give a much better response to your lengthy and thoughful post than "do as I say, not as I do".

I do not see the point in being more verbose than is necessary. You missed the point I was making, in any case.

I meant your response to the nonassimilation of Americans to native culture is nonassimilation to future immigrants. The original whites who settled on the coast, and the ones who later crossed the Alleghenies did not enter other people's towns, tribes, or cultures - or if they did, they assimilated. The Whites who immigrated into the Red nations learned the languages, adopted the customs, obeyed the rules, of their new nation. Likewise the Reds who moved into White towns.

Those were the nations of the Americas. There was war, genocide, multiple horrors, but where there was immigration there was assimilation.

The original whites who settled on the coast, and the ones who later crossed the Alleghenies did not enter other people's towns, tribes, or cultures - or if they did, they assimilated. The Whites who immigrated into the Red nations learned the languages, adopted the customs, obeyed the rules, of their new nation. Likewise the Reds who moved into White towns.

Those were the nations of the Americas. There was war, genocide, multiple horrors, but where there was immigration there was assimilation.

Yeah, its pretty clear who assimilated with whom.

Doesn't matter. They are immigrants, from a culture that holds religion sacred. And are being spat in the face. Like anyone else in the same position, but significantly in a more powerless position, they are offending their offenders.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/danish_cartoons_again_if_at_first_you_dont_succeed/0015714

you see, violence is prohibited if you get insulted. and they wonder what some have against Muslims? :shrug:

well i "dont" know how they do it in the ME, but in this part of the world, burning peoples car over a cartoon is a crime.

Yeah, its pretty clear who assimilated with whom. The whites who immigrated to the red nations assimilated with them. The reds who immigrated to the white town assimilated with them - to a lesser extent, because the white towns did not welcome red immigration easily.

So most of the assimilation accomplished was accomplished by whites, in the pioneering days.

What was your point, again ?

I suppose the native Americans should be grateful for whatever they can get. Future immigrants must beware, however, from disrupting the status quo in any way. Or else. Don't you find that ironic?

What it is is culture survival. The Native Americans lost not because it was the right thing to do, but because the invading nations were more powerful. The difference is that I recognize the cultural imperialism of those European immigrants. Do you recognize the cultural imperialism of the islamic ones that like to burn cars?

I have no objections to the cartoons, its the hypocrisy that I cannot stand.

Don't they have religious discrimination laws in Denmark?

NO, all religions are equal.

These riots are not religious, they are more of a social origin.

Can anyone tell me what cause that rioting has actually helped?

Bear in mind that the numbers of people rioting is relatively small.

None.Itstarted out, when the police started to search people in the street.

In copenhagen, there had been a period with stabbings. The police designated certain areas where they would stop people and search them for carrying knives.

Some 2nd genberation imigrants felt that it was directed against them (most of them drug dealers so duh) and started rioting. It kind of spread, and more people joined.

In one way, they have this victim mentallity. Nobody likes us, so we riot.

Doesn't matter. They are immigrants, from a culture that holds religion sacred. And are being spat in the face. Like anyone else in the same position, but significantly in a more powerless position, they are offending their offenders.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/danish_cartoons_again_if_at_first_you_dont_succeed/0015714

Oh man, you dont know what youre talking about.

This is a secular soceity, and they have to accept the way we live. Most of them do, but some insist that I have to repsect them at the same time they shout Danish whore at my girlfriend´because she speaks her mind.

They'd probably do that no matter she said.

Oh man, you dont know what youre talking about.

This is a secular soceity, and they have to accept the way we live. Most of them do, but some insist that I have to repsect them at the same time they shout Danish whore at my girlfriend´because she speaks her mind.

I see from your analogy that its difficult to respect those who insult you.

I meant your response to the nonassimilation of Americans to native culture is nonassimilation to future immigrants. IOW, its still other peoples job to adjust.When and if I give up on the United States and emigrate to another country, I know damn well that it will be my responsibility to adapt to its culture. Furthermore I'll probably be so fed up with this country that I'll be happy to. The two most likely reasons I would leave are that the country has been taken over by theocrats and is beginning to decay (something that is already in progress) or that the government and rabble rousers like Sandy have pissed off the world's entire Muslim population and gotten us into a holy war (oh wait that's already on the verge of happening too). So I don't see your point. I believe that people who move into someone else's home, whether it's a house or a country, have an obligation to live by its rules and I will live by that principle when and if the time comes. I already speak two of the world's other nine leading languages so I'm more prepared to emigrate to China or Latin America than many foreigners are to immigrate to my country.

I'm sincerely sorry that life has not always been that way and I grieve for the plight of the Indians as much as anyone, perhaps more since I'm a linguist and I feel the loss tangibly. But the fact that our ancestors did things wrong is NEVER a good reason for continuing to do things wrong, whether you're talking about your father whipping you with a belt or entire generations of immigrants taking over the land of the people who welcomed them.

And Samwise, what do you think would happen to me if I moved to one of your beloved Islamic paradises, even a relatively "enlightened" one like Malaysia, and behaved the way so many Muslim immigrants behave in the West: refusing to honor its customs, discriminating against native people who practice those customs, and sending my children to a private school whose textbooks teach them that Muslims are evil and must be reformed? Name one important Muslim country that would permit the kind of behavior we're talking about in this thread. It seems to me that my attitude about immigrant assimilation is standard in your part of the world so why are we not supposed to practice it in my part? Considering your idea of "other people" usually involves the nomenclature of other different social systems as 'tribal' groups fighting each other (which is ironic, since those very same tribal groups are now occupied by your very advanced culture), that is not really surprising.You're being disingenuous. You've read enough of my posts to know that I regard all Abrahamist societies as tribal because in my observation all Abrahamic religions reinforce Homo sapiens's tribal instinct. I do not discriminate against ethnic groups with pre-monotheistic religions. On the contrary, in my observation many of them are quite a bit more tolerant of diversity than the majority of devout Christians, Muslims and Jews. That was a big part of the Native Americans' downfall. Many of them welcomed the Europeans despite their enormous differences and their disrespect for their own religions because, as I maintain based on Jung's work, polytheism naturally encourages a more enlightened attitude about diversity than the spiritually pathetic motifs of monotheism.I suppose the native Americans should be grateful for whatever they can get. Future immigrants must beware, however, from disrupting the status quo in any way. Or else. Don't you find that ironic?Of course, but it's not an irony I am imposing. The universe is not fair. As I say, the best thing we can do is learn the hard lesson of the Indians and not repeat their folly. If humans don't learn from the mistakes of those who came before, how is civilization to advance? One of the many benefits of the process of civilization is a slow increase in fairness. It's hardly monotonic but it's inexorable.

When and if I give up on the United States and emigrate to another country, I know damn well that it will be my responsibility to adapt to its culture. Furthermore I'll probably be so fed up with this country that I'll be happy to. The two most likely reasons I would leave are that the country has been taken over by theocrats and is beginning to decay (something that is already in progress) or that the government and rabble rousers like Sandy have pissed off the world's entire Muslim population and gotten us into a holy war (oh wait that's already on the verge of happening too). So I don't see your point. I believe that people who move into someone else's home, whether it's a house or a country, have an obligation to live by its rules and I will live by that principle when and if the time comes. I already speak two of the world's other nine leading languages so I'm more prepared to emigrate to China or Latin America than many foreigners are to immigrate to my country.

I'm sincerely sorry that life has not always been that way and I grieve for the plight of the Indians as much as anyone, perhaps more since I'm a linguist and I feel the loss tangibly. But the fact that our ancestors did things wrong is NEVER a good reason for continuing to do things wrong, whether you're talking about your father whipping you with a belt or entire generations of immigrants taking over the land of the people who welcomed them.

And Samwise, what do you think would happen to me if I moved to one of your beloved Islamic paradises, even a relatively "enlightened" one like Malaysia, and behaved the way so many Muslim immigrants behave in the West: refusing to honor its customs, discriminating against native people who practice those customs, and sending my children to a private school whose textbooks teach them that Muslims are evil and must be reformed? Name one important Muslim country that would permit the kind of behavior we're talking about in this thread. It seems to me that my attitude about immigrant assimilation is standard in your part of the world so why are we not supposed to practice it in my part?You're being disingenuous. You've read enough of my posts to know that I regard all Abrahamist societies as tribal because in my observation all Abrahamic religions reinforce Homo sapiens's tribal instinct. I do not discriminate against ethnic groups with pre-monotheistic religions. On the contrary, in my observation many of them are quite a bit more tolerant of diversity than the majority of devout Christians, Muslims and Jews. That was a big part of the Native Americans' downfall. Many of them welcomed the Europeans despite their enormous differences and their disrespect for their own religions because, as I maintain based on Jung's work, polytheism naturally encourages a more enlightened attitude about diversity than the spiritually pathetic motifs of monotheism.Of course, but it's not an irony I am imposing. The universe is not fair. As I say, the best thing we can do is learn the hard lesson of the Indians and not repeat their folly. If humans don't learn from the mistakes of those who came before, how is civilization to advance? One of the many benefits of the process of civilization is a slow increase in fairness. It's hardly monotonic but it's inexorable.

The Holy War of the Moslems started long before the U.S. was ever founded.

We were always at war with East Asia.

When and if I give up on the United States and emigrate to another country, I know damn well that it will be my responsibility to adapt to its culture. Furthermore I'll probably be so fed up with this country that I'll be happy to. The two most likely reasons I would leave are that the country has been taken over by theocrats and is beginning to decay (something that is already in progress) or that the government and rabble rousers like Sandy have pissed off the world's entire Muslim population and gotten us into a holy war (oh wait that's already on the verge of happening too). So I don't see your point. I believe that people who move into someone else's home, whether it's a house or a country, have an obligation to live by its rules and I will live by that principle when and if the time comes. I already speak two of the world's other nine leading languages so I'm more prepared to emigrate to China or Latin America than many foreigners are to immigrate to my country.

I'm sincerely sorry that life has not always been that way and I grieve for the plight of the Indians as much as anyone, perhaps more since I'm a linguist and I feel the loss tangibly. But the fact that our ancestors did things wrong is NEVER a good reason for continuing to do things wrong, whether you're talking about your father whipping you with a belt or entire generations of immigrants taking over the land of the people who welcomed them.

And Samwise, what do you think would happen to me if I moved to one of your beloved Islamic paradises, even a relatively "enlightened" one like Malaysia, and behaved the way so many Muslim immigrants behave in the West: refusing to honor its customs, discriminating against native people who practice those customs, and sending my children to a private school whose textbooks teach them that Muslims are evil and must be reformed? Name one important Muslim country that would permit the kind of behavior we're talking about in this thread. It seems to me that my attitude about immigrant assimilation is standard in your part of the world so why are we not supposed to practice it in my part?You're being disingenuous. You've read enough of my posts to know that I regard all Abrahamist societies as tribal because in my observation all Abrahamic religions reinforce Homo sapiens's tribal instinct. I do not discriminate against ethnic groups with pre-monotheistic religions. On the contrary, in my observation many of them are quite a bit more tolerant of diversity than the majority of devout Christians, Muslims and Jews. That was a big part of the Native Americans' downfall. Many of them welcomed the Europeans despite their enormous differences and their disrespect for their own religions because, as I maintain based on Jung's work, polytheism naturally encourages a more enlightened attitude about diversity than the spiritually pathetic motifs of monotheism.Of course, but it's not an irony I am imposing. The universe is not fair. As I say, the best thing we can do is learn the hard lesson of the Indians and not repeat their folly. If humans don't learn from the mistakes of those who came before, how is civilization to advance? One of the many benefits of the process of civilization is a slow increase in fairness. It's hardly monotonic but it's inexorable.

See? You even forget I am Indian! :p

So do you think India should change its manner of assimilating foreign populations because the British took such advantage of our hospitality? Shall we become a monoculture too? Move away from the culture that allowed Syrian Christians, Persians and Bani Israelis to flourish without discrimination?

Why?

I was born and raised in Britain, though I love this country there are many things that I do not like (hate) about living here (things I would like changed), should I leave? Do you seriously think you have to love everything about the country in order to stay there, I have White English friends that actually hate and curse England (any Asian heard saying the same thing would be branded a racist) – should they leave too?

Pardon, I never got to answering this.

Whoever was born and raised, still have the right to pick their shit up and go. And if there is something about the entire society of that country which offends you to the point of hysteria, you should start looking for a place that is more welcoming. If they openly discriminate against your race, why constantly be irritated? That's not welcome.




Western European Governments are extremely welcoming to all immigrants. Anyway most of these youths would have had zero control over where they were born and raised.

Why did the parents of those youths come to a country that is so opposite to their morals? That's not welcome. That's like saying, I am a plain Jew and I will go and join a neo-Nazi group just for... what? The sentiment in the Western European countries is cold at best towards Muslims. The Western European societies have freedom of speech in their blood, these people speak openly about things they like and dislike, and it is against the law to shut anyone up in 95% of the cases.

Thats the attitude that ended with the Holocaust. Why support intolerance towards other people?

Doesn't matter. They are immigrants, from a culture that holds religion sacred. And are being spat in the face. Like anyone else in the same position, but significantly in a more powerless position, they are offending their offenders.

Bwahahahaha! Fucking hilarious SAM, you are most certainly a fundamentalist.

The Muslim youth are being spat in the face? Those fucking useless idiots have nothing better to do with their time, sam. That's what it boils down. They are simply offensive. If they don't like the new culture they have immigrated, they can go right back where they came from. It's really that simple.

Why support intolerance towards other people?

Exactly, the youth's intolerance need be tolerated. Pepper spray works wonders.

Bwahahahaha! Fucking hilarious SAM, you are most certainly a fundamentalist.

The Muslim youth are being spat in the face? Those fucking useless idiots have nothing better to do with their time, sam. That's what it boils down. They are simply offensive. If they don't like the new culture they have immigrated, they can go right back where they came from. It's really that simple.

Where? Afghanistan? Iraq? Palestine? Lebanon?

You broke it, you bought it.

See? You even forget I am Indian!

So, when you decide to do something about the Caste system, then come back and we'll consider your thoughts. Not till then, though.

So, when you decide to do something about the Caste system, then come back and we'll consider your thoughts. Not till then, though.

Hey, I'm officially 50% low caste. :mad:

Hey, I'm officially 50% low caste. :mad:

And 100% troll.

Where? Afghanistan? Iraq? Palestine? Lebanon?

And Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkey.

So much for the "naughty Americans" argument. Is it the fault of the Barbary Pirates that the US is the state it is today, then? "Shores of Tripoli" and all that.

And Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkey.

.

You think the above are exempt from intervention?

Is it the fault of the Barbary Pirates that the US is the state it is today, then? "Shores of Tripoli" and all that.

Last I saw the map Tripoli was in Libya, not New York.

Unless you mean Tripoli, Lebanon.

You think the above are exempt from intervention?

You were portraying the issue of rioting and intolerance as being about sympathy for the homeland. Is the US invading any of those states? Turkey's an ally, innit? :shrug:

Last I saw the map Tripoli was in Libya, not New York.

Correct! Are you familiar with the history of the American marines and their foundation? Do you know what event the line from the song refers to?

Best,

Geoff

Wait, wait: you mean that dhimmitude and unrest are preventative insurgency? A proactive state of rage? What's the word for that? Pre-emptive, I expect you mean?

Best,

Geoff

Is the US invading any of those states? Turkey's an ally, innit? :shrug:

Well, they're supporting a military dictator in Pakistan who has assassinated his legitimate political opponents and induced the nation under martial law. Iran is under enormous scrutiny, and will be host to a new war (courtesy of the U.S.) by summer of '08 or '09 (latest). Turkey is an ally as long as it allows the transportation of supplies by America through those regions, and so long as it allows the U.S. to use military stations on its soil (to attack Iraq, and later Iran from). The way I see it, none of these countries are "allies" through genuine reasons. Of course the U.S. isn't invading any of those countries, Geoff - they're doing as America says! The one exception is the next target.

The issue isn't alliance, but rather whether the evil Americans are invading them, as Sam put it.