Yo guys, just choppin some heads off

catqueen wrote:

pittrek wrote:

Some Arabs have murdered a soldier in London in front of a "live audience"

Don't think he was an Arab though.

No, he wasn't - our media firstly claimed he was, but a few hours later the video revealed his true identity

pittrek wrote:

catqueen wrote:

pittrek wrote:

Some Arabs have murdered a soldier in London in front of a "live audience"

Don't think he was an Arab though.

No, he wasn't - our media firstly claimed he was, but a few hours later the video revealed his true identity

Where are you from? I didn't ever hear the word Arab in connection to this, but maybe i just missed it. It's going to be hard on the Muslim community in England though -- most of them just want to go on living their lives peacefully, and they'll all end up under suspicion, and 'tarred with the same brush.'

I'm from Slovakia

pittrek wrote:

catqueen wrote:

pittrek wrote:

Some Arabs have murdered a soldier in London in front of a "live audience"

Don't think he was an Arab though.

No, he wasn't - our media firstly claimed he was, but a few hours later the video revealed his true identity

Good thing the media doesn't typecast all terrorists as Arabs..

Wait a minute..

Psychopath, pure and simple. Regardless of the selfish reasons he had in his own mind, there is absolutely no need to take the life of another in this sick, morbid fashion. We all know that a lot of governments are corrupt, money and ego driven, and completely self-centred, but it's still a pointless, horrendous killing. It doesn't point anything out, it just puts focus on what a complete fucking nutter he is (and his like-minded cronies, too).

Such a shame that this has happened. Then again, on the flipside, a lot of soldiers know what they're getting into, and must be vigilant at ALL corners. I know I couldn't do it - firstly, because I don't believe that our union, government or Queen is worth the hassle, and secondly because I'm a shitbag.

Penetration_Guru wrote:

1000's of posts of you lot (and others) hurling mega-buckets of nit-picking vacuity at each other, and 9 posts about this.

When you were a regular here you never participated in any serious discussions yourself :-)

I tell you why many people give up talking about such atrocities:

It is because we always only talk about it when something horrible happens and all we hear on TV is politicians bubbling away about the unity of the nation and Muslim officials condemning the deed in the strongest way.

We never hear a politician genuinely and seriously addressing the underlying problems. The whole world suffers from the social inequalities in the richer nations and unbelievable horror and violence in the poorer nations and you won't find a single politician in the UN or EU or USA who genuinely ask for politics to improve the situation.

Google "bomb in Baghdad today" and you get 37 million hits while the world totally ignores the situation and no Western poltician feels responsible or even guilty about the daily horror in this country. Google "youth riots in Stockholm" and you will find that a depraved and disillusioned immigrant youth riots in the streets night after night in a country which has the best social system in Europe but does not lift a finger to give the young immigrants a chance to ever participate in the system.

I can go on for hours but the truth is that many people feel helpless when nothing is done by the powers that be but we are overrun with with a chorus of outrage when something happens in front of a camera in OUR neighbourhood. 20 people bombed to death in Baghdad each day is not even worth a little 2 line note on our daily news.

Bang on.

Politicians only chime in when there's something to gain - particularly when it's election time.

If people want change, they have to bring it on themselves. And sometimes it isn't pretty.

So what would you have "The West" do now in Iraq YV: send in the troops? This is internecine sectarian warfare and tribalism in Iraq: there's a chance now for them to progress but they're not taking it. As for Sweden, christ, where do I even start? This is a country that has taken in 1000s of political and economic immigrants from basket case countries, given those immigrants shelter and funds, and provides a chance for a new start. What's the thanks for that? Rioting. Nice. I'm sure lots of Swedes are wondering why they bothered: if the rioters want to return to their countries of origin I'm sure few Swedes will be trying to persuade them otherwise,. But don';t expect much demand for plane tickets out of Sweden. As you say, it's a very generous nation and the immigrants know where their bread is buttered.

Canada is that same place too. They come here and try to impose their laws on us, and throw the race card when we don't implement their laws (not just Sharia). It happens all the time.

"but is the motivation at least understandable on some level?"

Nope.

If he was fresh-off-the-boat and had actually had some suffering to speak of, sure - but the prick had a UK accent. What would've been understandable is if he'd decided to fly his ass back to wherever his 'lands' are, and go and help some people.

But on the plus side he's got a nice long prison sentence to look forward to. I wonder how many channels his TV will have?

Holly2003 wrote:

So what would you have "The West" do now in Iraq YV: send in the troops? This is internecine sectarian warfare and tribalism in Iraq: there's a chance now for them to progress but they're not taking it. As for Sweden, christ, where do I even start? This is a country that has taken in 1000s of political and economic immigrants from basket case countries, given those immigrants shelter and funds, and provides a chance for a new start. What's the thanks for that? Rioting. Nice. I'm sure lots of Swedes are wondering why they bothered: if the rioters want to return to their countries of origin I'm sure few Swedes will be trying to persuade them otherwise,. But don';t expect much demand for plane tickets out of Sweden. As you say, it's a very generous nation and the immigrants know where their bread is buttered.

No, I do not want "The West" to send any troops as I did not want them to send troops in 2003. When they illegally invaded the Iraq, toppled the Saddam H regime and subsequently left the country in turmoil. Nobody thinks that Saddam Hussein was anything but a cruel dictator but at least people could walk the streets without having their kids blown to bits. The coalition's illegal war caused this situation.

As to immigrants in Sweden and other European countries: there has been a problem with lack of integration over decades and I blame our politicians for having done nothing about it. Instead of challenging immigrants to learn the law and language of the land in order to give them a chance to get a good education and jobs they allowed sub societies to emerge and grow where whole generations of young immigrants live in ignorance and poverty with no perspective in life - an easy prey for religious fanatics. If we spent half of the money we spend on invading other countries on education, integration and housing in our cities we would not have these problems to that extent.

I read that the killer of London was influenced by a Muslim hate preacher. Why do we allow Muslim hate preachers in our countries? When I make a racist comment in public I will be rightfully prosecuted but a hate preacher can do his evil hate mongering because he claims religious freedom? This is ridiculous. I hear that Sharia law is applied to civil cases in England - that is absurd. Oriental law that treats women as inferior human beings is allowed in the oldest democracy under the pretense of political correctness and alleged tolerance - how can we ever integrate all these immigrants in such a situation, I detest our politicians for totally ignoring these issues. As a result the frustration in the native population is growing as well and extremists on each side are gaining support.

Cameron's speech on TV was so dishonest and transparent. He does not give a toss about social peace - he does not even realise that it is HIS job to work for social justice and peace, he only cares about Sunday speeches and law and order. There was a wave of nationalist outrage in England after this murder but all the prime minister had to say was that there was no real problem but just an isolated incidence.

YV, your comments about Iraq prewar hardly do it justice. What about the Iran-Iraq war with over 1 million dead? Or the invasion of Kuwait? Or Saddam's campaign against the marsh arabs? Or his persecution of the Kurds, including using chemical weapons on civilians?

I was also against the war (you will probably recall some big arguments about it on QZ when being antiwar wasn't a popular position) but the war happened and my question is what do we do now? Most foreign troops have left and the fighting now is sectarian. What can the West do now except look on and try to learn some lessons for future foreign policy decisions (I think that's happening already e.g. with Syria and perhaos also Libya).

I agree with your other comments to a certain extent except to say that rioting isn't the answer. If I emigrated to another country I would like to think I had an obligation to be a good citizen -- to show gratitude for that country taking me in. The last thing I would consider is rioting. Absolutely bizarre.

Holly, if I knew how to solve the situation in Iraq I would win the nobel peace price. I never defended Saddam Hussein or his dictatorship but in the first gulf war (Iraq-Iran) it was the USA who encouraged and supported the war against Iran, gave Hussein weapons and money in order to weaken the Mullah regime. For the second gulf war (invasion of Kuweit) please read the Ramsey Clark report about US war crimes here

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

Ramsey Clark was a former US attorney general, not a Muslim hate preacher! Please read page 2 preliminary statements and charges, it is enough to feel sick with guilt with respect to the people in Iraq. We do not need to discuss the third gulf war, I think we agree about it. This is only one country. I would really love to think that "The West" is not responsible for so many wars, civil wars and genocides in the Middle East. Africa and Asia but unfortunately we are. With all the weapons Germany alone exports into unsafe countries (against the constitution!) hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed since WW2.

Of course I do not condone people rioting in the streets. Actually, it scares me. However I understand all the hatred and frustration and mainly the feeling of total powerlessness people can develop when they live in a rich environment but are excluded from any chance to "make it". Hatred and frustration do not think clearly and any incident can be a welcome excuse to fight back in blind rage. The guys in London were homegrown converts. A young man with a future would probably not be such an easy prey for extremists. You can never make all people happy but the system requires a certain amount of people to fail and often these people are immigrants from other parts of the world. We have to eliminate this hopelessness from our countries or it will get worse very rapidly

Holly:

Something to bear in mind is that, despite nutbags like this murderer, most people, regardless of race, ethnicity or country of origin, don't resort to violence lightly. In fact, the vast majority of people will never do so. But, if you're a non-white immigrant in Europe these days, you face a tremendous amount of hate. Imagine you're a moderate Muslim who escaped from a fundamentalist regime and made your way to Britain. You get there, you do your best to learn English, and after six months, you can manage a basic conversation. What do you hear people say? "Those filthy towel-heads are stealing our jobs."; "there is no moderate Islam"; "Muslims hate the west"; most people don't talk to you (mostly not out of malicious intent), and of those that do, a fair number just hurl abuse at you. You try to get a job. However, it's crisis, jobs are scarce, and you don't speak the language that well yet. Plus, you look different from most Brits. Another six months later, and you're still unemployed. "See?", people say, "they only come here to get free money."

You feel awkward in summer, when you see women wearing much more revealing outfits than you are used to. You don't say anything, because you don't want to be impolite, but when a much more radical immigrant makes headlines by insulting women for their clothing, suddenly everyone looks at you. "You're a muslim; why are you so disrespectful of women? Go back to the desert, you animal."

Immigrants get ever more frustrated and ever more desperate. Those that attempt to integrate are on their own - they can expect very little help from the government, and practically no sympathy from the population. They get stuck in the cheapest, most unpopular neighbourhoods, which consequently turn into immigrant enclaves. See? Populists say, and they are widely believed, they don't want to integrate, they just bunch together. Meanwhile, 'civilized westerners' get applauded by roughly a fifth of the European population for saying things about immigrants that would get you sent to court if you said them about, for instance, Jews.

Yes, we have problems with a small portion of the immigrant population. But so long as we keep accepting that all immigrants get abused for the abject behaviour of a tiny portion of them, we are not going to solve those problems. In fact, we are forcing more and more immigrants into the hands of fundamentalists by our current approach. We need immigrants, for the simple reason that our population is ageing and an ever smaller number of people of working age has to provide for an ever larger number of retired people. Even disregarding the fact that it's just basic human decency, economic motives make that we should take responsibility collectively for integrating immigrants into our society.

Not a hundred years ago, people in America claimed that Italians and Eastern Europeans could never become Americans, because they were just "too different" and "inherently criminal". A hundred and fifty years ago people said the same thing about the Irish. So long as no one looked out for them, they remained the lowest class in the population, and thus also the group with the highest crime rate. But when the people and the government set up programs to help them, integration picked up, and America has many groups of well-integrated immigrants now. Europe can do the same thing, but we won't so long as the established political parties adopt the views and rhetoric of nativist, far-right groups as a vote-getter in times of crisis.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Holly:

Something to bear in mind is that, despite nutbags like this murderer, most people, regardless of race, ethnicity or country of origin, don't resort to violence lightly. In fact, the vast majority of people will never do so. But, if you're a non-white immigrant in Europe these days, you face a tremendous amount of hate. Imagine you're a moderate Muslim who escaped from a fundamentalist regime and made your way to Britain. You get there, you do your best to learn English, and after six months, you can manage a basic conversation. What do you hear people say? "Those filthy towel-heads are stealing our jobs."; "there is no moderate Islam"; "Muslims hate the west"; most people don't talk to you (mostly not out of malicious intent), and of those that do, a fair number just hurl abuse at you. You try to get a job. However, it's crisis, jobs are scarce, and you don't speak the language that well yet. Plus, you look different from most Brits. Another six months later, and you're still unemployed. "See?", people say, "they only come here to get free money."

You feel awkward in summer, when you see women wearing much more revealing outfits than you are used to. You don't say anything, because you don't want to be impolite, but when a much more radical immigrant makes headlines by insulting women for their clothing, suddenly everyone looks at you. "You're a muslim; why are you so disrespectful of women? Go back to the desert, you animal."

Immigrants get ever more frustrated and ever more desperate. Those that attempt to integrate are on their own - they can expect very little help from the government, and practically no sympathy from the population. They get stuck in the cheapest, most unpopular neighbourhoods, which consequently turn into immigrant enclaves. See? Populists say, and they are widely believed, they don't want to integrate, they just bunch together. Meanwhile, 'civilized westerners' get applauded by roughly a fifth of the European population for saying things about immigrants that would get you sent to court if you said them about, for instance, Jews.

Yes, we have problems with a small portion of the immigrant population. But so long as we keep accepting that all immigrants get abused for the abject behaviour of a tiny portion of them, we are not going to solve those problems. In fact, we are forcing more and more immigrants into the hands of fundamentalists by our current approach. We need immigrants, for the simple reason that our population is ageing and an ever smaller number of people of working age has to provide for an ever larger number of retired people. Even disregarding the fact that it's just basic human decency, economic motives make that we should take responsibility collectively for integrating immigrants into our society.

Not a hundred years ago, people in America claimed that Italians and Eastern Europeans could never become Americans, because they were just "too different" and "inherently criminal". A hundred and fifty years ago people said the same thing about the Irish. So long as no one looked out for them, they remained the lowest class in the population, and thus also the group with the highest crime rate. But when the people and the government set up programs to help them, integration picked up, and America has many groups of well-integrated immigrants now. Europe can do the same thing, but we won't so long as the established political parties adopt the views and rhetoric of nativist, far-right groups as a vote-getter in times of crisis.

Two hundred and fifty years ago they said the same thing about Africans; as you recall, they only were looked at as 3/5 of a person. My question is: Do you think eventually in time, the people you are referring to in your post above eventually became "American", did so with more "ease" because of their race? From what I recall, the Irish were the bottom of the barrel in the mid 19th century, but they were not as "low" as Africans or Native Americans.

I'm just trying to look through the kaleidoscope via different angles.