French generals cause backlash with 'civil war' warning

KeepItLight

Bambi wrote: »

All "“Part and parcel of living in a great global city" eh?

Don't forget about of all the food options and....uhmm..hm

grassylawn

RulesOfNature wrote: »

NO. This is pure propaganda from a few cherrypicked photographs.

To compare photos showing a tiny urban educated elite in Kabul and major cities in the 60s with modern images of Afghanistan as a whole is comparing apples to oranges.

To employ a crude but apt analogy; it would be like thinking that everyone in the US was at Woodstock in '69.

The was a very tiny portion of the population in the 60s and 70s who were 'western' in their dress and outlook, but the everyday life of those in areas away from major urban centres was basically the same in 1930, 1960 and 1990 and continues so to this day.

Throughout the 20th c. the vast majority of Afghans have been very poor, politically and religiously 'conservative' and dependent upon agriculture. Even in the major cities the 'Westernised' Afghans were never a majority.

There certainly was an educated, Westernised section of the populace, usually young people, who did face repression and whose subculture did vanish during the years of Theocratic rule, but it was a sub-culture, it was not mainstream Afghan culture and it did not reflect the lives of the majority of people at all.

This is an interesting assertion. My brief googling has not supported or refuted it. Can you provide sources?

My impression was from my viewing of the film Bitter Lake and photos shown to me by someone ages ago.

The idea that the Soviet Union was a progressive force there is at odds with my knowledge of that country otherwise. But everything is relative and iirc they apparently treated the country as a utopic project.

Manic Moran

RulesOfNature wrote: »

NO. This is pure propaganda from a few cherrypicked photographs.

To compare photos showing a tiny urban educated elite in Kabul and major cities in the 60s with modern images of Afghanistan as a whole is comparing apples to oranges.

To employ a crude but apt analogy; it would be like thinking that everyone in the US was at Woodstock in '69.

The was a very tiny portion of the population in the 60s and 70s who were 'western' in their dress and outlook, but the everyday life of those in areas away from major urban centres was basically the same in 1930, 1960 and 1990 and continues so to this day.

Throughout the 20th c. the vast majority of Afghans have been very poor, politically and religiously 'conservative' and dependent upon agriculture. Even in the major cities the 'Westernised' Afghans were never a majority.

There certainly was an educated, Westernised section of the populace, usually young people, who did face repression and whose subculture did vanish during the years of Theocratic rule, but it was a sub-culture, it was not mainstream Afghan culture and it did not reflect the lives of the majority of people at all.

I would agree with this, after having seen quite a bit of Afghanistan (Granted, not much of Kabul but the outskirts). Much of the country couldn't care less about Kabul, and indeed, most couldn't care less about the world outside their tribe or village. There is also no evidence of it having once been a thriving 1970s era civilization as we would know it. No glorious examples of then-modern 1970s construction or infrastructure which has since fallen into disrepair, unless they took the trouble to bulldoze it and then replace it with more crude construction.

There were certainly some impressive feats of engineering from the 1960s, such as the road from Kabul to Jalalabad which is simultaneously impressive, breathtaking and somewhat terrifying, or the Surobi Dam, but in the large scale, there seemed little evidence of any repression of 'modern' thinking or capabilities in the countryside where I spent most of my time. What you saw tended to be what always was.

CelticRambler

Manic Moran wrote: »

Much of the country couldn't care less about Kabul, and indeed, most couldn't care less about the world outside their tribe or village.

An interesting observation, and one that would apply almost word-for-word to France in the 2020s. Few people in provincial France care about Paris, and most have never been there, unless it was to change trains. Similarly, there are even today, pockets of people who have only the faintest notion of what goes on beyond their département borders.

But perhaps it is this parochialism that appeals to the only Afghans that I know - refugees I met shortly after their arrival, when they were being exposed to traditional music and dance as part of their re-settlement programme. Somewhat ironically, they're now regular voluntary participants in this activity, even though the average Frenchman hasn't the foggiest idea of how rich and vibrant is this aspect of his own culture.

Manach

Manach wrote: »

Historically, the French military have had a more active role and more outspoken than say in the UK since the Revolution. The Fifth Republic is in essence General De Gaulle's creation, and he noted in an age of more homogeneous society the difficulty of governing France. In this modern France, as detailed by the book French Infatida, the fault lines are much more visible.

True enough, although that''s not to say that France is unstable.

I spent a lot of time in the south of France when I was younger. I still visit whenever I can, since I have a few friends from that childhood who have married, settled down, etc. Take two families who are friends of mine, and also know each other, living in the same town near Montpelier. They'll march in the same protests but following different groups, they'll throw bottles at each other, shout and rave over the politics of the region... and on the weekend they'll meet for a bbq and be the best of friends.

That's France. They argue. They fight. And they find ways to coexist, and sometimes even become very friendly with each other, while also retaining interests in what we'd consider opposing viewpoints. On top of that though, is that they're nationalists. Not that they love the idea of France, since they still hold some weird allegiance to the States/Duchies that existed before France was formed, but against a foreign group, then they're very nationalistic.

I love the French. They seem so obvious and direct, but there's so many different layers behind their motivations.

The fault lines are visible, and there's a reason for that. It allows them to be passionate about everything... and honestly, while I cringe at the riots they have, i can't really fault them for the passion they bring to politics. Better that than the apathy that we see here in Ireland or elsewhere.

bfa1509

The French should do what they do best and surrender:p

Overheal

bfa1509 wrote: »

The French should do what they do best and surrender:p

Rest assured, nobody's made that outdated joke already.

francois

bfa1509 wrote: »

The French should do what they do best and surrender:p

Try reading a history book some time, who knows you may even learn something

tom1ie

KeepItLight wrote: »

Cretinous take, probably the single dumbest thing I've ever read on Boards.ie (and that's saying quite a lot).

People have every right to be disgusted at the political class for destroying their nation with multiculturalism for the sake of GDP.

But this is the problem isn’t it.
If we don’t increase our GDP and bring in more workers through immigration, we can’t pay the pensions we’ve promised ourselves.
So we need immigration to keep the economy going.

However how can you integrate different cultures together that are so fundamentally different without conflict?

It’s a problem alright.

Pronto63

tom1ie wrote: »

But this is the problem isn’t it.
If we don’t increase our GDP and bring in more workers through immigration, we can’t pay the pensions we’ve promised ourselves.
So we need immigration to keep the economy going.

However how can you integrate different cultures together that are so fundamentally different without conflict?

It’s a problem alright.

Highly highly qualified, highly paid immigrants are fine. They can work away, pay taxes, contribute - all good.

The problem is the large number of low wage immigrants, some who then become Irish citizens, who then apply to bring their large families in.

These people become a net drain on the system.

Low pay means they pay little or no tax.
They are then entitled to claim FIS/WFP as well as the drain on housing, healthcare and school places.

Btw I’ve worked in the immigration area for a number of years and have seen thousands of these applications.

Immigration needs to be much tighter.

Mike Murdock

tom1ie wrote: »

But this is the problem isn’t it.
If we don’t increase our GDP and bring in more workers through immigration, we can’t pay the pensions we’ve promised ourselves.
So we need immigration to keep the economy going.

However how can you integrate different cultures together that are so fundamentally different without conflict?

It’s a problem alright.

But as UCL have shown in the UK, between 1995-2011, Migrants from the 3rd World ended up taking more in benefits, £120 billion more, than they actually added to the tax take.

So Governments in Europe are following Fools Gold. It won't work.

And that is not even counting what will happen when automation starts taking jobs from blue and white-collar workers.

AdrianBalboa

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would agree with this, after having seen quite a bit of Afghanistan (Granted, not much of Kabul but the outskirts). Much of the country couldn't care less about Kabul, and indeed, most couldn't care less about the world outside their tribe or village. There is also no evidence of it having once been a thriving 1970s era civilization as we would know it. No glorious examples of then-modern 1970s construction or infrastructure which has since fallen into disrepair, unless they took the trouble to bulldoze it and then replace it with more crude construction.

There were certainly some impressive feats of engineering from the 1960s, such as the road from Kabul to Jalalabad which is simultaneously impressive, breathtaking and somewhat terrifying, or the Surobi Dam, but in the large scale, there seemed little evidence of any repression of 'modern' thinking or capabilities in the countryside where I spent most of my time. What you saw tended to be what always was.

It’s difficult for a country to develop its infrastructure when it’s constantly being invaded by imperialist forces.

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

But this is the problem isn’t it.
If we don’t increase our GDP and bring in more workers through immigration, we can’t pay the pensions we’ve promised ourselves.

Those pensions will be gone by the time you retire, unless you're working in the Public service. Or the pensions themselves will be so small as to be essentially worthless. More people living in Ireland is not going to change that... now, lowering the cost of living, and other costs across the board, might.

o we need immigration to keep the economy going.

Actually, no we don't. We have an economy that is not labor intensive. It's a skills based economy. The need for labor rests with a few industries and none of them are necessary for our economy to keep going.

However how can you integrate different cultures together that are so fundamentally different without conflict?

It’s a problem alright.

Simple answer is..... that ship has sailed. In the past we could due to small numbers being involved as immigrants. Now, populations of migrants are increasing.. and there is little need for migrants to integrate. After all, the woke crowd are telling everyone that diversity is our strength. Multiculturalism is wonderful. Yay. Smoke that pipe, and ignore that it hasn't worked out anywhere long term (past 20 years), anywhere in the western world, without cracks forming, and unrest occurring.

The answer is in keeping the populations of migrants small, controlled, and limited by their visas.

Housefree

Housefree wrote: »

The extremists are bombing the middle east back to the stone age with the most sophisticated weaponry ever devised by mankind. Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Syria while supporting apartheid

A few lone wolfs on a suicide mission in the west after watching a drone strike slaughter a whole wedding party in some small middle eastern village is hardly extreme in comparison

But your right, can you deprogram US politics/generals?

Is this why the Japanese guy was beheaded in Dundalk?

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this why the Japanese guy was beheaded in Dundalk?

There will always be an excuse and the excuse will always be some vague reference to imperialism.

The Yazidis were ethnically cleansed because like, George Bush or someone.

Muslims have a preference for creating theocracies that would be considered backwards 300 years ago in Europe because Rudyard Kipling and sheeeiit.

And so on and so forth

Danzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is this why the Japanese guy was beheaded in Dundalk?

Not according to Islamic militants. It's way down their list, beneath apostasy, fornication, both sexes socializing, having equal rights, open homosexuality.

Islamists are verging on blaise about military intervention and past colonialism. That was done to Muslims being lax in their faith.

Some have to shoehorn in past colonialism etc to fit their own needs and agendas. It just means that they have to ignore the people attaching and their reasons, motivations etc.

Danzy

Danzy wrote: »

Not according to Islamic militants. It's way down their list, beneath apostasy, fornication, both sexes socializing, having equal rights, open homosexuality.

Islamists are verging on blaise about military intervention and past colonialism. That was done to Muslims being lax in their faith.

Some have to shoehorn in past colonialism etc to fit their own needs and agendas. It just means that they have to ignore the people attaching and their reasons, motivations etc.

People will pass the buck on to others. How would Muslims feel if people from India started bombing Islamic countries because of the Muslim invasions in the "distant" past? The time difference between imperialism (and now), and those invasions (and imperialism) isn't so great.

As was said... it's an excuse, and a rather flimsy excuse at that. Few peoples/cultures want to acknowledge what they (a collective group) have done in the past to other cultures, and take it for granted when nothing negative has arisen from those actions.

Even when it comes to US/Coalition actions in the M.East, it's still a rather flimsy excuse, since many Arab/Persian/Whatever nations have a long history of invading each other, and doing just as bad, if not worse during their time occupying territory. More excuses to justify a desire to strike out at external groups, rather than deal with the problems within their own culture.

Danzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People will pass the buck on to others. How would Muslims feel if people from India started bombing Islamic countries because of the Muslim invasions in the "distant" past? The time difference between imperialism (and now), and those invasions (and imperialism) isn't so great.

As was said... it's an excuse, and a rather flimsy excuse at that. Few peoples/cultures want to acknowledge what they (a collective group) have done in the past to other cultures, and take it for granted when nothing negative has arisen from those actions.

Even when it comes to US/Coalition actions in the M.East, it's still a rather flimsy excuse, since many Arab/Persian/Whatever nations have a long history of invading each other, and doing just as bad, if not worse during their time occupying territory. More excuses to justify a desire to strike out at external groups, rather than deal with the problems within their own culture.

Islam's key strength has always been imperialism and militancy were it's core command.

It allowed it to conquer from India to Spain in such a short time.

They remain key values.

Understandable given the region where Islam was created, the wellspring of Imperialism and Empire.

TomTomTim

Deleted User wrote: »

People will pass the buck on to others. How would Muslims feel if people from India started bombing Islamic countries because of the Muslim invasions in the "distant" past? The time difference between imperialism (and now), and those invasions (and imperialism) isn't so great.

As was said... it's an excuse, and a rather flimsy excuse at that. Few peoples/cultures want to acknowledge what they (a collective group) have done in the past to other cultures, and take it for granted when nothing negative has arisen from those actions.

Even when it comes to US/Coalition actions in the M.East, it's still a rather flimsy excuse, since many Arab/Persian/Whatever nations have a long history of invading each other, and doing just as bad, if not worse during their time occupying territory. More excuses to justify a desire to strike out at external groups, rather than deal with the problems within their own culture.

They are ironically completely western-centric in their historical views. The only time history matters to them is when the European is hurting the minority. All history outside of that is ignored.

Danzy

Danzy wrote: »

Islam's key strength has always been imperialism and militancy were it's core command.

It allowed it to conquer from India to Spain in such a short time.

They remain key values.

Understandable given the region where Islam was created, the wellspring of Imperialism and Empire.

Islamic societies tend to be very hierarchical with the men holding all the power. There have been some flirting with western values, where women are given positions of authority, but these women typically, are fanatical in their devotion to Islamic values. As such, tradition plays a key role, and since Islam is a militant faith, the tradition of strength above all other aspects remains the same. The expression of strength through warfare, conflict (whether direct or indirect), and the expansion of Islamic faith beyond their borders.

It's the reason I get so irritated by those defending Islam. As a faith, tradition (just as it was/is in Christianity) is incredibly important, especially where there are significant populations. Conformity is the rule. As populations increase, so too will the pressure to conform to the traditional values of Islam. While populations are minor, individuals will have more freedom to embrace aspects of western culture, while retaining the aspects of Islamic values that they approve of.

EddieN75

https://www.iom.int/news/irish-aid-iom-launch-global-media-academy-tackle-misinformation-migration

Ireland will be one of the leaders of a new training program for journalists to promote migration. Irish tax payer are covering the cost. French journalists will be able to attend the course. It might help the French situation to put out some pro migration news

Mike Murdock

EddieN75 wrote: »

https://www.iom.int/news/irish-aid-iom-launch-global-media-academy-tackle-misinformation-migration

Ireland will be one of the leaders of a new training program for journalists to promote migration. Irish tax payer are covering the cost. French journalists will be able to attend the course. It might help to out out some pro migration news

Well there's a big ****ing surprise...

to tackle the spread of misinformation and xenophobia in the media.

And on social media

Do they really need a course to learn how to cry Racism, block people online, cancel people they don't like and write puff-pieces on how great migration is?

EddieN75

EddieN75 wrote: »

https://www.iom.int/news/irish-aid-iom-launch-global-media-academy-tackle-misinformation-migration

Ireland will be one of the leaders of a new training program for journalists to promote migration. Irish tax payer are covering the cost. French journalists will be able to attend the course. It might help the French situation to put out some pro migration news

Ahh yes, because Ireland has such a long history of dealing with immigration, and managing the problems associated with it.

I wonder if the people who think this stuff up, are self-aware to realise just how stupid they appear.

jmreire

EddieN75 wrote: »

https://www.iom.int/news/irish-aid-iom-launch-global-media-academy-tackle-misinformation-migration

Ireland will be one of the leaders of a new training program for journalists to promote migration. Irish tax payer are covering the cost. French journalists will be able to attend the course. It might help the French situation to put out some pro migration news

Would make a lot more sense, if the Irish Journalists attended the same course held in France........

Montage of Feck

EddieN75 wrote: »

https://www.iom.int/news/irish-aid-iom-launch-global-media-academy-tackle-misinformation-migration

Ireland will be one of the leaders of a new training program for journalists to promote migration. Irish tax payer are covering the cost. French journalists will be able to attend the course. It might help the French situation to put out some pro migration news

I don't know much about journalism education but heck in LC history you learn about proper research and referencing legitimate sources. That course is utter cack and doesn't reflect well on the current state of journalism is they have to attend a course on what to write.

EddieN75

Montage of Feck wrote: »

I don't know much about journalism education but heck in LC history you learn about proper research and referencing legitimate sources. That course is utter cack and doesn't reflect well on the current state of journalism is they have to attend a course on what to write.

It's taxpayer funded too

KeepItLight

Bambi wrote: »

There will always be an excuse and the excuse will always be some vague reference to imperialism.

The Yazidis were ethnically cleansed because like, George Bush or someone.

Muslims have a preference for creating theocracies that would be considered backwards 300 years ago in Europe because Rudyard Kipling and sheeeiit.

And so on and so forth

It's the Western pollical elite that brought those rabid murderous fanatics over here in the first place, and their foreign policy is what radicalised them (or provided a perceived justification for radicalisation) so they hold the highest degree of blame in my eyes.

Islamic theocracy and Western culture (or what it used to be) don't mix and should be confined to their respective nations and peoples.

Stihl waters

KeepItLight wrote: »

Islamic theocracy and Western culture (or what it used to be) don't mix and should be confined to their respective nations and peoples.

You dont put wolves into cages with sheep, we could learn a lot from the animal kingdom and keep people at a respectable distance from each other, the world would be a much more peaceful place

Danzy

TomTomTim wrote: »

They are ironically completely western-centric in their historical views. The only time history matters to them is when European is hurting the minority. All history outside of that is ignored.

The modern Left and progressive movements are more Western centric, everything through that lens than they were 50 years ago.

It's part of a wider problem for the Left and it's killing it all over Europe, ironically.

They refuse to listen, refuse dialogue, they have all the answers and the masses must eagerly listen in awe to their preaching. To disagree with any part is down to sin, brainwashing.

The language, ideas and solutions offered by the Left haven't really changed in 60 years.


It's off topic, slightly, but it is related to the same nonsense of telling Jihadis, there reasoning is not important as it ignores the Left analysis.

Archbishop John McQuaid wouldn't have the ego or arrogance to be a progressive today.

KeepItLight

Stihl waters wrote: »

You don't put wolves into cages with sheep, we could learn a lot from the animal kingdom and keep people at a respectable distance from each other, the world would be a much more peaceful place

It's human nature. I don't hate Islam. There are a lot of aspects of Islamic culture that I find more admirable than Western culture. But overall, I know that the value systems I was raised with, and the history and tradition of my people are too fundamentally different to ever share a society with them, and vice-versa (as we can see from all the Muslim ghettos in Western European cities).

But at the end of the day, there is more money to be made with an atomised, consumer class with no culture or shared brotherhood.

Reading up on why Amazon pushes so hard for diversity hiring is an eye-opener, its because they know it will prevent unionisation. That's the push for multi-culturism in nutshell.

Danzy

KeepItLight wrote: »

It's human nature. I don't hate Islam. There are a lot of aspects of Islamic culture that I find more admirable than Western culture. But overall, I know that the value systems I was raised with, and the history and tradition of my people are too fundamentally different to ever share a society with them, and vice-versa (as we can see from all the Muslim ghettos in Western European cities).

But at the end of the day, there is more money to be made with an atomised, consumer class with no culture or shared brotherhood.

Reading up on why Amazon pushes so hard for diversity hiring is an eye-opener, its because they know it will prevent unionisation. That's the push for multi-culturism in nutshell.

Another off topic question, that relates to this one, can you have multi culturalism outside of imperialism or neoliberalism.

Can even the most basic Socialized aspects of a State survive multiculturalism.

Probably not.

KeepItLight

Danzy wrote: »

Another off topic question, that relates to this one, can you have multi culturalism outside of imperialism or neoliberalism.

Can even the most basic Socialized aspects of a State survive multiculturalism.

Probably not.

Yes definitely, but the cultures need to be relatively close in terms of value systems ie) Scotland & England. Prussia & Bavaria etc..

Even then, there are challenges, such as Northern Ireland and the early US (WASP vs. Irish vs. Italian). And of course our friends in the Balkans (though you can argue that the Yugoslavia project was engineered to fail by the US).

RulesOfNature

Danzy wrote: »

Another off topic question, that relates to this one, can you have multi culturalism outside of imperialism or neoliberalism.

Can even the most basic Socialized aspects of a State survive multiculturalism.

Probably not.

Yes but it has to be organic. Accelerating the inter-change of people is nothing but disastrous. Not once in history has a sudden influx of immigrants has ended well for the current inhabitants - This is irregardless of race: Celts were supplanted by Romans were supplanted by Anglo Saxons were supplanted by Normans. It always ends with the current inhabitant being wiped out.

rossie1977

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Yes but it has to be organic. Accelerating the inter-change of people is nothing but disastrous. Not once in history has a sudden influx of immigrants has ended well for the current inhabitants - This is irregardless of race: Celts were supplanted by Romans were supplanted by Anglo Saxons were supplanted by Normans. It always ends with the current inhabitant being wiped out.

Really comparing the invasion of the Normans and others to immigration in 21st century.

F**k me.

KeepItLight

KeepItLight wrote: »

It's the Western pollical elite that brought those rabid murderous fanatics over here in the first place, and their foreign policy is what radicalised them (or provided a perceived justification for radicalisation) so they hold the highest degree of blame in my eyes.

Islamic theocracy and Western culture (or what it used to be) don't mix and should be confined to their respective nations and peoples.

Except, it used to. Look, it's easy enough if people are willing to consider the issue without emotion. When western culture was proud about itself, there were no threats from external cultural groups. Nationalism came later, but it still bound most people into believing that their culture was strong, and, superior to others. Which, in itself, is not a bad thing.

The problem is this guilt trip that western society has allowed to become established. That we should feel guilt for the successes of western civilisations on the world stage. Holding western nations up to a standard that is never applied equally to other nations, or cultural groups. There's a shame game that's been thrust on to Westerners over our history, similar to the shame that Christianity pushed over sex. A guilt.. and a perverted desire to condemn anyone who is proud of their own culture, or national heritage.

Multiculturalism divides. It's not about unity. Diversity is our strength, although it's never actually proven to be the case, except in the extreme short term when numbers of people are low. In every European nation, where immigration has increased, we are seeing serious cracks in the stability of society, and the unrest that follows (whether that's violence, or the undoing of cultural/legal systems to accommodate foreign cultures).

If we look around the world, the nations who manage multicultural populations, and do it well, it's obvious how it's done. The host culture is dominant, and there is little leeway in accommodating the desires of migrant groups, except in the most superficial of ways. They have a sense of pride in their national culture(s), and history, not allowing others to fragment them. It works. Just as foreign groups living in Islamic countries have little expectation that their customs will be accepted. We know how to behave in Islamic nations, and the consequences for breaking those social norms.

There have always been Islamic populations in Europe, just as there's been other cultural/religious groups whose values are polar opposites to Western/European values. They managed to co-exist because their populations were limited, and they had no expectation that they could influence the host nation into accepting them completely. It worked. That's not going to work anymore, because the fabric of western social thought has shifted, along with the populations of these "foreign" groups have increased dramatically.

What doesn't work is the modern western approach to immigration and integration. Nor does this need by many to insult and destroy our cultural and historical backgrounds. This need to push a guilt trip and encourage shame for things that are pretty common throughout the world. An embrace of double standards. It's divisive, destructive, and needs to be stopped.

Oh, and before someone starts calling me a Xenophobe, or some other nonsense. I've lived extensively abroad, having spent quite a bit of time in the M.East and Asia. I'm very familiar with Islam through friends and colleagues... and I have no issue with the practice of their faith, or cultural behaviors... in their own countries. I quite admire many of the cultures around the world, and love exploring them for myself. However, I'm more concerned about what will work in Europe, since I do have family who lives here, and I'd like them to live in a relatively stable environment. I definitely don't want Europe following in the steps of the US with a deeply divided society (which is incredibly divided even when you remove African Americans from the evaluation).

RulesOfNature

rossie1977 wrote: »

Really comparing the invasion of the Normans and others to immigration in 21st century.

F**k me.

The better example would be the Barbarian incursions into Rome in the 4th century AD when the destabilisation of the Germanic regions forced mass immigration into Roman territory, overwhelming their infrastructure, army and economy causing a massive collapse in the entire state. We now call this the Dark Ages.

Yellow_Fern

rossie1977 wrote: »

Really comparing the invasion of the Normans and others to immigration in 21st century.

F**k me.

Comparing isn't equating. There are plenty of cases of modern day countries where the natives have become a minority (UAE, Bahrain, Hawaii, probably Channel islands too). It is of course different from conquest but it can still happen and some governments let it happen.

Das Reich

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Comparing isn't equating. There are plenty of cases of modern day countries where the natives have become a minority (UAE, Bahrain, Hawaii, probably Channel islands too). It is of course different from conquest but it can still happen and some governments let it happen.

Philippinos on those countries can't even have a bible.

Manic Moran

KeepItLight wrote: »

And of course our friends in the Balkans (though you can argue that the Yugoslavia project was engineered to fail by the US).

I'll be curious to see that argument. The place was never known for its stability, and was something of an artificial country created after WW1, its own separatist movements causing WW1 in the first place. Probably the single most unifying thing which happened to the place was getting invaded by Germany, which itself is hardly stabilising, though it did allow Tito to come to power.

KeepItLight

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll be curious to see that argument. The place was never known for its stability, and was something of an artificial country created after WW1, its own separatist movements causing WW1 in the first place. Probably the single most unifying thing which happened to the place was getting invaded by Germany, which itself is hardly stabilising, though it did allow Tito to come to power.

I'm not fully convinced either, but there definitely has been compelling arguments made. This video is pretty long but has an interesting take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkfNmmWeBa8

Pandiculation

To be quite honest, I put this stuff into the same category as the mass shootings in the US. It's driven by online radicalisation. It's just a different flavour of the same thing.

They're all driven by abstracting reality to the point that they're buried in religious or political dogma and hate of others, and then lash out at random members of the public who they've dehumanised.

Take a disaffected, angsty, usually youngish male. A percentage are drawn, like a moth to a flame, to outlying causes like political islam, the far right, and umpteen other things that try to blame the world for their life and they then lash out at random people.

The growth in these and other attacks has trended in line with the growth of social media. I hate to say it, as there are really positive sides to many of these social media and online platforms, but it also provides a route towards very rapid radicalisation and socialisation amongst would be radicals who surround themselves in a bubble, without any checks or balances of normal society, and then lash out.

The history in France is obviously complicated due to the country's history of colonisation, but you're seeing attacks in places like Sweden that had no such history.

I think until we tackle the radicalisation online, and it's likely we won't, this kind of thing will just keep growing.

If you look at it though, there's a common thread through most of these radicalised groups, whatever their core beliefs.

Dyr

Pandiculation wrote: »

To be quite honest, I put this stuff into the same category as the mass shootings in the US. It's driven by online radicalisation. It's just a different flavour of the same thing.

They're all driven by abstracting reality to the point that they're buried in religious or political dogma and hate of others, and then lash out at random members of the public who they've dehumanised.

Take a disaffected, angsty, usually youngish male. A percentage are drawn, like a moth to a flame, to outlying causes like political islam, the far right, and umpteen other things that try to blame the world for their life and they then lash out at random people.

The growth in these and other attacks has trended in line with the growth of social media. I hate to say it, as there are really positive sides to many of these social media and online platforms, but it also provides a route towards very rapid radicalisation and socialisation amongst would be radicals who surround themselves in a bubble, without any checks or balances of normal society, and then lash out.

The history in France is obviously complicated due to the country's history of colonisation, but you're seeing attacks in places like Sweden that had no such history.

I think until we tackle the radicalisation online, and it's likely we won't, this kind of thing will just keep growing.

If you look at it though, there's a common thread through most of these radicalised groups, whatever their core beliefs.

Muslims have been at this butchering infidels lark long before facebuke came along

kowloon

biko wrote: »

I think it would have helped if they had any guns.
Guns help when you want to capture and execute people.

The zip ties weren't brought along for cable management. As for guns, people are more than capable of killing each other without them, a fact that is always pointed out in the gun control threads or when an Islamic extremist is involved. You can even kill someone with a fire extinguisher.
Anyway, as it turns out, the Oathkeepers may have put together a stash of firearms in preparation for the insurrection. We'll see when all the traitors have had their trials.

BattleCorp

kowloon wrote: »

The zip ties weren't brought along for cable management. As for guns, people are more than capable of killing each other without them, a fact that is always pointed out in the gun control threads or when an Islamic extremist is involved. You can even kill someone with a fire extinguisher.
Anyway, as it turns out, the Oathkeepers may have put together a stash of firearms in preparation for the insurrection. We'll see when all the traitors have had their trials.

If the fire extinguisher example you mention above is in relation to the cop dying after being bashed with a fire extinguisher, that's not what happened. See the link below. He died of natural causes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56810371

DerekC16

Dont worry lads. The young girls butchered in the Manchester arena had more chance of being killed in a traffic accident. Nothing to worry about, go about your day.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

I think it would have helped if they had any guns.
Guns help when you want to capture and execute people.

Yeah if only righ-

Police seized alarming number of weapons on Capitol rioters, court documents show wrote:

Police have seized an alarming number of guns from President Trump's supporters who descended on Washington, D.C., last week and stormed the Capitol in an effort to stop Congress's certification of the 2020 election results.

The details revealed in court documents over the past week paint a disturbing picture indicating that some of the demonstrators flocked to the Capitol prepared to carry out violence. The cases, likely only the beginning of a lengthy federal investigation, also suggest that the riot that overran the halls of Congress and left five people dead could have been much worse.

One man, Lonnie Coffman, is facing multiple weapons charges after police say they found him in possession of five guns, eleven Molotov cocktails, a crossbow, smoke bombs and a stun gun.

Coffman was arrested only because police were investigating pipe bombs that were discovered near the Capitol at the Republican Party and Democratic Party headquarters and noticed one of the guns in his truck while securing the area.

Authorities have said they don't believe Coffman was behind the pipe bombs and have yet to identify a suspect.

In charging documents filed with the federal district court in D.C., police said they searched Coffman’s truck while sweeping the areas around the pipe bombs, finding the weapons along with hundreds of rounds of ammunition and a list of public officials and journalists that identified them as “good guys” and “bad guys.”

“In the end, this is a defendant with access to firearms and numerous other lethal weapons, dangerous incendiary mixtures creating napalm, who appears to have been motivated to conduct violence against our elected representatives,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing.

“The defendant brought these weapons to the immediate vicinity of the U.S. Capitol Building, and traveled to the area with two firearms on his person. The amount of weapons suggests an intent to provide them to others, as no one person could reasonably use so many at once,” they added.

A man named Cleveland Meredith, who traveled from Colorado in order to participate in the protests at the Capitol, was arrested at his hotel in D.C. last week after law enforcement received a tip that he had threatened to kill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Meredith told investigators that he mistakenly arrived in the District a day after the riot.

The FBI said in court documents that it found a handgun, an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in Meredith’s trailer and text messages on his phone in which he talked about killing Pelosi and told a friend “headed to DC with a **** ton of 5.56 armor piercing ammo [purple devil emoji].”

Prosecutors have also charged two men who were seen in social media images carrying plastic flex cuffs, which are plastic restraints often used by military and law enforcement when detaining groups of people.

One of those men could be seen sporting what appeared to be a weapon in a holster on his hip in pictures of him inside the Capitol. The day of the riots, FBI identified the man as Eric Munchel, of Nashville, Tenn., and arrested him at his hotel in D.C.

He was carrying a Taser in a holster when he was arrested, which he told investigators was for protection, according to an affidavit from an FBI agent.

Another man, Christopher Alberts of Maryland, was arrested on the Capitol grounds as police were clearing the building when an officer noticed that he was carrying a pistol.

The defendants’ attorneys did not respond when asked for comment.

The gun charges that have emerged in court over the past week are only a fraction of the more than 70 cases that federal prosecutors have filed in the wake of the riot. And Justice Department officials have suggested that many more are likely to be charged in the coming days as their investigation unfolds.

It’s unclear just how many of the rioters were armed as they stormed the Capitol, forcing Vice President Pence to evacuate and hundreds of lawmakers to flee both chambers.

Those who have already been charged may be only a small percentage of the total number of armed rioters given the prevalence of firearms at right-wing demonstrations across the country in the past year.

And according to numerous media reports, there’s mounting evidence that the demonstration was organized in advance, with some Trump supporters discussing plans for violence online.

“All this bull**** about not bringing guns to D.C. needs to stop,” one Trump supporter wrote in an online forum, according to BuzzFeed. “This is America. F--- D.C. it's in the Constitution. Bring your goddamn guns.”

Michael Sherwin, the acting U.S. attorney for D.C., has said in recent days that investigators are only beginning what will likely be a lengthy probe into the debacle and that his office is exploring severe charges such as sedition for some of those who were involved.

"We're looking at and treating this just like a significant international counterterrorism or counterintelligence operation," Sherwin said at a press conference this week. "We're looking at everything: money, travel records, looking at disposition, movement and communication records. So no resource related to the FBI or the U.S. attorney's office will be unchecked in terms of trying to determine exactly if there was a command and control, how it operated and how they executed these activities."

Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney in Alabama under the Obama administration, suggested that a priority for federal prosecutors will be those who may have helped incite and solicit violence as well as those who brought guns to the riot.

“Anytime you've got someone engaging in criminal activities who's willing to take a gun along with them, they become that much more dangerous and that much more deserving of scrutiny from law enforcement,” Vance told The Hill.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/534329-police-seized-alarming-number-of-weapons-on-capitol-rioters-court

jmreire

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll be curious to see that argument. The place was never known for its stability, and was something of an artificial country created after WW1, its own separatist movements causing WW1 in the first place. Probably the single most unifying thing which happened to the place was getting invaded by Germany, which itself is hardly stabilising, though it did allow Tito to come to power.

And to this day, they have neither forgotten or forgiven.......:cool

jmreire

tom1ie wrote: »

But this is the problem isn’t it.
If we don’t increase our GDP and bring in more workers through immigration, we can’t pay the pensions we’ve promised ourselves.
So we need immigration to keep the economy going.

However how can you integrate different cultures together that are so fundamentally different without conflict?

It’s a problem alright.

And then after looking after the pensions of the existing crowd, by increasing the worker base, we have to start thinking about the pensions of the increased worker base,,,by increasing the worker base again.......:(

Calahonda52

RulesOfNature wrote: »

The better example would be the Barbarian incursions into Rome in the 4th century AD when the destabilisation of the Germanic regions forced mass immigration into Roman territory, overwhelming their infrastructure, army and economy causing a massive collapse in the entire state. We now call this the Dark Ages.

Post Covid 2020 through 2050, what will the survivors call the period after the melting of the Himalayan glaciers which provide water to close to half the worlds population. PUP just wont cut it

JustAThought

So here we have a thread on why 20 senior higg ranking French army officers do a martin luther on the french government in relation to what they see as the dilution of their culture and their nations values of equality and fraternity and in opposition to the tolerance of Islamic violence and Islamic laws - and in 25 pages of this thread we have had cartoon humour and monthy python anti french hte.

Small wonder the generals are writing open letters.

In Ireland today we currently have over 730 girls and children mutilated for life by barbaric religious practices which were done by radicals imported into this country with only one prosecution. We have the UK where there are now towns with dominant muslim populations where sharia practices and punishments (‘law’) are being treated as law by the police athorities and wimen being burned alive, mutilated, and ‘honour’ killed - and little said and less outrage.

Small wonder those in France who will be called in to put their lives down to protect others are calling out those responsible for enforcing the laws and protecting administratively their citizens to stop ignoring the problem and act to protect their freedoms and citizens.

Lions lead by donkeys springs to mind - the citizens and their elected ‘leaders’.