(11-14-2015, 08:52 PM)Mastermind Wrote: If you've uploaded it from the website then you need to chose the direct link option in the top right when copying the link.
I'm using the app and copy link button? Used to work fine
(11-14-2015, 08:42 PM)Donald Dank Wrote: The connotation that a number of muslims in France overtly and covertly hate the country and most of it's people? I don't even think that's something that can be argued against and has been the case for years. I can think of about 5 attacks in or en-route to France within the last couple of years, not to mention the large numbers of jihad tourists or riots that have happened.
The conflation of suburban riots with Islam, as above, is part of the problem in action. Suburban riots have generally been triggered by confrontations with the police (i.e. those of 2005, probably the most significant in recent years, which came after the deaths of teenagers who hid from the police in an electric substation in Clichy-sous-Bois. Banlieue resentment of the police and of bourgeois France is multifactorial: social deprivation, discrimination (real and perceived) and race all play into it. So does religion. Claiming banlieue riots as a sign of the existence of an Islamist fifth column is reductive, simplistic and suggests that you haven't done your research.
All of which is irrelevant because you've still missed my point. I wasn't suggesting that there aren't a number of radical fundamentalist Muslims in France; I was suggesting that the term 'fifth column' comes with baggage which will always make it unhelpfully divisive. I think that anyone who claims not to see that is most likely being wilfully obtuse and would question why anyone would want to use it that badly when other, perfectly serviceable terms exist.
As an aside France has, to my knowledge, a Muslim population of around 6 million. If one tenth of a percent of that population was genuinely bent on overthrowing secular France, there would already be a civil war.
(08-21-2017, 01:25 PM)i8hibsh Wrote: I AM A LONER BY CHOICE
I AM SINGLE BY CHOICE
I HAVE NO KIDS BY CHOICE
(11-14-2015, 09:02 PM)Makween Wrote: The conflation of suburban riots with Islam, as above, is part of the problem in action. Â Suburban riots have generally been triggered by confrontations with the police (i.e. those of 2005, probably the most significant in recent years, which came after the deaths of teenagers who hid from the police in an electric substation in Clichy-sous-Bois. Â Banlieue resentment of the police and of bourgeois France is multifactorial: social deprivation, discrimination (real and perceived) and race all play into it. Â So does religion. Claiming banlieue riots as a sign of the existence of an Islamist fifth column is reductive, simplistic and suggests that you haven't done your research.
All of which is irrelevant because you've still missed my point. Â I wasn't suggesting that there aren't a number of radical fundamentalist Muslims in France; I was suggesting that the term 'fifth column' comes with baggage which will always make it unhelpfully divisive. Â I think that anyone who claims not to see that is most likely being wilfully obtuse and would question why anyone would want to use it that badly when other, perfectly serviceable terms exist.
As an aside France has, to my knowledge, a Muslim population of around 6 million. Â If one tenth of a percent of that population was genuinely bent on overthrowing secular France, there would already be a civil war.
Agreed, I wasn't meaning that the motivation behind the riots were based on an Islamist view but that the demonstration of anger is a symptom of the hatred felt for the French state. However I think events like that probably did push people towards radical views, it was also my understanding that these riots on some scale have happened every couple of years for the last few?
I didn't think I missed your point and I finished that sentence with a question because that's what I took you saying connotations to mean. Based on the origin of the term, I don't feel that it is divisive and is quite accurate. These people didn't act alone, they had help from within the country and it's neighbours in obtaining/making exposives and assault rifles. It was an organised effort by a group of people to achieve a disruptive and murderous goal, I can't see the objection to the term to be honest.
e- I was out on the figure so I've removed that bit, I said 6000 when it would be 60,000. Maybe there are, I don't know I'm not close enough to any of that to make an educated guess as to whether or not that's realistic to assume. I'm happy to take your 10th of a percent as the figure, but with that 60,000 I don't mean to suggest that these people are all ready to fight for a caliphate overseas or to go on a killing spree in France, but that when something like this happens they are not saddened by the death or think that it's a bad thing and believe French society deserves it. I think it's safe to say that those people are at least in their thousands if at a minumum 1000 Syrian fighters have left from France, they came from communities and from families. I don't believe that this ideology is isolated to one particular generation so it has roots somewhere.
e- Wait, I was right it would be 6000 but I really can't be fucked retyping so you can just live with the edits. I don't think 6000 is an unrealistic figure for those that hold subversive views towards the French state within the muslim community and think that a significant percentage of them would be willing to act on that belief.
(11-14-2015, 09:22 PM)Donald Dank Wrote: Agreed, I wasn't meaning that the motivation behind the riots were based on an Islamist view but that the demonstration of anger is a symptom of the hatred felt for the French state. However I think events like that probably did push people towards radical views, it was also my understanding that these riots on some scale have happened every couple of years for the last few?
I didn't think I missed your point and I finished that sentence with a question because that's what I took you saying connotations to mean. Based on the origin of the term, I don't feel that it is divisive and is quite accurate. These people didn't act alone, they had help from within the country and it's neighbours in obtaining/making exposives and assault rifles. It was an organised effort by a group of people to achieve a disruptive and murderous goal, I can't see the objection to the term to be honest.
e- I was out on the figure so I've removed that bit, I said 6000 when it would be 60,000. Maybe there are, I don't know I'm not close enough to any of that to make an educated guess as to whether or not that's realistic to assume. I'm happy to take your 10th of a percent as the figure, but with that 60,000 I don't mean to suggest that these people are all ready to fight for a caliphate overseas or to go on a killing spree in France, but that when something like this happens they are not saddened by the death or think that it's a bad thing and believe French society deserves it. I think it's safe to say that those people are at least in their thousands if at a minumum 1000 Syrian fighters have left from France, they came from communities and from families. I don't believe that this ideology is isolated to one particular generation so it has roots somewhere.
e- Wait, I was right it would be 6000 but I really can't be fucked retyping so you can just live with the edits. I don't think 6000 is an unrealistic figure for those that hold subversive views towards the French state within the muslim community and think that a significant percentage of them would be willing to act on that belief.
My whole point is that you can't reduce a term to 'its origins' and pretend it exists in a vacuum. References to an Islamist 'fifth column' have been being made for years by the far right now; regardless of the term's origins, its meaning has evolved in that context. The Swastika uh oh, Godwin's law etc) was originally a Hindu symbol of peace, but no-one sees it in that light now. The analogy isn't perfect, but the point is that meanings evolve over time. The uses to which a phrase has been put in the past have an impact in the present.
Don't agree about the riots at all. You can't just point at a phenomenon as complex as that and use it as evidence of a separate, equally complex phenomenon. Quite apart from anything else, you're making the assumption that banlieue rioters are/were all Muslim. The banlieues are more racially diverse than the media give them credit for and even those with the highest immigrant populations are often home to many of sub-Saharan, Christian origin. It's just a separate phenomenon.
Your figures regarding the numbers of extremists in France are again based on conjecture and a lack of research. You're making the assumption that those who have been radicalised come from radical families, saying that it isn't generation-specific; the trouble there is that sociologists have recognised a 'return of Islam' in the younger generations. It's not seen as family-driven, but spread by hate preachers and often in jails. I wouldn't really want to hazard a guess at how many French Muslims fall on what could be described as a broad spectrum of anti-state positions, and until a satisfactory line can be drawn between those opposed to the state for Islamist reasons and those who opppse it for totally different reasons and often aren't Muslim it's barely a discussion worth having. I suspect you'd find that many who didn't shed any tears over Charlie Hebdo would feel differently about yesterday's senseless killing of civilians, though.
We also need to get past this 'Muslims/immigrants vs. France' rhetoric. There will have been victims who were Muslim last night, and victims who were of immigrant origin. Fundamentalist Islam's victims (and I'm talking in a broader sense than just terrorist attacks here) are more likely to be Muslim/of immigrant origin/based in the banlieues than anything else.
(08-21-2017, 01:25 PM)i8hibsh Wrote: I AM A LONER BY CHOICE
I AM SINGLE BY CHOICE
I HAVE NO KIDS BY CHOICE
(11-14-2015, 10:03 PM)Makween Wrote: My whole point is that you can't reduce a term to 'its origins' and pretend it exists in a vacuum. Â References to an Islamist 'fifth column' have been being made for years by the far right now; regardless of the term's origins, its meaning has evolved in that context. Â The Swastika uh oh, Godwin's law etc) was originally a Hindu symbol of peace, but no-one sees it in that light now. Â The analogy isn't perfect, but the point is that meanings evolve over time. Â The uses to which a phrase has been put in the past have an impact in the present.
Don't agree about the riots at all. Â You can't just point at a phenomenon as complex as that and use it as evidence of a separate, equally complex phenomenon. Â Quite apart from anything else, you're making the assumption that banlieue rioters are/were all Muslim. Â The banlieues are more racially diverse than the media give them credit for and even those with the highest immigrant populations are often home to many of sub-Saharan, Christian origin. Â It's just a separate phenomenon.
Your figures regarding the numbers of extremists in France are again based on conjecture and a lack of research. Â You're making the assumption that those who have been radicalised come from radical families, saying that it isn't generation-specific; the trouble there is that sociologists have recognised a 'return of Islam' in the younger generations. Â It's not seen as family-driven, but spread by hate preachers and often in jails. Â I wouldn't really want to hazard a guess at how many French Muslims fall on what could be described as a broad spectrum of anti-state positions, and until a satisfactory line can be drawn between those opposed to the state for Islamist reasons and those who opppse it for totally different reasons and often aren't Muslim it's barely a discussion worth having. Â I suspect you'd find that many who didn't shed any tears over Charlie Hebdo would feel differently about yesterday's senseless killing of civilians, though.
We also need to get past this 'Muslims/immigrants vs. France' rhetoric. Â There will have been victims who were Muslim last night, and victims who were of immigrant origin. Â Fundamentalist Islam's victims (and I'm talking in a broader sense than just terrorist attacks here) are more likely to be Muslim/of immigrant origin/based in the banlieues than anything else.
You'll need to explain that bit in more detail, I've not said that it exists in a vacuum and it has been applied to different groups of people throughout the years. The meaning has not changed though, it always has and always will describe a subversive group (real or hypothetical) of people that hold intentions against the state/society they are a part of. I don't think that is a good comparison by the way, because to my knowledge Hindus haven't stopped using the symbol because they're concerned about how it was appropriated by european fascists, in fact doing so would give legitimacy to that appropriation.
I'll drop the riots point because that was the weakest example I gave of three and the one you isolated. I never meant to suggest that this was purely a demonstration of muslim rage and without social context, it was to highlight the ethnic ghettos that France has and that you mentioned in previous posts that I thought were very good in describing the differences between the UK and France on this particular issue. I do believe that it is a symptom of the contempt for the state and that does apply to some muslims although I'll concede that these were not islamic riots.
Those figures are based on the number that you made so I'm more than happy to accept it's conjecture and lacks research if you'll do the same. Again, I'm not making assumptions I listed those things as possible causes but made no determination as to what would be the origins of such belief in any given individual. I think there is definitely a gang like element, in that young people find a place within a group and this just happens to be their particular group.
(11-14-2015, 10:34 PM)Donald Dank Wrote: You'll need to explain that bit in more detail, I've not said that it exists in a vacuum and it has been applied to different groups of people throughout the years. The meaning has not changed though, it always has and always will describe a subversive group (real or hypothetical) of people that hold intentions against the state/society they are a part of. I don't think that is a good comparison by the way, because to my knowledge Hindus haven't stopped using the symbol because they're concerned about how it was appropriated by european fascists, in fact doing so would give legitimacy to that appropriation.
I'll drop the riots point because that was the weakest example I gave of three and the one you isolated. I never meant to suggest that this was purely a demonstration of muslim rage and without social context, it was to highlight the ethnic ghettos that France has and that you mentioned in previous posts that I thought were very good in describing the differences between the UK and France on this particular issue. I do believe that it is a symptom of the contempt for the state and that does apply to some muslims although I'll concede that these were not islamic riots.
Those figures are based on the number that you made so I'm more than happy to accept it's conjecture and lacks research if you'll do the same. Again, I'm not making assumptions I listed those things as possible causes but made no determination as to what would be the origins of such belief in any given individual. I think there is definitely a gang like element, in that young people find a place within a group and this just happens to be their particular group.
My point was that for a relatively long period of time now, far right figures in Europe have been talking about Muslim immigrants in general as a 'fifth column'. The origins of the phrase have nothing to do with Islam, but that's the use to which it's been put and that's the baggage that it brings. The terms we use are never neutral and using this particular one in this particular context is provocative. Even the fact that we're having this discussion when neither of us is denying that some Muslims in France oppose the state in which they live shows that it's divisive. I'm not saying that anyone should be prevented from using it, but under those circumstances I don't understand why they'd want to.
Re. the riots: I singled those out specifically as part of a separate discussion. I didn't challenge the other points because otherwise we're disagreeing over terminology, and maybe now the scale of the threat, rather than the threat's existence. I'm not sure how much of a cretin I'd need to be to deny that the threat of Islamist terrorism in France is real, but it'd probably be about 25-40% more of a cretin than is currently the case. Something to aspire to maybe.
Not sure what number you're saying I should concede lacks research. Less than 6,000? If so then I guess so: no research could ever exist on how many latent terrorists there are in France for obvious reasons. I have researched the issue more broadly in quite a bit of detail, though, and have a reasonable amount of anecdotal experience.
(08-21-2017, 01:25 PM)i8hibsh Wrote: I AM A LONER BY CHOICE
I AM SINGLE BY CHOICE
I HAVE NO KIDS BY CHOICE
On the first two paragraphs fair enough, I don't think there's enough fuel there to keep this going so I'll just say that I don't recognise that phrase being used in the context of muslims, immigrants or nationals, in general and even in comments by far-right commentators always applied to a specific group within this particular demographic. Not that they'd all be terrorists but that their sympathies lay with them instead of their fellow citizens.
On the numbers, it was you saying 6m muslims and 10th of 1% where I was working with that figure. I wasn't describing actual numbers of terrorists or their sympathisers but saying even based on the number that could be drawn from what you'd said I didn't think it was a staggering overestimation of the problem. These islamist sites and forums have traffic in the hundreds of thousands from Europe, so it's just my thought process that if we break it down in to one side or the other then there probably are several thousand that would fall on that particular side. What was your research on, out of interest?