2016 Brussels Bombings

[astralis]

Versus,

Astrails, things that work for US do not work for the rest of the world.

I agree, solutions that work for one country can't be copied blindly to others.

having said that, if there ARE things that the US does right in this regard that can be adjusted to fit the realities of Europe, I don't see why that shouldn't be encouraged. and moving away from blood-and-soil nationalism would be a good start.

[astralis]

gunnut,

The problem is that drop of ink does not disperse. Sometimes it gathers other drops of ink and they coalesce into larger pools of ink.

eh, don't see that as a problem here. we don't have a jihadist problem like say Belgium has.

One key point is we must not give preferential treatment. We can't place their religious value above our social norms. Driver's license photos must show the entire head. No hijabs or burqas. We don't shut down the production line 3 times a day to accommodate a few prayers. Pray during your break time and don't inconvenience other workers.

i agree with the sentiment. so you must be against North Carolina's new LGBT "religious freedom" law, right? ;-)

Here's a good question. How well has the "African American" population integrated with the rest of the group? Would you say they have integrated more or less than more recent immigrant groups like the Japanese, Chinese, and Vietnamese, or even the Mexicans? How long have they been here? How much are we coddling them? Maybe we shouldn't give them special treatment

that's another kettle of fish altogether, not really germane to the discussion-- we can discuss on another thread if you like. simple answer, the singular experience of African-Americans and the historical context of "black immigration"...ie importation as slaves...makes for a more complicated issue than a simple comparison to the experiences of other immigrants.

and, i note, despite this history we have the Tuskegee Airmen and the 54th Massachusetts.

bottom-line, immigrant countries are by definition better equipped to deal with large groups of immigrants. the US is an immigrant country. the countries in Europe, for the most part, are not.

[gunnut]

gunnut,

i agree with the sentiment. so you must be against North Carolina's new LGBT "religious freedom" law, right? ;-)

I am actually for that law. I ask for it to apply equally to muslims and protect their religious views. Neither a catholic priest nor a muslim imam should be required to perform a service that is against the basis of their faith. I do not demand a halal eatery to serve me bacon. If I want bacon, I go to a place that serves bacon. Does that make sense? Or should we demand mosques to marry LGBT couples now?

that's another kettle of fish altogether, not really germane to the discussion-- we can discuss on another thread if you like. simple answer, the singular experience of African-Americans and the historical context of "black immigration"...ie importation as slaves...makes for a more complicated issue than a simple comparison to the experiences of other immigrants.

and, i note, despite this history we have the Tuskegee Airmen and the 54th Massachusetts.

bottom-line, immigrant countries are by definition better equipped to deal with large groups of immigrants. the US is an immigrant country. the countries in Europe, for the most part, are not.

Notice the "African American" population is now less integrated than before. It seems like the more programs we make up in the name of "equality," the less equal and integrated they are.

[Versus]

Versus,



I agree, solutions that work for one country can't be copied blindly to others.

having said that, if there ARE things that the US does right in this regard that can be adjusted to fit the realities of Europe, I don't see why that shouldn't be encouraged. and moving away from blood-and-soil nationalism would be a good start.

Wrong, moving away from blood and soil requires that your soil cannot be accessed by soil. Nationalism is necessary evil, because it is a defense mechanism against real threat. The fact that US doesn't have that threat, doesn't mean that that threat is non existent.

[astralis]

versus,

Wrong, moving away from blood and soil requires that your soil cannot be accessed by soil. Nationalism is necessary evil, because it is a defense mechanism against real threat. The fact that US doesn't have that threat, doesn't mean that that threat is non existent.

I am speaking for how people conceptualize nationalism, not that nationalism is a bad thing.

I'd say the US is one of the most nationalist countries around, but the concept of what an American is and what America stands for does not = "white and native born."

freedom and the Constitution, f*ck yeah!

[gunnut]

versus,



I am speaking for how people conceptualize nationalism, not that nationalism is a bad thing.

I'd say the US is one of the most nationalist countries around, but the concept of what an American is and what America stands for does not = "white and native born."

freedom and the Constitution, f*ck yeah!

Yeah but US is a unique situation. Other nations are formed around an ethnic group that has been there physically for a while. US was formed by a bunch of immigrants who obliterated the original inhabitants. American values are formed around the Constitution as we don't have much of a cultural heritage. Other nations do not have this luxury.

[kato]

Most European ethnic groups have only been in place for around 1400-1500 years either.

[gunnut]

Most European ethnic groups have only been in place for around 1400-1500 years either.

Well, that's 1000 years more than in the US.

[Firestorm]

firestorm,

yup, racism was higher, but ultimately long-term acceptance was higher too. back in the 1890s WASPs darkly muttered about how Italians and Polish and Portuguese were ruining the character, values, and the racial makeup of the country, that disappeared over time.

same thing with Japanese in the next wave, in the 1930s.

same thing with Indians and Vietnamese in the 1970s.

bottom-line, there's something about the cultural milieu of America where despite the obvious racism, immigrants ended up integrating into the fabric of American society. for some reason, that's not been true, it seems, of a lot of the North African and Turkish and Middle Eastern immigrants into Europe.

The immigrants integrated despite overt racism because they wanted to. Not because Americans did something special for them back then that Europeans of today aren't willing to do. Have you considered the possibility that not all the North African, Turkish and Middle Eastern immigrants to Europe actually want to integrate?

Do you really think Belgium today is worse for immigrants than America in the 50's, 60's and 70's?

[Firestorm]

I think I need to clarify my position. I think that blaming the rise of radical islamists in Europe on their apparent inability to integrate immigrants is a subtle form of "blame the victim" and people don't even realize they're doing it.

And America isn't exceptional. Without the atlantic ocean to insulate you, America would be in the same mess that Belgium and France are in today. And it wouldn't have been your fault.

[Versus]

The rise of "radical" Muslims in Europe is the consequence of their rising numbers and nothing more. This is not my bs nationalism, that is the fact from history. For statistic lovers, once their number passes 20% mark, look for another country. In my neighborhood there are a bunch of them and none of them speaks Serbian. To make matters worse, security reports are saying that I have sleeper cells in my neighborhood as well.

[gunnut]

I sense a lot of microagressions on both sides. I need to retreat into my safe space.

[astralis]

firestorm,

I think I need to clarify my position. I think that blaming the rise of radical islamists in Europe on their apparent inability to integrate immigrants is a subtle form of "blame the victim" and people don't even realize they're doing it.

is it also "blaming the victim" if we point out that European law enforcement and intelligence cooperation has been piss poor?

all of this plays into reasons why Europe has a far more serious terrorist infiltration problem than the US does.

[Firestorm]

firestorm,

is it also "blaming the victim" if we point out that European law enforcement and intelligence cooperation has been piss poor?

No. Why do you even ask? The two arguments are completely different, and I never made this one. It does not of course detract from the validity of the argument I did make.

all of this plays into reasons why Europe has a far more serious terrorist infiltration problem than the US does.

I never commented about law-enforcement because it is obvious they need to be better. That's one place they can actually learn from the US. Not some special American ability to integrate immigrants, that the Europeans lack.

[astralis]

firestorm,

No. Why do you even ask? The two arguments are completely different, and I never made this one

not completely different. poor integration and poor law enforcement, in fact, go hand in hand. Trump's claims notwithstanding, the US Muslim community has been instrumental in allowing US law enforcement to stop attacks before they begin, and to trace wannabe jihadi movement.

so it's not "blaming the victim" to point out the one, or the other.

Not some special American ability to integrate immigrants, that the Europeans lack.

if you say so. we're not the ones with banlieues, and our "Muslim" neighborhoods aren't incubators of terrorist attacks. European police knew that places like Molenbeek and Schaerbeek were problems long, long before the Brussels bombing.