Way to go Spain - aka The results of giving in to terrorist demands

[Spiffor]

Pekka:

I wholeheartedly agree with you. And in the case of this very thread, I don't think any external pressure will change our mind, bar maybe pressure from the EU.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Pekka
We should not let them affect our decision making, AT ALL. That way, we win.

Obviously we shouldn't acquiesce to their demands, but you'd still have to take actions to prevent their threats - so they will unfortunately effect our decision making to some level. The types of threat determining what that level may be.

[Pekka]

Well.. I'm not very familiar with EU and its position on these things. However, I just think that as basic method of not letting terrorism influence on any decision making. They do their thing, we do ours. If we respond to that in any way, we are letting them influence us. That can be used against us too. I prefer no influence. Even if some of the actions would be preferred by terrorists, but if it is also preferred by us and we have already considered how this affects terrorism and terrorists, we should go by what we think is what we need to do, no matter how insignificant political decision that might be. It don't make no one a lapdog of someone else, if the decision is truly done by ourselves.

If the French want to have headscarf ban, then that's their business. If they were already considering letting it go, and now as a coincidence terrorists want to have it gone too, and if French now let it go, it's not giving into terrorist demands, and if we think it is, then terrorists have already won. Because then we are guilty of polarized thinking. AKA black and white.

[Pekka]

Dauphin, I disagree. I'd keep political decisions and threats of terrorism in cases like these separate. First of all, let them demand all they want. Anyone can demand things. But we make our own decisions, based on our own facts and opinions, not what terrorists are telling us. That's keeping separate.

On the other hand, dealing with terrosits should be limited to flying bullets and flying fists. If terrorists are trying to gain political demands, we launch rescue operation, attack, or anything that can be considered action. We put the pressure on them, and don't let their pressure affect us. What ever, let them demand ice cream, or changes in politics. We do what we want, and all they ever get is spec ops teams after them for commiting crimes against our countries and our citizens. That's it. Separate issues. They don't get to the negotiation table. They only get a meeting with assault teams. That's it.

[:) Smiley]

Decision making ought to use reverse reactions: they demand the ban on headscarves in schools get lifted, we ban headscarves everywhere.

[Az]

In this case, the "stupid religionists" are the Muslims who insist wearing the scarf, or having their daughters wear the scarf.

I know.

but the old-dtyle-Republican fanaticism did.

You say it like it's a bad thing.

I mean, we can go on like this, in the spirit of "New Age"...

"Open your mind, free yourself of your misconseptions against
Ethnical uniqueness (=racial segragation)
Preservation of cultures (=protecting misogyny, homophobia)
Freeing oneself from the pressures of modern life (= Become a blind follower of some "Guru", ala moon, or Hubbard, or whatever)
The possibility of other dimensions (=belief in crap like ghosts)
"

All of this New-Age bull**** is much like the Newspeak from 1984. Pretty or Romantic definitions for lies, or unsubstanciated claims, at best.

[Pekka]

Smiley, I disagree. That would mean we let them interfere into our policies. We should not give them the luxury of that. That's only a tool for them. Better leave them without any tools.

[Pekka]

Azazel, I would agree. If schools have a rule, then that's the way it goes in that country. We're not *****ing about if some schools in some countries MUST have scarves for women. Who would be bold enough to suggest, that some christian students or westerners now must not wear it beacuse somehow it's against our beliefs?

No no no.. you respect the local ways, that's the way it goes. If I go to a country where they don't want me cursing, I don't curse. If they want me to wear pants instead of shorts, I do exactly that. If they don't want me flashing my cross hanging on my neck, then I will hide it. I can always disagree with it, but if I brake that rule, then I will have to face the consequences of it. That's the way it goes, and should go.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Pekka
Dauphin, I disagree. I'd keep political decisions and threats of terrorism in cases like these separate. First of all, let them demand all they want. Anyone can demand things. But we make our own decisions, based on our own facts and opinions, not what terrorists are telling us. That's keeping separate.

On the other hand, dealing with terrosits should be limited to flying bullets and flying fists. If terrorists are trying to gain political demands, we launch rescue operation, attack, or anything that can be considered action. We put the pressure on them, and don't let their pressure affect us. What ever, let them demand ice cream, or changes in politics. We do what we want, and all they ever get is spec ops teams after them for commiting crimes against our countries and our citizens. That's it. Separate issues. They don't get to the negotiation table. They only get a meeting with assault teams. That's it.

Terrorists fly planes into buildings - you increase security at airports to prevent them doing just that. That is a reaction and a necessary one, but my point is that you are responding to the terrorists by doing that.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
You say it like it's a bad thing.

Of course it's a bad thing. And I'm saying it despite hoping to see the headscarf completely disappear some day:

A few core principles have been stated since the creation of the Third Republic (which was also the first longlasting one). Among those, laicity at school was very important, since the School was the main instrument into unifying France as one culture, one community.

These principles have become dogma with time, and they are now not subject to interpretation, or not subject to mere reflection.

We can consider "laicity" as plenty of different things. But because of our lack of reflection, it remains the unenforceable, useless idea of a school devoid of religion.

it's a given fact now that there are too many lifestyles, and too many ethnical oppositions / hatreds for France to keep being one unified community. If we want to solve that problem, we have to be pragmatists and acknowledge how deep it is, instead of trying superficial, useless and contraproductive methods, that could have been useful 50 years ago.

[Spiffor]

And Azazel:

Since I followed the sig in your link to go to the Civ4 list, I hereby order you to reply to my post there

[Az]

it's a given fact now that there are too many lifestyles, and too many ethnical oppositions / hatreds for France to keep being one unified community. If we want to solve that problem, we have to be pragmatists and acknowledge how deep it is, instead of trying superficial, useless and contraproductive methods, that could have been useful 50 years ago.

So basically, what you're saying is that you're trying to combat a problem by admitting defeat in the fight? ( I see what this "pragmatism" means, Spiff. embracing "multiculturalism" )

foreign ethnicities in france are nothing new. And all of them have went through the melting pot. You've got to stand for what's right.

No no no.. you respect the local ways, that's the way it goes. If I go to a country where they don't want me cursing, I don't curse. If they want me to wear pants instead of shorts, I do exactly that. If they don't want me flashing my cross hanging on my neck, then I will hide it. I can always disagree with it, but if I brake that rule, then I will have to face the consequences of it. That's the way it goes, and should go.

This is not really the case either, though it makes for a good point in an argument. Would you beat "your woman" into submission, too, just because it's the law of the land? nonsense. Ethics shouldn't be geography specific.

[Pekka]

Dauphin, yes. But that's not a political demand. That's action. We see, A-HA! we have some holes in our security, let's boost it up. It's not a political issue.

It's like this. We find that our citizen is being held captive. There are political demands. The only people who wake up middle in the night and form a group who responds to this is security personel. They make plans to attack.

Everyone else continues to sleep.

We shouldn't even respond in media to these demands. We should make it a known policy, that only people who will respond to it will be people who will answer with action and no one else. When ordinary criminals demands things, they only get responses from cops. That's they way it should be in bigger scale terrorism as well.

People make it an issue of freedom when the scarves come into play. I don't believe this is the case in here. Since schools are public, well at least the public schools, that means everyones kids are going in there. Freedom of religion comes with rules too, just like every other freedom. I dont' want my kid going to shcool everyday that has all religions presented. The people can be, but I don't want their traditions in there. I want my kid to grow up in religion free environment when it comes to school. I don't want that he gets light headed in the mixture of all these things when his mind is open to everything. I want him/her to be able to grow up, mature up, and in the meantime learn about religions, sure, but I don't want there to be any 'recruitment' possibility. Keep religion out of schools! Except for religion classes where they teaceh you about different religions. And since this IS possible in our countries, I'd like to keep tha tpossibility in action too.

[:) Smiley]

Pekka: the war we're fighting against terrorism is primarily an ideological one. You don't win a war by pretending it doesn't exist: see France/England in 1939.

Now since their goal isn't to kill people, it's to impose their ideals, we do things that make their actions counterproductive. They want to interfere with our policies? Well, we turn things around and mess with theirs. It's the same reason that Poly hands out post count reductions for spammers.

[Pekka]

Azazel, no, because the law would be stupid. If that would be the law, I wouldn't live in that country. You can always move.

This is basically a traditional custom and the freedom for it vs. who says what goes.

I don't see a place in religion in public schools. BUT I'd like that option to be used by the school. If school WANTS to allow the wear of scarf, it should be able to do that too.