Brain scans show social exclusion creates jihadists

This might be the case for a small number. I can think of a few "white" Canadians who converted and became radicalized and were caught trying to to terrible things and wound up getting shot and getting killed. The reasons are much more complex for the non-locals causing problems in the EU though.

Yes, but even in Europe it's already been noticed that most of the terrorists who actually act on their plans are European-born people of immigrant background, and not immigrants or temporary travelers. And in the Middle East it has often been noticed that most of the leaders and thinkers in fundamentalist groups (the "soldiers", as in all wars and conflicts, tend to come from poor backgrounds, of course) actually hail from the educated middle and higher classes. Those facts fit with the main conclusion of the study, too.
 
Germany didn't colonize your country, you know that, although they arrived in droves after the fact. That was actually one of the reasons why the Nazis were so envious of the British Empire, the Nazis wanted to be just like them, but had no colonies.

No need to single out just the British here, as the vast majority of the colonists were regular families like the Italian ones who weren't responsible for murdering any single Native. Everyone living on US, or Canadian soil is taking full advantage of the opportunities offered.

Stop being so hyper-nationalistic. No insult was intended. I talked about the British and the Germans because that's the majority ancestry of the American white population, and those were the people who pushed out westward (including Germans), displacing the Amerindians, regular families or not. How do you think it worked? Individual homesteaders (families), struck out west for land. They came into conflict with the Amerindians, leading to raids and counter-raids. The militia, later army units, were sent in to "keep the peace". "Indian" wars then took place which the Europeans won. A "treaty" was signed, which either relegated the Amerindians to reservations or pushed them further westward. The aborigines in Australia and New Zealand didn't fare so well either.

While you're reviewing the history of the European/Amerindian conflicts in the U.S., you should also check your history books about European colonization. Both Germany and Italy got into the game late, to their regret, but they did get some colonies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, although they were the least attractive ones by some measures. The German ones were terribly run and extremely brutal, which cannot be said about British colonies. I actually think some of the African territories were run better by the British than they are now under self-rule, although it's highly politically incorrect to say so. As for the Italian ones, I can't say they were models of their type, but for some, to me incomprehensible reason, everyone I meet from them is extremely friendly and have mostly positive things to say about the Italian colonists. I say incomprehensible, because however else they behaved, they did take the best land in a lot of cases.

All Americans and Canadians and Latin Americans are indeed taking full advantage of continents in which the first to arrive, the Amerindians, were killed, enslaved, or marginalized, even if not specifically by their own ancestors. No argument from me there.
 
many of the Jihady, 2nd or 3rth generation of Muslim immigrants in western countries are small criminals and school dropouts from ghettos
they are people who excluded themselves from the societies of their host country already during their youth, and often it is consequence of ghetto mentality
they identify themselves with their ghetto and not with their host country, that is how they were educated within the ghetto

I see the same in the US with people obsessed by 'white priviliges'
they victimise themselves as a group and split society in a group of opressed vs a group of oppressors
 
I'd like to know where this behaviour comes from :

it happened last year

Asia Bibi blasphemy case

The Asia Bibi blasphemy case involves Pakistani Christian woman Aasiya Noreen (Urdu: آسیہ نورین‬‎ – Āsiyaah Naurīn [ˈɑːsiɑː nɔːˈriːn], born c. 1971;[1] commonly known as آسیہ بی بی‬ Āsia Bibī), who was convicted of blasphemy by a Pakistani court and was sentenced to death by hanging in 2010.[2] In October 2018, the Supreme Court of Pakistan acquitted her based on insufficient evidence,[3] though she will not be allowed to leave Pakistan until the verdict has been reviewed,[4] a process that can take years.

Domestic response
In response to the verdict, Islamist groups protested in the streets of Pakistan, "blocking roads and damaging infrastructure".[17][16][91] The Supreme Court decision sparked protests in Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi, Peshawar[92] and Multan. JUI-F chief Fazal-ur-Rehman called for "peaceful" protests stating that Bibi's release was "not acceptable at any cost". Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) chief Khadim Hussain Rizvi and Jamaat-i-Ahle Hadees also called for protests.[93] Protesters belonging to the TLP party said traffic will "remain blocked until Asia Bibi is hanged."[91] and Islamabad's main highway was blocked by "approximately a thousand club-wielding demonstrators".[87] Muhammad Afzal Qadri, a TLP co-founder, Afzal Qadri also called for the death of the three Supreme Court justices involved in hearing Bibi's appeal, stating "The Chief Justice and two others deserve to be killed ... Either their security guards, their drivers, or their chefs should kill them."[94][95] The Red Zone of Islamabad was sealed off from the public in order to keep protesters away, with paramilitary forces being deployed to this end.[85] Prime Minister Imran Khan in a televised address to the nation on the Asia Bibi verdict, issued a stark warning to the groups that were agitating against the decision. He concluded his address stating, "do not take the state to a point where it has no option but to take action".[96][97] On 1 November, the National Highways and Motorway Police advised commuters to "refrain from travelling on motorways and national highways" on account of "the law & order situation across the country".[98][99] Christian schools in Lahore "closed indefinitely" for safety reasons following the protests.[100] The government of Pakistan also shut down mobile phone networks on 2 November.[101]

the power of this mob is so big, it can obstruct justice in Pakistan :

Bar from leaving Pakistan
On 2 November 2018, the Government of Pakistan under the administration of Imran Khan and the Islamist Tehreek-e-Labbaik political party, which encouraged the protests against Asia Bibi, came to an agreement that barred Asia Bibi from leaving the country, in addition to releasing Tehreek-e-Labbaik protesters.[5][20][21][22][23] Noor-ul-Haq Qadri, the religious affairs minister, and Muhammad Basharat Raja, Punjab's minister for law, signed the agreement on behalf of the government.[117][118] The deal includes expediting a motion in the court to place Asia Noreen on Pakistan's no fly list, known officially as the Exit Control List (ECL).[20][5] Pakistani authorities will not release Asia Noreen until the "Supreme Court makes a final review of its verdict" as "Ghulam Mustafa, the lawyer representing a provincial cleric in Punjab who had filed the initial blasphemy charges against Bibi, petitioned the Supreme Court requesting that the judges review her acquittal."[4] Similar reviews have taken years to process.[5] The TLP agreed to end its three-day protest sit-ins across the country and its leaders asked the protesters to disperse peacefully.[119]

A plane from the United Kingdom reportedly arrived to pick up Asia Noreen after her acquittal but returned without her, as the Pakistani government currently still has her under detention as a result of the agreement with Tehreek-e-Labbaik.[120]

so, explain me, has this anything to do with social exclusion?
 
In many "Muslim" countries it is against the law to "proselytize" for non-Muslim religions. Indeed, in Bangladesh, for example, there have been a few killings of people "suspected" of being Atheists.

No one doubts any of this.

The fact remains that when Muslims relocate to the west and are in environments where they have opportunity and are not excluded from the broader society they are more likely to integrate and to disavow such practices. I think we can draw a comparison between the U.S. and Europe, for example. I'm not saying ALL Muslims in the U.S. renounce this kind of ideology, but more of them do than in Europe, and the situation is worse in some European countries than in others.

I really don't understand how you can fail to see that it is a two way street.
 
In many "Muslim" countries it is against the law to "proselytize" for non-Muslim religions. Indeed, in Bangladesh, for example, there have been a few killings of people "suspected" of being Atheists.

No one doubts any of this.

The fact remains that when Muslims relocate to the west and are in environments where they have opportunity and are not excluded from the broader society they are more likely to integrate and to disavow such practices. I think we can draw a comparison between the U.S. and Europe, for example. I'm not saying ALL Muslims in the U.S. renounce this kind of ideology, but more of them do than in Europe, and the situation is worse in some European countries than in others.

I really don't understand how you can fail to see that it is a two way street.

what do I fail to see?

yes it is a two way street
that is why I specifically mention the group who choses to stay in their ghetto for generations

and certain mayors around Bruxelles have encouraged and stimulated this behaviour for decades, it became their voting public
on new years evening in Molenbeek their were riots and plundering and arsening
the mayor said 'it was their way of the youngsters to feast'
she simply accepts this behaviour, she says 'she wouldn't do so herself' but she won't condemn any of them, she says it is common practice

https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20190108_04087112

this is not a case of exclusion, it is their own choice to exclude themselves

the situation is not because of decades of exclusion, it is because of decades of laissez-faire
by pervert politicians who succeed to be reelected as mayor of this community for decades

the present mayor is the daughter of Philip Moureau, who was mayor for decades
it stinks over there

do you think this is possible in the US?
 
FYI : Philippe Moreaux

Minister

His first government post was a Minister of the Interior and Institutional Reform in the government of Wilfried Martens (Martens III) in 1980. Moureaux's name was attached to the loi contre le racisme et la xénophobie (Law against Racism and Xenophobia) of 30 July 1981 as he was then serving as Minister of Justice.

Resigning from the Federal Government in 1993, Moureaux's coalition defeated the incumbent mayor of Molenbeek Léon Spiegels [fr] at the 1994 council elections. A key part of Moureaux's campaign, then and since, was the involvement of ethnic minorities in the campaign, Mariem Bouselmati [fr] of Ecolo being the first Belgian of Moroccan origin elected in Molenbeek. In 2004, as a senator, Moureaux submitted the law granting the right of foreigners to vote in municipal elections.

However, Moureaux's attempts at revitalizing the municipality were not successful. An example was the withdrawal of BBDO in June 2011 from the town. In an open letter addressed to Moureaux, ten employees of this American advertising agency cited over 150 attacks on their staff by locals as principal reason for their departure.[2] As a result, serious questions have been raised about governance, security, and the administration of Mayor Moureaux.[3]
 
the problem is that these mayors did their very best to make these people feel as if they hadn't relocated to the west,
as if they could still live their own customs and stay amongst each other as if they still lived in their home countries
(except the benefits of Belgian social security)

it is quite the opposit of social exclusion


in the US this would not be possible because you can't live on welfare for generations
 
the problem is that these mayors did their very best to make these people feel as if they hadn't relocated to the west,
as if they could still live their own customs and stay amongst each other as if they still lived in their home countries
(except the benefits of Belgian social security)
it is quite the opposit of social exclusion
in the US this would not be possible because you can't live on welfare for generations

I don't know why you have that impression. It is indeed possible, although there are periodic attempts to institute work rules. If my memory serves, people on public assistance form a much bigger percentage of the population in the U.S. than in many countries in Europe.

We also have the situation where rioting is permitted to continue out of fear that police intervention will make things worse. The media run with questionable stories blaming white people or police of any ethnicity, stories which are later proven to be untrue in most if not all cases, but by then the stories have become "urban legend", and the media make no concerted effort to give the "true" story as much "play" time.

The difference is that the ghettos here are predominantly African-American or Hispanic, although I just read about an area in Michigan which is predominantly Somali which has incredible homicide rates because of Somali gang violence.

So, we have ghettos too, both "native" and created by recent immigrants. And yes, many of the problems of the people in those areas are in the nature of self-inflicted wounds. That doesn't mean that the surrounding, larger society is blameless. There is still racism in the U.S. even if it's much better than it used to be. Many, many African Americans and Hispanics have and are moving into the middle class even if they are still segregated to some degree, but there are still the members of the underclass who are unable to rise out of their situation, because of lack of opportunity and skills as well as other things.

In terms of immigrants, it's just incontrovertible, imo, that they are more accepted and more easily integrated in the U.S. than in Europe, particularly if they are not African immigrants. I'm being honest here. It's sad but true that a Middle Eastern immigrant has an easier time here than an African immigrant or African American native.

Yes, many recent immigrants tend to go live near compatriots. That was true for the Germans, Irish, Italians and Jews as well. By the second and third generation they seem to start moving "out", which was also true for the "white" immigrants. However, a Syrian immigrant, for example, doesn't have a hard time getting housing in a non-ghetto area and when they do so they are largely accepted by the surrounding community. Their children become Americanized and accepted pretty quickly. It's even more true for Christian Middle Easterners who are quickly accepted into Catholic churches, and helped by them as well.

For many reasons, it's just not as easy to integrate in Europe, and that's true not only for migrants from the Middle East and North Africa but for migrants from one European country to another. I'll leave it at that because I don't want to get personal about it.
 
10% of the medical doctors in France are of foreign origin. 34% of them are from predominantly Muslim countries (Algeria, Syria, Morocco). They are all perfectly integrated, even though they are paid considerably less than their French counterparts. They keep their religious beliefs private, and have dinner with their French peers.

What I mean is: as bicicleur points out, the psychological stance makes all the difference.
 
Angela,

I was not questioning whether immigrants integrate more smoothly in the US or Europe,
I was questioning whether Jihadys radicalise because of social exclusion or whether they come from groups who exclude themselves.
 

This thread has been viewed 13255 times.

Back
Top