BBC saying that at least one of the attackers was French, with 3 from Belgium.
France has been here before with home grown terrorists (OAS springs to mind) but it always comes as a shock to see people turning on their own country like this.
I would hope that the French Intelligence Service has a very sober and honest look inwards after this recent attack as it comes very close after the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
Grey Templar wrote: If we do go boots on the ground it should be overwhelming force. We can outnumber them if we want, if we go in we should do so. Any position we detect or think we detect gets the everloving crap blown out of it with artillery and airpower, troops advancing slowly and inexorably behind a curtain of firepower.
Even if you guys went in there full force with 100,000 troops, I doubt it would make much of a difference to be honest. The entire region seems to be completely and utterly fethed up.
Makes the job easier if everyone in the AO is your enemy. Anyway, I think the only goal should be eradicate ISIS(and I mean actually eradicate) then pull everything out and don't get sucked into recovery efforts unless the region stabilizes itself. If another threat like ISIS remerges and begins attacking the West, rinse and repeat. If they all devolve back to primitive tribal nomads that's ok too.
DalinCriid wrote: I stand for this opinion and I don't care if does not fit the leftist political correct agenda.
Which will do absolutely nothing to deter homegrown terrorists (which at least half of those involved here appear to be) nor will it do much to interrupt the supply of arms which this kind of operation absolutely depends upon.
But it will help to prevent real terrorists merging with the refugees.
About the homegrown terrorists... those are the fruits of decades of wrong politics.I don't want to dive in a political debate about that... In the end I think our society will end in a future that is really close to Minority Report. In order to prevent crimes we will limit all of our freedoms.
Nope. Or they're not saying it.
Heard from a friend that someone was arrested at the entrance of a Metro station in Marseilles, near a crowd, with an AK. Probably just an amateur "inspired" by the attacks.
Knockagh wrote: I'm sorry but you are quite wrong. ISIS are not nihilists they have a clear goal the establishment of their twisted version of an Islamic state. The IRAs stated goal was the removal of the British presence in Ireland and the creation of a socialist republic not a united Ireland that meant removing anyone who held unionism as a political belief which they interpreted as the Protestant people. ISIS will remove or bully anyone from the state they want to create who won't agree with them just as the IRA tried to remove or destroy those who disagreed with them from Ireland. The conflict with ISIS is in its infancy their will be many talks battles and trade offs with them in the years to come.
My point in drawing the comparisons was to show how we as civilised humans want to respond to inhumanity and barbarism but the complexity of effective response is generally beyond us and will take generations to come to any form of, imperfect, conclusion.
As someone born in Northern Ireland and who lived there for almost 30 years before emigrating I am sorry to say that your IRA and ISIS comparison is wholly disingenuous. The IRA wanted to have Ireland returned to the Irish and to remove the British presence from the island. It was a political struggle which used religion as a convenient designation for each side based on historic events (Reformation, Plantation, English Civil War, etc.). It was not a religiously motivated conflict. The fact that the primary motivation for the IRA was a political solution meant that eventually they could be negotiated with. The IRA was almost exclusively comprised of those born in Ireland.
ISIS on the other land want to establish a religious territory that they control which is not an established country that they are trying to free from a foreign presence. ISIS is motivated primarily by their religious interpretations of religious doctrine that other read without recourse to violence. ISIS has also has their ranks swollen from those sympathetic to their beliefs across the Middle East and beyond.
The comparison is not there for those who don't want to see it but I will rest easy that history will prove me right. I didn't say the NI conflict was about religion. It was political with religious roots. Just as the establishment of an Islamic state is political with religious roots. The religious element is much much more pronounced in IS at present but when wars lull and statesmen are needed in the new Islamic state politics will come to the fore. I doubt IS have even fully worked out their proposals for government but they will given time. History is long and I think this will be a long conflict it is really afterall the worlds oldest conflict given new energy.
I'm off out into Belfast tonight I will be sitting in a bar like many innocent Frenchmen and women were last night, I hope and pray for peace across all conflicts tonight and that men of violence and their apologists are frustrated at every turn.
Knockagh wrote: The comparison is not there for those who don't want to see it but I will rest easy that history will prove me right.
I'm off out into Belfast tonight I will be sitting in a bar like many innocent Frenchmen and women were last night, I hope and pray for peace across all conflicts tonight and that men of violence and their apologists are frustrated at every turn.
You are wrong and history has already proven it. Enjoy your night out, stay safe.
Anyone else expecting other countries to close their borders? I know the US wont even after the substancial evidence that one of the Attackers was from Syria.
I'd rather help refugees and risk terrorists getting in than ignore the plight of thousands of people in need. But that's just me. I can't speak for entire countries.
MWHistorian wrote: I'd rather help refugees and risk terrorists getting in than ignore the plight of thousands of people in need. But that's just me. I can't speak for entire countries.
You'd threaten more people by letting the refugees in and having a "Trojan Horse" effect like Paris just had. We can't help them if that means putting them and our country in danger
MWHistorian wrote: I'd rather help refugees and risk terrorists getting in than ignore the plight of thousands of people in need. But that's just me. I can't speak for entire countries.
You'd threaten more people by letting the refugees in and having a "Trojan Horse" effect like Paris just had. We can't help them if that means putting them and our country in danger
I fully understand that and I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just thinking, there has to be a way to help them and maintain security.
MWHistorian wrote: I'd rather help refugees and risk terrorists getting in than ignore the plight of thousands of people in need. But that's just me. I can't speak for entire countries.
You'd threaten more people by letting the refugees in and having a "Trojan Horse" effect like Paris just had. We can't help them if that means putting them and our country in danger
Not to sound heartless, but there are more dead refugees washing up on the shores than there are dead people in Paris.
Yes, refugees can mask terrorist and you always have a risk of attacks. But turning them away does nothing to decrease the body count either, it's just different bodies in different places for different reasons. We might not see them on our TV screens, which makes it easier to ignore, but they are still there.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Anyone else expecting other countries to close their borders? I know the US wont even after the substancial evidence that one of the Attackers was from Syria.
Maybe we should close our borders against the US as well? I don't want the chance that a Timothy McVeigh might be among tourists and workers visiting my country.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Anyone else expecting other countries to close their borders? I know the US wont even after the substancial evidence that one of the Attackers was from Syria.
Maybe we should close our borders against the US as well? I don't want the chance that a Timothy McVeigh might be among tourists and workers visiting my country.
Right, because someone could sneak a truck full of Explosives across the atlantic and not get caught by anyone. Great theory, but ultimately fiction. The serious threat is the Terrorists hiding amongst the refugees
Tactical_Spam wrote: Anyone else expecting other countries to close their borders? I know the US wont even after the substancial evidence that one of the Attackers was from Syria.
Maybe we should close our borders against the US as well? I don't want the chance that a Timothy McVeigh might be among tourists and workers visiting my country.
Right, because someone could sneak a truck full of Explosives across the atlantic and not get caught by anyone. Great theory, but ultimately fiction. The serious threat is the Terrorists hiding amongst the refugees
A long list of terrorist attacks that happened before refugees were a thing disagrees with you.
Matthew wrote: These attacks show that this can happen anywhere. I just hope they don't come in as refugees.
Frenchman born in 1985 has been mentioned as one of the terrorists. The refugees are not the problem here.
Which only means that 1 of them was a frenchman. It doesn't mean the others weren't, or that they weren't inspired to do it by a leader that ISIS smuggled into the country. Or that he didn't go to ISIS for training and then came back.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Anyone else expecting other countries to close their borders? I know the US wont even after the substancial evidence that one of the Attackers was from Syria.
Maybe we should close our borders against the US as well? I don't want the chance that a Timothy McVeigh might be among tourists and workers visiting my country.
Right, because someone could sneak a truck full of Explosives across the atlantic and not get caught by anyone. Great theory, but ultimately fiction. The serious threat is the Terrorists hiding amongst the refugees
A long list of terrorist attacks that happened before refugees were a thing disagrees with you.
To disregard the idea that terrorists are hiding among the refugees would be foolish
Matthew wrote: These attacks show that this can happen anywhere. I just hope they don't come in as refugees.
Frenchman born in 1985 has been mentioned as one of the terrorists. The refugees are not the problem here.
Which only means that 1 of them was a frenchman. It doesn't mean the others weren't, or that they weren't inspired to do it by a leader that ISIS smuggled into the country. Or that he didn't go to ISIS for training and then came back.
The frenchman was arrested before for supposed links to radical islamic terrorists.
Matthew wrote: These attacks show that this can happen anywhere. I just hope they don't come in as refugees.
Frenchman born in 1985 has been mentioned as one of the terrorists. The refugees are not the problem here.
Which only means that 1 of them was a frenchman. It doesn't mean the others weren't, or that they weren't inspired to do it by a leader that ISIS smuggled into the country. Or that he didn't go to ISIS for training and then came back.
I should maybe clarify that I believe that helping refugees and allowing them help within our borders (Europe) is a great thing to do. Of course some terrorists maybe among those coming over from current war zones.
You cannot stop people hating you, you cannot prevent all atrocities or attacks but you don't just stop helping the needy because something may or may not happen.
Radicaliziation among those citizens already in country is one of the key issues to be tackled along with limiting access to those who want to cause harm.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Anyone else expecting other countries to close their borders? I know the US wont even after the substancial evidence that one of the Attackers was from Syria.
Maybe we should close our borders against the US as well? I don't want the chance that a Timothy McVeigh might be among tourists and workers visiting my country.
Right, because someone could sneak a truck full of Explosives across the atlantic and not get caught by anyone. Great theory, but ultimately fiction. The serious threat is the Terrorists hiding amongst the refugees
A long list of terrorist attacks that happened before refugees were a thing disagrees with you.
To disregard the idea that terrorists are hiding among the refugees would be foolish
Matthew wrote: These attacks show that this can happen anywhere. I just hope they don't come in as refugees.
Frenchman born in 1985 has been mentioned as one of the terrorists. The refugees are not the problem here.
Which only means that 1 of them was a frenchman. It doesn't mean the others weren't, or that they weren't inspired to do it by a leader that ISIS smuggled into the country. Or that he didn't go to ISIS for training and then came back.
The frenchman was arrested before for supposed links to radical islamic terrorists.
This post also is the best example why "closing the borders" won't do much, or that refugees are the problem.
Countries need to balance their needs for safety with their obligations towards refugees, and I don't think you will truly find anybody arguing against that. But "don't let refugees in" or other thoughts along that line won't do much to stop this, nor are refugees the cause of it.
Tactical_Spam wrote: The primary goal should be eliminating the source at its root. This is Nazi Germany all over again
Sometimes I wonder if ISIS will be seen by the 22nd century humans the same way we see the nazis now.
Let's hope we deal with them before the war required is on a global scale. Nip them in before they become a truely Nazi Germany level threat. Though at least no Hitler like leader to sway millions.
Tactical_Spam wrote: The primary goal should be eliminating the source at its root. This is Nazi Germany all over again
Sometimes I wonder if ISIS will be seen by the 22nd century humans the same way we see the nazis now.
Maybe we should use that thought and compare the "send the refugees back to where they came from" ideas with the "don't let this boat full of Jews stop in our port, send them back to Germany" actions during that time?
Tactical_Spam wrote: The primary goal should be eliminating the source at its root. This is Nazi Germany all over again
Sometimes I wonder if ISIS will be seen by the 22nd century humans the same way we see the nazis now.
Let's hope we deal with them before the war required is on a global scale. Nip them in before they become a truely Nazi Germany level threat. Though at least no Hitler like leader to sway millions.
Tactical_Spam wrote: The primary goal should be eliminating the source at its root. This is Nazi Germany all over again
Sometimes I wonder if ISIS will be seen by the 22nd century humans the same way we see the nazis now.
Maybe we should use that thought and compare the "send the refugees back to where they came from" ideas with the "don't let this boat full of Jews stop in our port, send them back to Germany" actions during that time?
Unfortunately, the terrorist fight like cowards and hide with the innocent
Tactical_Spam wrote: The primary goal should be eliminating the source at its root. This is Nazi Germany all over again
Sometimes I wonder if ISIS will be seen by the 22nd century humans the same way we see the nazis now.
Maybe we should use that thought and compare the "send the refugees back to where they came from" ideas with the "don't let this boat full of Jews stop in our port, send them back to Germany" actions during that time?
Unfortunately, the terrorist fight like cowards and hide with the innocent
So we ignore the innocent? Repeat the errors of the St. Louis?
Tactical_Spam wrote: The primary goal should be eliminating the source at its root. This is Nazi Germany all over again
Sometimes I wonder if ISIS will be seen by the 22nd century humans the same way we see the nazis now.
Maybe we should use that thought and compare the "send the refugees back to where they came from" ideas with the "don't let this boat full of Jews stop in our port, send them back to Germany" actions during that time?
Unfortunately, the terrorist fight like cowards and hide with the innocent
So we ignore the innocent? Repeat the errors of the St. Louis?
Did I say that or did I say they hide with the innocents?
d-usa wrote: It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.
"Closed Borders?" yes
Refuse to help them? no
Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck
That's how you get "home grown terrorists" though, and it does nothing to help refugees integrate into the communities and doesn't allow them schooling or provide them with opportunities to work. There is a middle ground where you still let refugees enter, but you become better at screening and documenting them.
Attack related: the suicide bomber outside the soccer stadium had a ticket and tried to enter, was found to have the vest when he was patted down, and then detonated it (followed by a second person outside soon after). Looks like the plan might have been for the first to detonate inside, cause lots of deaths in s crowded area, cause panic and a stampede, and then have the other person detonate as a secondary when crowds were exiting.
Forgive my ignorance on this but with all this talk of closing borders, refugees, etc. are there any checks being done on refugees to establish that they are actual refugees? If so what methods are being used?
Tactical_Spam wrote: The primary goal should be eliminating the source at its root. This is Nazi Germany all over again
Sometimes I wonder if ISIS will be seen by the 22nd century humans the same way we see the nazis now.
Maybe we should use that thought and compare the "send the refugees back to where they came from" ideas with the "don't let this boat full of Jews stop in our port, send them back to Germany" actions during that time?
Unfortunately, the terrorist fight like cowards and hide with the innocent
So we ignore the innocent? Repeat the errors of the St. Louis?
The St Louis did not have Waffen SS soldiers hiding among the refugees, so that analogy is a bit faulty. A more accurate comparison would be some thousand or so refugees infected with a virulent disease. Would you let them onto the mainland, and risk an epidemic? A smarter solution would be to set up quarantine outside the country.
d-usa wrote: It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.
"Closed Borders?" yes
Refuse to help them? no
Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck
That's how you get "home grown terrorists" though, and it does nothing to help refugees integrate into the communities and doesn't allow them schooling or provide them with opportunities to work. There is a middle ground where you still let refugees enter, but you become better at screening and documenting them.
Attack related: the suicide bomber outside the soccer stadium had a ticket and tried to enter, was found to have the vest when he was patted down, and then detonated it (followed by a second person outside soon after). Looks like the plan might have been for the first to detonate inside, cause lots of deaths in s crowded area, cause panic and a stampede, and then have the other person detonate as a secondary when crowds were exiting.
All the refugees Obama took in were men... not children or women, just men. Conspiracies inbound
This post also is the best example why "closing the borders" won't do much, or that refugees are the problem.
Countries need to balance their needs for safety with their obligations towards refugees, and I don't think you will truly find anybody arguing against that. But "don't let refugees in" or other thoughts along that line won't do much to stop this, nor are refugees the cause of it.
Well I think it should be made 100% clear that there is no such thing as "obligation" towards refugees of any kind. Nobody is obligated to help them, anything done to help is complete charity. If that charity is snubbed or a threat arises as a result I think cutting off support is perfectly acceptable.
The St Louis did not have Waffen SS soldiers hiding among the refugees, so that analogy is a bit faulty.
To be fair, there could have been.
And even if there were, does that make the decision to send 900+ people back to Europe okay? 250+ people are estimated to have died out of those 900, how does that factor into our decision to wash our hands of the Jewish refugees? In hindsight, was that a good decision?
If there would have been a Waffen SS soldier on the ship, would that have made it okay? What about 5 Waffen SS soldiers? What about 25? At what point does the potential risk of infiltration outweigh the moral responsibility towards the 900 other people on the ship?
What if the Waffen SS soldiers managed to kill Americans after they mixed in with the Jewish refugees and got onto our shore? Was it worth sending 250 Jews to their death in order to prevent one American from dying? What about 5 Americans? What about 25? I know we have hindsight and I would like to imagine that we didn't think we were sending the Jews back to their death when we denied them entry, and after all in the end a lot of people died fighting the Nazis so I don't want to look like I'm trying to argue that the US didn't do the right thing in the end.
To bring it back to refugee infiltrators now. How many infiltrators are needed to justify punishing all refugees for their actions. What if one out of every 100 refugees is really a terrorist? What if it is 1 out of 1,000. What if it is 1 out of every 10,000. At what point is it okay to deny help and assistance to the refugees on account of the terrorists?
And what about deaths? I know it's fresh, I know it's raw, and I know it's possibly offensive to our French posters, and I am sorry about that. But how much is the life of someone in Paris worth compared to a refugee? 150+ dead in Paris, and there will likely be that many refugees washing up on the shores of Europe this month. Are the dead in Paris more important than the ones on the shores? What about Refugees dying in trucks, in the cold, or dying in Syria because they know that they won't be able to enter Europe so they stay and wait to die? At what point do the lives of Europeans outweigh the lives of refugees? Is it okay that 150 refugees die if it would have prevented the deaths of those in paris? What about 1000 dead refugees? What about 10,000 dead refugees?
I don't mean for this to diminish the tragedy, and it truly is a tragedy. We need to do something about it, and I will be the first to admit that I have no idea what that something should be.
But we (talking as a European here) also need a solution that balances the needs of the refugees and our international responsibility towards them with the need to provide security and safety to our own people.
A more accurate comparison would be some thousand or so refugees infected with a virulent disease. Would you let them onto the mainland, and risk an epidemic?
A smarter solution would be to set up quaranteen outside the country.
Or you screen them before you let them enter. A terrorist is still a terrorist, even if you let him sit in a camp for a week, or a month, or a year. The longer he sits in refugee camp conditions, the longer he has to radicalize the other refugees that are sitting there with him because they can see that the "west doesn't care about them or they wouldn't make us sit here like this for months". Instead you screen them the best you can, monitor them after entry, and let them integrate and become members of European society. That will help prevent radicalization.
I'm not advocating a "everybody come on down!" approach free of screening, but I also know that closing borders and sticking everyone in camps is also not the right answer.
It's a complicated situation, and I think that that might be the one thing we can all agree on.
I think any country should always value the safety of its citizens over the safety of non-citizens. If its own citizens being safe means non-citizens suffer because of inaction I don't think that is morally deplorable. You can't expect someone to take care of someone they are not obligated to help(non-citizens) while ignoring those they are obligated to help(citizens).
This post also is the best example why "closing the borders" won't do much, or that refugees are the problem.
Countries need to balance their needs for safety with their obligations towards refugees, and I don't think you will truly find anybody arguing against that. But "don't let refugees in" or other thoughts along that line won't do much to stop this, nor are refugees the cause of it.
Well I think it should be made 100% clear that there is no such thing as "obligation" towards refugees of any kind. Nobody is obligated to help them, anything done to help is complete charity.
That might be true for the United States and Venezuela.
Meanwhile European nations have ratified the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and are subject to European Union treaties regarding refugees.
So yes, there is an actual thing as an "obligation" towards refugees in the countries we are talking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I think any country should always value the safety of its citizens over the safety of non-citizens. If its own citizens being safe means non-citizens suffer because of inaction I don't think that is morally deplorable. You can't expect someone to take care of someone they are not obligated to help(non-citizens) while ignoring those they are obligated to help(citizens).
Except as stated above, European countries are actually obligated to help refugees.
And at some point morality does come into play and Spock's rule does become a factor.
Its only morally contemptible when you have excess after helping your constituents. If you have to take away from your people to help others is when you have no moral issues by not helping others.
I think opening up your people to potential terrorist attacks to help people, who may not properly integrate to begin with, is a bad thing.
I do think these refugees should be helped, but never at the expense of our own citizens. And every step should be taken to protect ourselves from the potential threats.
I'm not saying "always help refugees always." I'm saying "they didn't vote for me", "they don't pay taxes", and "feth you I got mine" are really disgusting responses to a question with very serious and bloody consequences.
Grey Templar wrote: Its only morally contemptible when you have excess after helping your constituents. If you have to take away from your people to help others is when you have no moral issues by not helping others.
I think opening up your people to potential terrorist attacks to help people, who may not properly integrate to begin with, is a bad thing.
I do think these refugees should be helped, but never at the expense of our own citizens. And every step should be taken to protect ourselves from the potential threats.
I said it before. Its going to cause more problems trying to integrate people who are under the presumption that they are Jihadists. Some most likely are, but some just want to be left alone. Its a situation altogether
LordofHats wrote: We could always just use Guam. It's Guam. What else are we using it for?
We could use some of our empty islands that are just territories for permanent resettlement. They could eventually join the union and be a real Islamic State full of good ol' 'Merican Freedom!
d-usa wrote: It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.
"Closed Borders?" yes
Refuse to help them? no
Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck
I fully agree. The only way we can stop these attacks is by isolating them all in camps. Only problem left then is to decide what the hell we should do with those camps full of muslims. Can't put them in there for ever. We need to think of some kind of final solution for the problem.
d-usa wrote: It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.
"Closed Borders?" yes
Refuse to help them? no
Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck
I fully agree. The only way we can stop these attacks is by isolating them all in camps. Only problem left then is to decide what the hell we should do with those camps full of muslims. Can't put them in there for ever. We need to think of some kind of final solution for the problem.
Oh... wait...
Ship them back after someone wins the Syria conflict...
Been reading some interesting stuff over at the centre for war and terrorism studies.
Key points about terrorism in general:
1) It's cheap, but highly effective at making countries go to war. The 9/11 attacks are a prime example. The Afghan/Iraq invasions ended costing the USA 500-600 billion dollars, and of course, thousands of dead servicemen and women, and countless other civilian lives were lost. World War 1 is another infamous example of a terrorist attack that started off a mega chain reaction.
2) Understandably, victims want to lash out as hard and as fast as possible, but this does irreversible damage to civilians in the affected areas, and the victims often end up being seen as the bad guys.
3) Terrorists, in this case, ISIS, are banking on retaliation, as it only boosts their cause, through new recruits or for the propaganda effects.
Ominously, it finishes with the point that very few terrorist campaigns of this scale are ever defeated...
d-usa wrote: It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.
"Closed Borders?" yes
Refuse to help them? no
Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck
I fully agree. The only way we can stop these attacks is by isolating them all in camps. Only problem left then is to decide what the hell we should do with those camps full of muslims. Can't put them in there for ever. We need to think of some kind of final solution for the problem.
Oh... wait...
I'm not sure what prompted that reference to the holocaust. I don't think anyone here advocated genocide.
The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!
Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"
The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.
Experiment 626 wrote: The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!
Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"
The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.
Calm down bro, most muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter, only the Radicals do
d-usa wrote: It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.
"Closed Borders?" yes
Refuse to help them? no
Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck
I fully agree. The only way we can stop these attacks is by isolating them all in camps. Only problem left then is to decide what the hell we should do with those camps full of muslims. Can't put them in there for ever. We need to think of some kind of final solution for the problem.
Oh... wait...
I'm not sure what prompted that reference to the holocaust. I don't think anyone here advocated genocide.
It was a joke, ridiculing the impossibility of detaining so many people for a long period of time that no one knows of how long it will be. The Nazis also did not start with advocating genocide. At first they planned to ship the jews to Palestine or some other place. It is a slippery slope once you put them in camps like that. Even though we probably won't let it come to genocide, it is still not a good thing. The vast majority of those refugees are running from the same terrorists, it is our duty to help them, not detain them and treat them like potential terrorists.
d-usa wrote: It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.
"Closed Borders?" yes
Refuse to help them? no
Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck
I fully agree. The only way we can stop these attacks is by isolating them all in camps. Only problem left then is to decide what the hell we should do with those camps full of muslims. Can't put them in there for ever. We need to think of some kind of final solution for the problem.
Oh... wait...
I'm not sure what prompted that reference to the holocaust. I don't think anyone here advocated genocide.
It was a joke, ridiculing the impossibility of detaining so many people for a long period of time that no one knows of how long it will be. The Nazis also did not start with advocating genocide. At first they planned to ship the jews to Palestine or some other place. It is a slippery slope once you put them in camps like that. Even it probably won't end in genocide, it is still not a good thing. The vast majority of those refugees are running from the same terrorists, it is our duty to help them, not detain them and treat them like potential terrorists.
Actually the nazis wanted to ship them all to Madagascar. Then the holocaust happened.
Experiment 626 wrote: The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!
Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"
The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.
Calm down bro, most muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter, only the Radicals do
Even the radicals don't. Like a good old Westboro Baptist, they follow the parts they like to the letter and ignore the parts reading "Don't be an donkey-cave, not cool bro"
Experiment 626 wrote: The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!
Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"
The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.
Calm down bro, most muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter, only the Radicals do
Even the radicals don't. Like a good old Westboro Baptist, they follow the parts they like to the letter and ignore the parts reading "Don't be an donkey-cave, not cool bro"
Agreed, plenty of the parts of the Quran basically say "Wheatens Law apples to real life."
Experiment 626 wrote: The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!
Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"
The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.
Calm down bro, most muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter, only the Radicals do
Even the radicals don't. Like a good old Westboro Baptist, they follow the parts they like to the letter and ignore the parts reading "Don't be an donkey-cave, not cool bro"
Experiment 626 wrote: The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!
Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"
The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.
Calm down bro, most muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter, only the Radicals do
Even the radicals don't. Like a good old Westboro Baptist, they follow the parts they like to the letter and ignore the parts reading "Don't be an donkey-cave, not cool bro"
LordofHats wrote: We could always just use Guam. It's Guam. What else are we using it for?
We could use some of our empty islands that are just territories for permanent resettlement. They could eventually join the union and be a real Islamic State full of good ol' 'Merican Freedom!
Just noticed this and I love it
"Hey terrorists. We hear you. We get you. How bout you come over to this island here and join the Union!"
Experiment 626 wrote: The biggest issues can only be solved within the greater Muslim community itself. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful, peaceful individuals who are just as accepting of our shared differences as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc, etc... Whatever really!
Within it seems the Shiite & especially the Sunni factions, it just seems like a lost cause with these people. (Sunnis above all others it seems)
They don't want to integrate, let alone accept that people can think freely and differently, and worship different faiths & have differing beliefs that are all in the end, equal in their values and relevance.
Until Islamism is dealt with, and it's backwards, barbaric and medieval ideologies are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're going to continue having the same damn problems of these motherfething gakkers slaughtering innocents and butchering eachother for no other reason than, "God wills it!"
The world's Muslims have to stand and pick a side in this. Until they get their own house in order and under go the same institutional evolution that the likes of Christianity and other major religions have gone through, it's only natural that the rest of the civilised world is going to look down on them with suspicion at best.
Calm down bro, most muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter, only the Radicals do
Even the radicals don't. Like a good old Westboro Baptist, they follow the parts they like to the letter and ignore the parts reading "Don't be an donkey-cave, not cool bro"
I dont even think Westboro read the bible...
I don't even think Westboro can read at all...
Unbeknownst to most, WBC hires monkeys to write their protest signs for them.
Don't disagree. Just saying. What part of the Bible does everyone cite then they want to go gay bashing? Leviticus. What part do they ignore when they want to go gay bashing? Pretty much everything else
LordofHats wrote: "They're not my constituents" is a rather gakky excuse for not giving a damn bout human suffering in the first place.
It's a classical rationalism vs. emotionalism. A Green Card'ish, selective system is more of a rationalist system as it carefully selects people who can contribute to the society. Opening your borders to everyone is a bland emotionalist method as it appeals to the leftist and lower-end votership which makes up for a huge part in Europe. There is no "right" or "wrong" on this matter, it's two heavily different points of view that cannot be compromised with.
What, on the other hand, is the sad truth is by having an extremely open and leisure border attitude such as the EU has, you heavily increase the risk of terrorist attacks and are directly responsible for an increased number / higher vulnerability to terrorist assaults.
LordofHats wrote: Don't disagree. Just saying. What part of the Bible does everyone cite then they want to go gay bashing? Leviticus. What part do they ignore when they want to go gay bashing? Pretty much everything else
This is why you need to use passages about repentence folks. Nobody wants to listen to you if all you do is harbinge.
I find it frustrating when everyone pulls a quote out of the bible willy nilly and without context... It grinds my gears
LordofHats wrote: Don't disagree. Just saying. What part of the Bible does everyone cite then they want to go gay bashing? Leviticus. What part do they ignore when they want to go gay bashing? Pretty much everything else
I know. As an atheist I enjoy critically reading religious textbooks.
For example, the word abomination means "not something this culture does." So when it says "Homosexuality is an abomination." It actually means "homosexuality isn't a part of this culture."
LordofHats wrote: "They're not my constituents" is a rather gakky excuse for not giving a damn bout human suffering in the first place.
It's a classical rationalism vs. emotionalism.
No. It's classical "I'm going to give this careful consideration because I'm a human being and just automatically dismissing you and the potential for your eminent demise would be kind of heartless" vs "the feth are you doing here? Go back! Go back to your side of the line right now! See look right there. There's some nice men with assault rifles waiting for you. Get the feth out!"
You can deny people a right to enter your country. I mean seriously throw open door invite everyone in isn't really a solution to the issue. My issue is that too often I see people respond to the question of refugees with utter heartlessness and inhumane comments about how the potential for X person to be killed if we deny them access just isn't our fething problem. It's totally our problem, because the least we can do is actually put some thought into a decision that could result in not living anymore.
Yes, it is. It's a fundamental difference. Considering a human being extremely worthwhile just because he is a human is highly irrational. Being human being an extraordinary feature on its own makes no sense. It's an emotional, left image of humanity. Like it or not, that's how it is. That isn't a judgement, it's an objective view, although some people certainly take offense on being called out as behaving irrationally. Welp.
LordofHats wrote: Don't disagree. Just saying. What part of the Bible does everyone cite then they want to go gay bashing? Leviticus. What part do they ignore when they want to go gay bashing? Pretty much everything else
I know. As an atheist I enjoy critically reading religious textbooks.
For example, the word abomination means "not something this culture does." So when it says "Homosexuality is an abomination." It actually means "homosexuality isn't a part of this culture."
"Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inheret the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin or worship idols or commit adultery or are male prostitutes or practice homosexuality or are thieves or greedy people or drunkards or are abusive or cheat people- none of these will inheret the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God"
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NLT
Reason why its better to read the bible and not textbooks.
Knockagh wrote: I'm sorry but you are quite wrong. ISIS are not nihilists they have a clear goal the establishment of their twisted version of an Islamic state. The IRAs stated goal was the removal of the British presence in Ireland and the creation of a socialist republic not a united Ireland that meant removing anyone who held unionism as a political belief which they interpreted as the Protestant people. ISIS will remove or bully anyone from the state they want to create who won't agree with them just as the IRA tried to remove or destroy those who disagreed with them from Ireland. The conflict with ISIS is in its infancy their will be many talks battles and trade offs with them in the years to come.
My point in drawing the comparisons was to show how we as civilised humans want to respond to inhumanity and barbarism but the complexity of effective response is generally beyond us and will take generations to come to any form of, imperfect, conclusion.
As someone born in Northern Ireland and who lived there for almost 30 years before emigrating I am sorry to say that your IRA and ISIS comparison is wholly disingenuous. The IRA wanted to have Ireland returned to the Irish and to remove the British presence from the island. It was a political struggle which used religion as a convenient designation for each side based on historic events (Reformation, Plantation, English Civil War, etc.). It was not a religiously motivated conflict. The fact that the primary motivation for the IRA was a political solution meant that eventually they could be negotiated with. The IRA was almost exclusively comprised of those born in Ireland.
ISIS on the other land want to establish a religious territory that they control which is not an established country that they are trying to free from a foreign presence. ISIS is motivated primarily by their religious interpretations of religious doctrine that other read without recourse to violence. ISIS has also has their ranks swollen from those sympathetic to their beliefs across the Middle East and beyond.
The comparison is not there for those who don't want to see it but I will rest easy that history will prove me right. I didn't say the NI conflict was about religion. It was political with religious roots. Just as the establishment of an Islamic state is political with religious roots. The religious element is much much more pronounced in IS at present but when wars lull and statesmen are needed in the new Islamic state politics will come to the fore. I doubt IS have even fully worked out their proposals for government but they will given time. History is long and I think this will be a long conflict it is really afterall the worlds oldest conflict given new energy.
I'm off out into Belfast tonight I will be sitting in a bar like many innocent Frenchmen and women were last night, I hope and pray for peace across all conflicts tonight and that men of violence and their apologists are frustrated at every turn.
@ Dreadclaw - The IRA do not want to restore Northern Ireland 'to the Irish', the Irish protestants are Irish. Threy deny Irishness to their enemies on a point of dogma.
The IRA could actually be dealt with not because they were inherently more reasonable. Thy aren't they are at least as brutal as Islamic State. They are however less committed to die for their cause and also corruptible with wealth. The IRA is a de facto crime ring as well as a political movement,they handle the drugs trade, prostitution and protection. They are heavily cash and power focused and thus could be bought onto the negotiating table.
@ Knockagh - Religious roots, yes,but more accurately a religious excuse. Both sects concerned are fully aware that their sectarian views are contrary to their own religious teaching, unlike ISIS who are taught to believe in bloody jihad. Religious sectarianism in Northern Ireland is about cultural ties than actual religious dogma.
Yes, it is. It's a fundamental difference. Considering a human being extremely worthwhile just because he is a human is highly irrational. Being human being an extraordinary feature on its own makes no sense. It's an emotional, left image of humanity. Like it or not, that's how it is. That isn't a judgement, it's an objective view, although some people certainly take offense on being called out as behaving irrationally. Welp.
States should not hold carte blanch to be the sole determinator of what constitutes "worth" and gak why would you want them to? Rationalism is not an end to itself. Your position is in fact a judgement, highly subjective, and devoid of actual reason (because 'rational' is not a buzzword meaning 'seems like a smart thing to do').
And that's before pointing your you're ignoring my actual position to rant about the mean leftie liberals. I am in fact arguing for making rational decisions with regards to refugees and against "feth those guys they're not me" aka a kneejerk emotional response devoid of any humanity (an integral component of Rationalism). Rationalism and Humanism are not mutually exclusive.
Wouldn't trying to weed out terrorists from the innocents turn into a glorified witch hunt?
Of course it would, it's a very bad idea,
And I was referring to liviticus, which is no where near Corinthians.
So we have to have the presumption that any outcome might be possible because if we assume there are terrorists, then we will search until we find one
Also, New Testament sort of trumps the Old, but thats not to say the old isn't important. The book of Leviticus is a book of laws, most of which were tossed out when jesus came around and said "Y'all so mean to each other. Here, let me teach you to be nice... You can also eat Bacon"
Wouldn't trying to weed out terrorists from the innocents turn into a glorified witch hunt?
Of course it would, it's a very bad idea,
And I was referring to liviticus, which is no where near Corinthians.
So we have to have the presumption that any outcome might be possible because if we assume there are terrorists, then we will search until we find one
Also, New Testament sort of trumps the Old, but thats not to say the old isn't important. The book of Leviticus is a book of laws, most of which were tossed out when jesus came around and said "Y'all so mean to each other. Here, let me teach you to be nice... You can also eat Bacon"
Tasty tasty bacon, shame it will kill you eventually. But everyone dies, unfortunately.
It's the whole vigilante idea. A lot of countries still have a large amount of people who have inbuilt racism, and opening the doors will probably lead to quite a few people being attacked for simply being different.
Then if the governments go into search mode, it's a huge breach of privacy and causes a lot of issues. How far are they allowed to snoop in the search for answers?
Wouldn't trying to weed out terrorists from the innocents turn into a glorified witch hunt?
Of course it would, it's a very bad idea,
And I was referring to liviticus, which is no where near Corinthians.
So we have to have the presumption that any outcome might be possible because if we assume there are terrorists, then we will search until we find one
Also, New Testament sort of trumps the Old, but thats not to say the old isn't important. The book of Leviticus is a book of laws, most of which were tossed out when jesus came around and said "Y'all so mean to each other. Here, let me teach you to be nice... You can also eat Bacon"
Tasty tasty bacon, shame it will kill you eventually. But everyone dies, unfortunately.
It's the whole vigilante idea. A lot of countries still have a large amount of people who have inbuilt racism, and opening the doors will probably lead to quite a few people being attacked for simply being different.
Then if the governments go into search mode, it's a huge breach of privacy and causes a lot of issues. How far are they allowed to snoop in the search for answers?
Glorious Merica already spies on our citizens, which is technically against the UN Declaration of human rights, but the US found a loophole using RAW. The right in Article 12 states that you cant "spy" (theres more but this is shorter) on people arbitraily. US says they are looking for terrorists, thus making their cause inarbitrary
The vast majority of those refugees are running from the same terrorists, it is our duty to help them, not detain them and treat them like potential terrorists.
It's not our 'duty' to help all the people fleeing, we don't know anything about the people arriving, what their background is or what their allegiance is. Being cynical, how many fleeing Syria are Assad's supporters trying to get out? Quite a few refugees seem to have quite a lot of money to have travelled as far as they have and still have iPhones and the like.
It's not duty to help everyone, we do so out of well meaning and humanity towards those in need. But it's not an obligation and it's a bit much to hear refugees on the TV demanding their right to live in our countries as though they're already citizens and taking our offer of help for granted. Realistically we can't just open up and let everyone who wants to come to Europe to swarm in however desperate their circumstances, it's not thousands, it's millions. Our infrastructure and society can't take the surge, in Britain we have pressure on housing, education and health, all are overburdened because of underfunding and lack of manpower in these sectors.
If it turns out that the attackers in Paris came through as refugee/migrants it's going to fuel a hardline turn around against migration in Europe. Those running the EU are desperate to keep the open borders policy but the public is going to turn against that. Immigration is pretty much going to be the main issue on which UK membership of the EU is decided unfortunately, all other issues will not get coverage such is the way debate will be distorted.
France is to review security at all of its munitions depots after 40 grenades, 180 detonators and plastic explosives were stolen from a major base in southern France.
"Very well informed" thieves broke into the Miramas arms depot northwest of Marseille, southern France, in the early hours of Monday after cutting through two wire fences, according to judicial sources.
The Marseille prosecutor has launched an inquiry into “theft via a break-in by an organised gang and fraudulent entry of a military base”.
The defence ministry has also launched an administrative inquiry into the worrying robbery of enough explosives to “blow up any bank or, worse, commit a large-scale attack at a time when the terrorist threat is high in France,” according to TF1, the French TV news channel.
Yes, it is. It's a fundamental difference. Considering a human being extremely worthwhile just because he is a human is highly irrational. Being human being an extraordinary feature on its own makes no sense. It's an emotional, left image of humanity. Like it or not, that's how it is. That isn't a judgement, it's an objective view, although some people certainly take offense on being called out as behaving irrationally. Welp.
States should not hold carte blanch to be the sole determinator of what constitutes "worth" and gak why would you want them to? Rationalism is not an end to itself. Your position is in fact a judgement, highly subjective, and devoid of actual reason (because 'rational' is not a buzzword meaning 'seems like a smart thing to do').
And that's before pointing your you're ignoring my actual position to rant about the mean leftie liberals. I am in fact arguing for making rational decisions with regards to refugees and against "feth those guys they're not me" aka a kneejerk emotional response devoid of any humanity (an integral component of Rationalism). Rationalism and Humanism are not mutually exclusive.
Sorry, but not everyone fleeing Syria or any of the current conflict zones are created equal...
Those who are fleeing yet support one side over the other are *much* different from those that are persecuted minorities who are fleeing because both sides in the end will continue to persecute and murder them.
The former is simply fleeing because they don't much relish the thought of being killed as a consequence of a conflict they still support. The latter is a true refugee, because they have no other options at all. No matter which side 'wins' in the end, they're going to be persecuted (and likely killed) just because they're part of a minority that neither sides involved respects or sees as human.
Our refugee focus should primarily be on helping the likes of the Yazidis and Syrian Christians. The only migrants we should be allowing within our borders are those who have skills that can contribute to our society, and won't present a security risk.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It's not our 'duty' to help all the people fleeing, we don't know anything about the people arriving, what their background is or what their allegiance is. Being cynical, how many fleeing Syria are Assad's supporters trying to get out? Quite a few refugees seem to have quite a lot of money to have travelled as far as they have and still have iPhones and the like.
That depends. If you're one of the countries that signed on to the 1951 un refugee convention, or the 1967 protocol, then it is your duty to help them. France is a member, along with other countries such as usa and australia. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V-5&chapter=5&lang=en Whether or not the treaty should be re-examined is another issue, but as it stands the duty is there.
Yes, it is. It's a fundamental difference. Considering a human being extremely worthwhile just because he is a human is highly irrational. Being human being an extraordinary feature on its own makes no sense. It's an emotional, left image of humanity. Like it or not, that's how it is. That isn't a judgement, it's an objective view, although some people certainly take offense on being called out as behaving irrationally. Welp.
And that's before pointing your you're ignoring my actual position to rant about the mean leftie liberals. I am in fact arguing for making rational decisions with regards to refugees and against "feth those guys they're not me" aka a kneejerk emotional response devoid of any humanity (an integral component of Rationalism). Rationalism and Humanism are not mutually exclusive.
Your very response proves the point I made in the last sentence. You are already too far into it and need to step back in order to get the bigger picture. Your thinking already starts on the "We must help refugees" level which already made quite a few steps, ignoring the ones that come beforehand. It is without doubt that Rationalism and Humanism aren't mutually exclusive and many decisions in regards to refugees are rationally motivated. Rational decisions are taken (among a lot of irrational ones) regarding the problem.
Your problem is that you let your subjective, emotional view hinder you from being more objective and less biased. The very first step was what I referred to in my previous post. The very idea of whether a human is inherently worth a lot just because he is a human or not is not rational. Rationally, a human is useful for you or society by having something of worth. Just being human isn't worth. That's the emotional part of it where people consider others of their kind extremely important just because they are one of their kind. Those two views are mutually exclusive. They are completely different. That's the most basic level I was referring to, you already are on a sub-level.
Regarding the refugee problem, my personal opinion is that I don't care. If anything, I am happy about it because I directly profit from the insecurity caused by the uncontrolled immigration. The cost that all those immigrants cause will not be the problem of higher-ups, we don't care about (in our eyes) minor tax relief. The suffering people are, as usual, those in the middle with an average job. People who could really profit from tax relief. Tax relief that now isn't going to happen because of the refugee crisis. I, or rather we, don't care. If worse comes to worst, we will just move to the US permanently. Germany gets less and less attractive anyway.
Experiment 626 wrote: Sorry, but not everyone fleeing Syria or any of the current conflict zones are created equal...
Technically they're totally created equal. They just might not be equal anymore however many years after they were created
Yazidis and Syrian Christians
Yeah stuff sounds kind of suck for them.
Then again, it sounds like it sucks for just Syrian Muslims too what with all the kidnapping of children to make them child soldiers, forcing women into prostitution, and oh slavery. Somehow, I feel like "supports groups involved in fighting" is a really bad criteria to be applied unilaterally cause there's a gak to of reasons for anyone over there to support some groups over others that are completely understandable. I mean, unless your okay with child soldiers, forced prostitution, and slavery, and the waiting list for the boat out of dodge is a mile long what other options are there?
The only migrants we should be allowing within our borders are those who have skills that can contribute to our society,
Because the only people in any of our countries right now are those that contribute to society (whatever the hell 'contribute' means in this context)? If only we could throw out everyone who doesn't meet your/my subjective idea of contributing... Oh wait. Irony.
and won't present a security risk.
Well duh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: Your thinking already starts on the "We must help refugees" level which already made quite a few steps, ignoring the ones that come beforehand.
Again, you're ignoring my position. My thinking starts with "we should consider this question carefully because people can die." I've stated multiple times I am not for "always help refugees always."
Your problem is that you let your subjective, emotional view hinder you from being more objective and less biased.
Sure if you want to pretend that it's impossible to disagree with you and still be rational.
The very idea of whether a human is inherently worth a lot just because he is a human or not is not rational.
I don't think you know what constitutes rationalism. To use a classic analogy; McCoy (the Humanist) thinks being 'humanity' is of critical importance and should never be ignored. Spock (the Utilitarian) thinks decisions should be made logically for the greater good. Kirk (The Rational) looks both in the eye, nods, and says he'll think about it. EDIT: Then he goes off to bang green space babes!
The idea that Human beings have an inherent worth is half the backbone of Rationalism. It is based in the principal that human reason is uniquely capable of descerning knowledge and solving problems. It is not a philosophy based in emotional nihilism or that the human state is inherently worthless.
Rationally, a human is useful for you or society by having something of worth.
Try to define worth in a non-subjective manner that can be applied as criteria and you might notice that this is not as objective as it might seem.
Greek police are saying one of the dead gunman registered as a refugee in Greece in October, after being asked by French police to run his prints. Source.
Seaward wrote: Greek police are saying one of the dead gunman registered as a refugee in Greece in October, after being asked by French police to run his prints. Source.
It was somewhere, I don't remember if it was here, that a poster got incensed when someone claimed refugees could be involved. I believe there was a phrase that the stuff in Paris was what the refugees were escaping from. Now we have new information that terrorists are in fact accompanying non-terrorists in the Syrian exodus.
d-usa wrote: It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.
"Closed Borders?" yes
Refuse to help them? no
Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck
Maybe there could be some snappy slogan they could see on their way into such installation?
Rassenintegration Macht Frei!
You're going to Godwin the thread?
Orlanth wrote: @ Dreadclaw - The IRA do not want to restore Northern Ireland 'to the Irish', the Irish protestants are Irish. Threy deny Irishness to their enemies on a point of dogma.
Do you mean the Protestants living in Northern Ireland? And you are aware of how many of the early prominent IRA (pre-Partition) were Protestant?
d-usa wrote: It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.
"Closed Borders?" yes
Refuse to help them? no
Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck
I fully agree. The only way we can stop these attacks is by isolating them all in camps. Only problem left then is to decide what the hell we should do with those camps full of muslims. Can't put them in there for ever. We need to think of some kind of final solution for the problem.
Oh... wait...
How the feth did you make the leap in logic from detaining and quarantining immigrants...to gas chambers? Quarantining refugees is perfectly reasonable and sensible. Government's have a moral duty to their own citizens to make sure immigrants, especially refugees from conflict zones and regions where extremism is prominent (including BUT NOT LIMITED TO Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Palestine, Yemen, Saudi Arabia...)
And we already have immigrant camps anyway. We call them Detainment Centers.
I get that Godwin-ing is inevitable on the internet, but could you please refrain from employing it as a deliberate form of Ad Hominem?
Anyone know how reliable the Greek media outlet Antenna is? Because they are reporting that the passport found on one of the perpetrators showed he entered Greece as a refugee.
Seaward wrote: Greek police are saying one of the dead gunman registered as a refugee in Greece in October, after being asked by French police to run his prints. Source.
It was somewhere, I don't remember if it was here, that a poster got incensed when someone claimed refugees could be involved. I believe there was a phrase that the stuff in Paris was what the refugees were escaping from. Now we have new information that terrorists are in fact accompanying non-terrorists in the Syrian exodus.
Lofty intentions should never be a suicide pact.
The complaint was that comments that boil down to "this is the the fault of refugees" and "this is what happens when you let refugees in" ignore the fact that refugees are not terrorists and that they are in fact running from the same thing that happened here.
Someone using refugees as cover =/= refugees as a cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Anyone know how reliable the Greek media outlet Antenna is? Because they are reporting that the passport found on one of the perpetrators showed he entered Greece as a refugee.
From what I have read it's a mixed back of stuff.
They found a passport near a body that was used to enter Greece as a refugee, but they haven't said if it was one of the attackers. They also said that they submitted fingerprints of the attackers but they haven't been matched yet, but a set of prints from someone else involved (haven't seen how) was matched to refugee processing.
That was the last update on the story that I have heard.
That seems pretty logically consistent to me.
A Terrorist use refugees as cover.
B A country takes in refugees.
C Taking in refugees is a cause of the attacks.
The blame lies more on those who regard human lives as expendable, and don't mind waging indiscriminate war on entire peoples for their ideologies. That's the root cause. But the acceptance of refugees, if it is proven that they are being used to infiltrate fighters, is absolutely a contributing factor. I do not suggest not allowing any refugees in, any more than I endorse no flying of civilians because of 9/11. But I'd be fine with stringent requirements, perhaps even hearings with trained interrogators before admitting any refugees. Put a cap on your camps, and make it a zero sum game. Accept only as many individuals as you clear or deport. Expensive, tedious, callous and frustrating- but likely less horrific than what occurred in France. If attacks still occur, increase regulations or waiting periods.
Well, while we're on the subject - How do you even meaningfully screen refugees for "infiltrators"? If they don't have a criminal record or associations, I don't really know an effective way to filter out people with violent ideological leanings.
I suppose you can surveil them for a while, but that doesn't really seem pragmatic on this scale. How do you keep a close eye on 10,000 people?
(BTW, that was an actual question - if one of you guys knows the answer I'm all ears).
d-usa wrote: And again, we had these attacks long before refugees were a thing.
Anyone not aware of this is a fool; however the refugee crisis is making it "worse"
Madrid had a higher death toll, so what constitutes "worse"?
The media wants us to think its worse, but what if the terrorists were already here so when we are focusing on trying to weed them out from the refugees, they are well into our systems...
Ouze wrote: Well, while we're on the subject - How do you even meaningfully screen refugees for "infiltrators"? If they don't have a criminal record or associations, I don't really know an effective way to filter out people with violent ideological leanings.
Intelligence agencies have flagged the identities of many of the people involved in the Syrian civil war. Not just ours, but other countries such as Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and even the Kurds provide data on these people. It's one of the ways we've managed to develop and update our "no fly lists". Even with this data it is a very porous system as we just don't have the means to identify and track everyone we need to. That leads us to profiling. We need to look for "red flag" type things such as young men travelling alone, Syrian refugees who clearly aren't Syrian, etc. Will it stop everyone? Likely not. But stopping as many as we can catch will at least help out. Then there is tracking. People who are given refugee status shouldn't just be allowed to "disappear" once they cross a boarder.
Ouze wrote: I suppose you can surveil them for a while, but that doesn't really seem pragmatic on this scale. How do you keep a close eye on 10,000 people?
You have to set up something, even if it simply mimics the criminal justice system where parolees have to check in with a parole officer and provide updates. You can also send social services to do checkups on refugee families. Not going to pretend this won't strain the system but not doing anything is a recipe for disaster.
The last thing on the list is a plan for what to do with your refugee population once the problem is over in their home country. Do you let them stay as immigrants? Or do you begin deportation? It's all very complex and each step needs to be considered carefully with the interests of the host country above all others.
Something that makes a lot of sense is to start by asking what the Refugee wants;
Do you want to come here and stay?Just sit them in a refugee center and fast track them through the immigration process. If they are rejected from that process, see if the below two apply.
Do you want to go home when the conflict is over?This is probably the hardest kind of refugee to deal with. I mean, how about all those Palestinians who left the regions in the 1960's? Think they're going back anytime soon Lots of refugees leave intending to go back someday, but the violence doesn't end and they never do. Hard decisions. Could set up refugee towns, but comparisons and risks of creating immigrant ghettos and concentration camp like conditions will be high. Could put them on some special visa but we all know how well those work here in the US.
Do you want to go somewhere other than here and need help getting there? Help them go on their way. Probably want to have some kind of multinational administration set up to make this actually work.
One problem is the huge numbers of failed asylum applicants that remain in Europe because they can't be deported for various reasons. Its worth trying to get into Europe for illegitimate reasons as there's a good chance you can just remain anyway.
Secondly, the process requires that asylum seekers make a claim in the first safe country they get to, and are distributed around EU states. But the surge currently had many refusing processing and demanding their right to go to their chosen country of Germany which is not how it's supposed to work. Instead of enforcing these rules Germany then allowed 200,000 to skip intervening countries and access Germany to make a claim in September alone. They have no idea what background any of these people have but will have taken 800,000 in this year.
Theres a myth that the Germans all love this and want to welcome mass migration. Yes, there were photos in the newspapers of people with flags welcoming migrants but in private a lot of germans feel otherwise but feel they are shamed from saying as such publicly. It's like some collective guilt still hanging from WW2 is paralysing them from being realistic about the enormity of the problem of taking a million people a year into your country without them at least being processed for genuine claims first.
Howard A Treesong wrote: One problem is the huge numbers of failed asylum applicants that remain in Europe because they can't be deported for various reasons. Its worth trying to get into Europe for illegitimate reasons as there's a good chance you can just remain anyway.
Secondly, the process requires that asylum seekers make a claim in the first safe country they get to, and are distributed around EU states. But the surge currently had many refusing processing and demanding their right to go to their chosen country of Germany which is not how it's supposed to work. Instead of enforcing these rules Germany then allowed 200,000 to skip intervening countries and access Germany to make a claim in September alone. They have no idea what background any of these people have but will have taken 800,000 in this year.
Theres a myth that the Germans all love this and want to welcome mass migration. Yes, there were photos in the newspapers of people with flags welcoming migrants but in private a lot of germans feel otherwise but feel they are shamed from saying as such publicly. It's like some collective guilt still hanging from WW2 is paralysing them from being realistic about the enormity of the problem of taking a million people a year into your country without them at least being processed for genuine claims first.
I feel that it's somewhat too late. We can still screen entering migrants for terrorism ties, but it will not prevents the suspected terrorists already inside (several hundreds - thousands) from carrying mass murders.
One thing we can do, is set up camps in Greece and processing centres on the Greek main land. Every migrant, refugee and is processed in the country of arrival. No exceptions.
Hold them in camps, decent camps until the status is confirmed or not. No trapsing about Europe unregistered, unknown. Yes you can get to Germany but if the Germans invite you.
Then if confirmed they can be sent to a country willing to take them. Failed well, there another problem . half where they came from are active war zones.
Orlanth wrote: @ Dreadclaw - The IRA do not want to restore Northern Ireland 'to the Irish', the Irish protestants are Irish. They deny Irishness to their enemies on a point of dogma.
Do you mean the Protestants living in Northern Ireland? And you are aware of how many of the early prominent IRA (pre-Partition) were Protestant?
That was a different situation. Home rule was justifiable and necessary, the partition occurred on sectarian grounds due to a majority of orange in six of the counties of Ulster.
Besides what you are saying is noise. There are a large number of Irish Catholics in HM Armed Forces, particularly the Royal Irish Rangers and Irish Guards. So it goes both ways.
If we open up a Immigration debate concerning just the US of A. Everyone around the world hammers posters and Republicans on here who are for deportation and strict immigration policy.
Dont know if this is off topic.
But what is with people who do that "What about X, this happened to them and no one changed their flag"
or the
Rip for the innocent 100 people in paris, and RIP for the 1000000 innocent people who are gonna die for the acts of a few people?
Why do people feel the need need to make the topic ALWAYs about them?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Dont know if this is off topic.
But what is with people who do that "What about X, this happened to them and no one changed their flag"
or the
Rip for the innocent 100 people in paris, and RIP for the 1000000 innocent people who are gonna die for the acts of a few people?
Why do people feel the need need to make the topic ALWAYs about them?
The same reason why you made this post I would imagine.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Dont know if this is off topic.
But what is with people who do that "What about X, this happened to them and no one changed their flag"
or the
Rip for the innocent 100 people in paris, and RIP for the 1000000 innocent people who are gonna die for the acts of a few people?
Why do people feel the need need to make the topic ALWAYs about them?
The same reason why you made this post I would imagine.
.
I remember a dose of Buckley saying, if you lit a candle for every unnecessary death in the world, you'd never stop lighting candles.
It doesn't help that the media is naturally baised towards people of their own culture. A thousand deaths across the world doesn't effect you as much as ten deaths in the same country as you.
welshhoppo wrote: Until we can sort out the problems where these refugees are coming from. Then we will continue to have a refugee problem.
So what is your solution to the Syria problem?
I haven't got one. I don't really think there is one. Other than scraping the whole area clean and starting fresh. But that would be genocide..
Let the Russians look after Syria, as it's their mess for the most part.
NATO takes up the reigns in Iraq, and implements a large-scale Vimmy Ridge styled battle plan with the initial goal being the complete eradication of Islamic State. Then carve up the territory into separate Kurdish & Shiite states, instead of the clusterfeth we've continually failed to make work.
The UN recognises that the Golan Heights belong to Israel, as it's a critical piece of land that's vital to keeping out Syrian (and any other) aggressors.
Saudia Arabia gets systematically wiped off the map, since they're the biggest root cause of all the gak that happens in the ME and the founders of modern radical Islam!
hotsauceman1 wrote: Dont know if this is off topic.
But what is with people who do that "What about X, this happened to them and no one changed their flag"
or the
Rip for the innocent 100 people in paris, and RIP for the 1000000 innocent people who are gonna die for the acts of a few people?
Why do people feel the need need to make the topic ALWAYs about them?
Orlanth wrote: @ Dreadclaw - The IRA do not want to restore Northern Ireland 'to the Irish', the Irish protestants are Irish. They deny Irishness to their enemies on a point of dogma.
Do you mean the Protestants living in Northern Ireland? And you are aware of how many of the early prominent IRA (pre-Partition) were Protestant?
That was a different situation. Home rule was justifiable and necessary, the partition occurred on sectarian grounds due to a majority of orange in six of the counties of Ulster.
Like the ethnic Russians in Ukraine and South Ossetia?
Orlanth wrote: Besides what you are saying is noise. There are a large number of Irish Catholics in HM Armed Forces, particularly the Royal Irish Rangers and Irish Guards. So it goes both ways.
Irish Catholics =/= the IRA. You know that so please do not pretend you do not understand what I am saying.
I'll ask again; Do you mean the Protestants living in Northern Ireland?
The tweet has since been deleted, but can be seen below by means of a timely screenshot.
Many people criticized Trump for trying to appeal to gun nut voters, not realizing the tweet was written months before Trump announced his candidacy. Trump doesn’t need a use a presidential race as an excuse to be, well – a vulture. In fact, as hard as it is to believe, Trump’s candidacy may have tempered his uncanny ability to go on Twitter and say the least appropriate thing at the least appropriate moment. After news of the attacks in Paris broke, Trump put out a rather tame tweet that simply said “My prayers are with the victims and hostages in the horrible Paris attacks. May God be with you all.”
Of course, Trump’s moment of class was only fleeting. At an event in Beaumont, Texas, Trump took to the stage and said:
“When you look at Paris, you know, the toughest gun laws in the world, nobody had guns except for the bad guys, nobody. Nobody had guns, and they were just shooting them one by one.”
Featured Credit:By Mith (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons With Trump’s tweeted added.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Dont know if this is off topic.
But what is with people who do that "What about X, this happened to them and no one changed their flag"
or the
Rip for the innocent 100 people in paris, and RIP for the 1000000 innocent people who are gonna die for the acts of a few people?
Why do people feel the need need to make the topic ALWAYs about them?
Broadly speaking? It points out bias in media. We've heard a lot about Paris, we heard next to nothing about the two suicide bombers in Beirut, as an example, the day before.
Something of interest. Russia, Lebanon, and France have now been attacked by ISIS or at least, individuals who support them. All three countries are near the top of the list for Foreign Nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq.
All these attacks have come in a short time span. Possibly more coming?
LordofHats wrote: Something of interest. Russia, Lebanon, and France have now been attacked by ISIS or at least, individuals who support them. All three countries are near the top of the list for Foreign Nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq.
All these attacks have come in a short time span. Possibly more coming?
Certainly more coming. France has foiled a number of major plots this year, six by one press report.
UK will likely be next on the list, thing is a lot has already been prevented over here and UK society is one of the most wired in the world, if Snowden is to be believed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: I severely doubt that a few civilians with hand guns would stop a well coordinated, planned out Suicide attack like this.
Besides who takes guns to a theatre. The Donald perhaps?
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Ah Donald Trump, not only are you bonkers you are more than insensitive if this reported tweet and story are real.
More reason for people like me to hope Republican voters don't even consider him when casting their primary votes. Seriously, he's every bit as bad as Sarah Palin.
LordofHats wrote: Something of interest. Russia, Lebanon, and France have now been attacked by ISIS or at least, individuals who support them. All three countries are near the top of the list for Foreign Nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq.
All these attacks have come in a short time span. Possibly more coming?
Tighten security in the US. That's the icing on the cake
Orlanth wrote: Besides who takes guns to a theatre. The Donald perhaps?
John Wilkes Booth
Orlanth wrote: That was a different situation. Home rule was justifiable and necessary, the partition occurred on sectarian grounds due to a majority of orange in six of the counties of Ulster.
Oh, and before I forget again Ulster is 9 counties and is comprised of Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan, as well as the six that comprise Northern Ireland. You also conveniently ignore the Catholic majorities of Derry, Tyrone, Armagh, and Fermanagh in your historical revisionism. So out of six counties in Northern Ireland (not Ulster) there was only two with a Protestant majority. Partition was a face saving measure by the British government who had been thoroughly embarrassed by the Irish rebels and wanted to save face while poisoning the well behind them as they were forced to quit the field.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Tighten security in the US. That's the icing on the cake
For that there actually needs to be effective border control. The exploits of cartels and coyotes shows this to be lacking.
LordofHats wrote: Something of interest. Russia, Lebanon, and France have now been attacked by ISIS or at least, individuals who support them. All three countries are near the top of the list for Foreign Nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq.
All these attacks have come in a short time span. Possibly more coming?
The Canadian Parliament building was also stormed by a lone Islamic State inspired supporter, and a Canadian soldier standing ceremonial guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was murdered.
Nothing on the level of the recent attacks, but our "fearless" overlord is using last October's attack in Ottawa, and the recent attacks as grounds for why we should tuck our tails and run away from the fight against these savage gakheads.
Experiment 626 wrote: The Canadian Parliament building was also stormed by a lone Islamic State inspired supporter, and a Canadian soldier standing ceremonial guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was murdered.
Nothing on the level of the recent attacks, but our "fearless" overlord is using last October's attack in Ottawa, and the recent attacks as grounds for why we should tuck our tails and run away from the fight against these savage gakheads.
Was that when your PM took a leaf out of R Kelly's book and hid in the closet?
These recent attacks though are of a different magnitude than the Jewish Museum Shooting or the attack in Ottawa.
Bring down a plane and attacking multiple locations in a major western city, plus the suicide bombers in Beirut is a lot more bloody and a lot more coordinated than previous ISIS related attacks, and they've all happened in quick succession.
So my wonder is if this is the start of a long term campaign by ISIS outside of Syria and Iraq against western states and states in the ME that actively oppose them.
Orlanth wrote: That was a different situation. Home rule was justifiable and necessary, the partition occurred on sectarian grounds due to a majority of orange in six of the counties of Ulster.
Oh, and before I forget again Ulster is 9 counties and is comprised of Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan, as well as the six that comprise Northern Ireland.
Just as well I didnt forget that in my comments, got you covered.
You also conveniently ignore the Catholic majorities of Derry, Tyrone, Armagh, and Fermanagh in your historical revisionism. So out of six counties in Northern Ireland (not Ulster) there was only two with a Protestant majority.
Actually thats BS. Protestants were a two third majority at the time of partition. It is considerably less now due to differences in the birth rate
Partition was a face saving measure by the British government who had been thoroughly embarrassed by the Irish rebels and wanted to save face while poisoning the well behind them as they were forced to quit the field.
More nonsense from you. Northern Ireland remained because the Orangemen (in particular) said so, and because the 1922 treaty at the time made efforts to accommodate them. The 1997 treaty reinforced this.
Where is this leprechaun dream of 'forced to quit the field'?
Jihadin wrote: Tighten security in the US. That's the icing on the cake
For that there actually needs to be effective border control. The exploits of cartels and coyotes shows this to be lacking.
Border control for the US is pretty much impossible. However Jihadists have to go a long way to get to the Americas in general, and cant effectively arrive en masse. The US has problems with 'home grown' radicals as with any nation in the west, but doesnt have large Islamic immigrant concentrations that there are in Europe.
The tweet has since been deleted, but can be seen below by means of a timely screenshot.
Many people criticized Trump for trying to appeal to gun nut voters, not realizing the tweet was written months before Trump announced his candidacy. Trump doesn’t need a use a presidential race as an excuse to be, well – a vulture. In fact, as hard as it is to believe, Trump’s candidacy may have tempered his uncanny ability to go on Twitter and say the least appropriate thing at the least appropriate moment. After news of the attacks in Paris broke, Trump put out a rather tame tweet that simply said “My prayers are with the victims and hostages in the horrible Paris attacks. May God be with you all.”
Of course, Trump’s moment of class was only fleeting. At an event in Beaumont, Texas, Trump took to the stage and said:
“When you look at Paris, you know, the toughest gun laws in the world, nobody had guns except for the bad guys, nobody. Nobody had guns, and they were just shooting them one by one.”
Featured Credit:By Mith (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons With Trump’s tweeted added.
That was from January.
New developments report that France has carried out airstrikes on IS in Syria.
The tweet has since been deleted, but can be seen below by means of a timely screenshot.
Many people criticized Trump for trying to appeal to gun nut voters, not realizing the tweet was written months before Trump announced his candidacy. Trump doesn’t need a use a presidential race as an excuse to be, well – a vulture. In fact, as hard as it is to believe, Trump’s candidacy may have tempered his uncanny ability to go on Twitter and say the least appropriate thing at the least appropriate moment. After news of the attacks in Paris broke, Trump put out a rather tame tweet that simply said “My prayers are with the victims and hostages in the horrible Paris attacks. May God be with you all.”
Of course, Trump’s moment of class was only fleeting. At an event in Beaumont, Texas, Trump took to the stage and said:
“When you look at Paris, you know, the toughest gun laws in the world, nobody had guns except for the bad guys, nobody. Nobody had guns, and they were just shooting them one by one.”
Featured Credit:By Mith (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons With Trump’s tweeted added.
That was from January.
New developments report that France has carried out airstrikes on IS in Syria.
Yes, it was from January when the Charlie Hedbo attack occurred.
Putting it into context, that's two fairly major terrorist attacks in France that he's made allusions to the "Die Hard" idea that Republicans love to espouse for their voter base("If someone had a gun, they would have stopped it!"). It's in poor taste, and the fact he attempted to delete the tweet shows he's aware of that.
LordofHats wrote: Something of interest. Russia, Lebanon, and France have now been attacked by ISIS or at least, individuals who support them. All three countries are near the top of the list for Foreign Nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq.
All these attacks have come in a short time span. Possibly more coming?
The Canadian Parliament building was also stormed by a lone Islamic State inspired supporter, and a Canadian soldier standing ceremonial guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was murdered.
Nothing on the level of the recent attacks, but our "fearless" overlord is using last October's attack in Ottawa, and the recent attacks as grounds for why we should tuck our tails and run away from the fight against these savage gakheads.
You've kept up your desinformation duty in my absence, I see. Scaling back our cooperation to the syrian situation to a support duty was an campaign point for Trudeau. He was elected, in a small part, because of this. And we are not "running away", we are converting our efforts from providing 2% of the strike capacity at work in Syria to focusing on the humanitarian crisis these savage gakheads have caused.
Between Operations Serval, Barkhane, Sangaris and Epervier, France has been "at war" with Daesh for 2 years now. While this is a horrible act (of war), an act of terror, it is not the senseless act of barbarian trashing against modern societies. It's a strategic act of war against an enemy state and its population.
Have they proven that any of the attackers were migrants or somehow related yet? I have only heard about the one Syrian passport that isn't confirmed last I heard.
But why, and I mean this honestly, is the West so responsible for these people? Qatar, KSA, Bahrain, etc. all have more than enough money to help their Muslim "brothers", so why aren't they?
Why are countries like Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, etc responsible? Because they sent a few hundred soldiers into Iraq in '03? How many of these jihadis are Saudi? Why isn't the world condemning them for their lack of care for their "brothers"?
The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.
I've met some great, cool, and all around awesome Muslims before. But all of them would be considered apostates by the majority of the Muslim world, because they were normal people. Islam needs to be reformed, and that can only come from within; which doesn't seem all too likely lately, but I still have hope.
Bill Maher is way too correct about liberals and their tolerance to Muslim crimes against humanity. I hope more people will listen to him, only about that though.
DutchWinsAll wrote: The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.
I've met some great, cool, and all around awesome Muslims before.
"Black people are the problem. I'm not racist. I have black friends too, but black people are the problem."
Oh is it that part of the thread where we damn huge swathes of people for superficial reasons already? Boy how time flies!
I didn't realize Black people choose to be Black. I like how you purposefully edited my comment to leave out how I thought they wouldn't be considered Muslims though. Keep your head in the sand, because I don't see Jains acting like this.
So Islam's treatment of women, gays, foreign workers, and Western civilians is similar to Black people? News to me.
I'm not trying to say I'm not prejudiced against Islam, a la your "I'm not racist, but..." statement, I am prejudiced against Islam. I believe in basic human rights. Islam treats other people like chattel. And I find it disgusting. I only added that because I do think Islam can be reformed, but only from within.
.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Dont know if this is off topic. But what is with people who do that "What about X, this happened to them and no one changed their flag" or the Rip for the innocent 100 people in paris, and RIP for the 1000000 innocent people who are gonna die for the acts of a few people? Why do people feel the need need to make the topic ALWAYs about them?
There's no one thing that defines this. No single answer that puts everything into a black and white, easily-definable box. It is many things.
1. As I mentioned before, it's complacency. Something blew up in the Middle East? Arabs are slaughtering Arabs with suicide weapons? Ok, and water's wet. What else is new? Something that keeps happening isn't going to hold the attention of the news for very long.
2. It's sensationalism. TV ratings will have spiked during their tragedy as people turned to major news outlets to find everything out. Of course the news stations are going to keep at it to keep their ratings up. That's cynical, but it's also business.
3. It's a lie. I'm pretty sure news outlets would have reported these other events, just not to the same degree, so the idea that no one said anything about them is a fabrication. It would be lower in the running order of whoever's national news it is (eg. Australia would have talked about the Cricket test against NZ before moving onto someting else, and eventually getting to this story), but it would have at least got a mention.
4. It's hypocrisy. I'd put real money on the notion that the people who say "But [this event] also happened!", "Leave religion out of it!" and "#PrayForTheWorld" are the same people who were making fun of Christians for getting up in arms about satantic Starbucks coffee cups, or who opposed #AllLivesMatter. People might get up in arms for me saying this, but the hypocrisy of the left is often far more insidious than the lunacy of the right (ie. Trump's idiotic comments) because it's couched in terms of concern and caring when really it's just another form of closet totalitarianism. The people screaming about how this tragedy is taking focus away from the meaningless 'safe space' bull gak in Missouri are all giant hypocrites.
5. It is a big deal. Multiple coordinated strikes resulting in mass casualties. It's different to (yet another) roadside bomb in Whateverstan. It gets talked about a lot because it is a big deal.
DutchWinsAll wrote: The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.
Certain sets of people in Western society are either unwilling or incapable of accepting this because to do so would make their strongly held views on multiculturalism collapse before their very eyes.
If there truly is a group of people that does not play well with others, so to speak, then that's a core world view challenged. People will drift into cognitive dissonance and goal-post moving to avoid it.
DutchWinsAll wrote: The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.
Certain sets of people in Western society are either unwilling or incapable of accepting this because to do so would make their strongly held views on multiculturalism collapse before their very eyes.
If there truly is a group of people that does not play well with others, so to speak, then that's a core world view challenged. People will drift into cognitive dissonance and goal-post moving to avoid it.
Exalted. My first one I think.
I actually consider myself very much to the Left, and it boggles my mind that massive and flagrant human rights abuses are overlooked because, I dunno, feelings? I thought we were supposed to believe in, and fight for, egalitarianism.
The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.
The very simple fact that the Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, the Islamic Front and many many other Islamic extremist groups are in conflict against Daesh should suffice to show that your analysis of the situation is lacking. Both the Arab League and the GCC are part of the Counter-Daesh Coalition.
We are talking about a group of 25,000 man terrorizing a total population of 10 millions, many sharing the same religion as the ones committing these atrocities. Pretty frakking obviously, the problem isn't just "Islam".
I actually consider myself very much to the Left, and it boggles my mind that massive and flagrant human rights abuses are overlooked because, I dunno, feelings? I thought we were supposed to believe in, and fight for, egalitarianism.
I don't think it's so much that it's overlooked as that it's a little hard to be too judgemental about it when similar human rights abuses lie not so very far in our own past...
Screaming 'Hey, I stopped kicking gay people in the face, like, hours ago, so if you're still doing it, you're a barbarian!' doesn't tend to sway people towards your point of view.
DutchWinsAll wrote: The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.
I've met some great, cool, and all around awesome Muslims before.
"Black people are the problem. I'm not racist. I have black friends too, but black people are the problem."
Did you just try to equate skin pigmentation with a set of ideological beliefs?
An analogy is not an adequation. It's an inference from a particular to another particular. In this case, the inference being that a certain degree of hasty generalization makes you a douche.
DutchWinsAll wrote: The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.
I've met some great, cool, and all around awesome Muslims before.
"Black people are the problem. I'm not racist. I have black friends too, but black people are the problem."
Did you just try to equate skin pigmentation with a set of ideological beliefs?
An analogy is not an adequation. It's an inference from a particular to another particular. In this case, the inference being that a certain degree of hasty generalization makes you a douche.
But Black people are inherently Black. They don't do anything different from other people because they believe in being Black. Islam is not an inherent belief. And a large part of it's adherents either allow or practice in some amount of brutality that the world does not accept anymore. Think about how just women are treated, just in regards to the law. Why is that acceptable to the tune of millions of dollars in aid?
4. It's hypocrisy. I'd put real money on the notion that the people who say "But [this event] also happened!", "Leave religion out of it!" and "#PrayForTheWorld" are the same people who were making fun of Christians for getting up in arms about satantic Starbucks coffee cups, or who opposed #AllLivesMatter. People might get up in arms for me saying this, but the hypocrisy of the left is often far more insidious than the lunacy of the right (ie. Trump's idiotic comments) because it's couched in terms of concern and caring when really it's just another form of closet totalitarianism. The people screaming about how this tragedy is taking focus away from the meaningless 'safe space' bull gak in Missouri are all giant hypocrites.
Hypocracy drives the nation, how dare you attack it!
We tolerate gun owners, despite the actions of their murderous majority.
They weren't born holding on to their guns, but they choose to own them. How many must be mowed down by their bullets before we realize that gun ownership is not compatible with the west and that owning guns is a deranged ideology that breeds violence. Sure, I know some peaceful gun owners, but they are just a perversion of gun owners. You don't know the truth of being armed until you killed your first human.
Some day we will realize that our PC constitution is outdated and we will get rid of the scourge of gun owners who love to kill.
Or maybe we don't paint the majority with a brush tainted by the few.
DutchWinsAll wrote: The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.
I've met some great, cool, and all around awesome Muslims before.
"Black people are the problem. I'm not racist. I have black friends too, but black people are the problem."
Did you just try to equate skin pigmentation with a set of ideological beliefs?
An analogy is not an adequation. It's an inference from a particular to another particular. In this case, the inference being that a certain degree of hasty generalization makes you a douche.
But Black people are inherently Black. They don't do anything different from other people because they believe in being Black. Islam is not an inherent belief. And a large part of it's adherents either allow or practice in some amount of brutality that the world does not accept anymore. Think about how just women are treated, just in regards to the law. Why is that acceptable to the tune of millions of dollars in aid?
Explain how you think the women are treated and I'll line that up with what people who lived there fore 6 years experienced
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: We tolerate gun owners, despite the actions of their murderous majority.
They weren't born holding on to their guns, but they choose to own them. How many must be mowed down by their bullets before we realize that gun ownership is not compatible with the west and that owning guns is a deranged ideology that breeds violence. Sure, I know some peaceful gun owners, but they are just a perversion of gun owners. You don't know the truth of being armed until you killed your first human.
Some day we will realize that our PC constitution is outdated and we will get rid of the scourge of gun owners who love to kill.
Or maybe we don't paint the majority with a brush tainted by the few.
I was about to say something about not generalizing but I read that last sentence
DutchWinsAll wrote: But Black people are inherently Black. They don't do anything different from other people because they believe in being Black.
And yet people constantly make generalisations that suggest that all black people conform to certain stereotypes. Exactly as you just did with Muslims.
Islam is not an inherent belief.
To many of those who follow it, as with any religion, it might as well be.
And a large part of it's adherents either allow or practice in some amount of brutality that the world does not accept anymore.
Sure. Because those things are culturally acceptable in large parts of the world. And were culturally acceptable in even more of the world not so very long ago.
Culture changes over time. Sometimes it happens quite slowly. Writing a whole religion off as a 'problem' just because they're not adapting in accordance with your personal advancement timetable seems somewhat arrogant.
d-usa wrote: We tolerate gun owners, despite the actions of their murderous majority.
They weren't born holding on to their guns, but they choose to own them. How many must be mowed down by their bullets before we realize that gun ownership is not compatible with the west and that owning guns is a deranged ideology that breeds violence. Sure, I know some peaceful gun owners, but they are just a perversion of gun owners. You don't know the truth of being armed until you killed your first human.
Some day we will realize that our PC constitution is outdated and we will get rid of the scourge of gun owners who love to kill.
Or maybe we don't paint the majority with a brush tainted by the few.
But Black people are inherently Black. They don't do anything different from other people because they believe in being Black.
Of course black people can consider being black as part of their identity, and a part that implies much more than simple skin pigmentation. Being a social human implies having an image of what it is to be such an man, and this image determines much of the rest of our identity.
Islam is not an inherent belief.
So what? Just because something can be eschewed doesn't mean you'll be able to make a proper argument as to why it should be eschewed by those that value it above all else.
And a large part of it's adherents either allow or practice in some amount of brutality that the world does not accept anymore.
Guilt by association. What do you do to stop the violence made by atheist/christian/whateverfloatyourboat? I bet a big nothing.
Think about how just women are treated, just in regards to the law. Why is that acceptable to the tune of millions of dollars in aid?
Ask those women if they are being oppressed. They will tell you to mind your business and accept their religious practices. You are now left with the conundrum of trying to convince someone that you know better then them their most intimate choices.
Ask those women if they are being oppressed. They will tell you to mind your business and accept their religious practices. You are now left with the conundrum of trying to convince someone that you know better then them their most intimate choices.
Ask those women if they are being oppressed. They will tell you to mind your business and accept their religious practices. You are now left with the conundrum of trying to convince someone that you know better then them their most intimate choices.
An analogy is not an adequation. It's an inference from a particular to another particular. In this case, the inference being that a certain degree of hasty generalization makes you a douche.
He's not making an analogy, he's making a substitution. He's trying to conflate saying 'IDEOLOGY X is a problem' with 'SKIN COLOUR X is a problem, because racism is bad. Except that ideologies contain information- doctrines, beliefs, ideals and other motivations- some of which yes, can be a problem. Skin colour on the other hand is a superficial trait and contains no information direct about the person beyond the colour of their skin.
The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.
The correct response to this is not a bad 'Black people are the problem' substitute. The correct response is to explain why the criticised ideology is not inherently problematic. Or ignore the criticism. But always argue in good faith. This is an attempt to draw an equivalence between people (who have rights and are protected) and ideologies (which do not have rights or deserve protection) and attempting to shield the latter as the former.
Ask those women if they are being oppressed. They will tell you to mind your business and accept their religious practices. You are now left with the conundrum of trying to convince someone that you know better then them their most intimate choices.
Of course some are doing great, and are well respected. Pakistan beat us to a female leader, though then shot her. But many millions are kept in base servitude based on those beliefs. Many are killed or tortured. Why is that acceptable?
Of course some are doing great, and are well respected. Pakistan beat us to a female leader, though then shot her. But many millions are kept in base servitude based on those beliefs. Many are killed or tortured. Why is that acceptable?
Sorry, just to be clear - you're linking to a news story that met with fairly widespread condemnation around the world as an example of people finding this sort of behaviour 'acceptable'...?
Added to which, you're pointing to an incident that happened in a Taliban-controlled area as an example of why Islam is bad.
You can't hold up the behaviour of extremists as proof that it's not just the extremists who are the problem...
An analogy is not an adequation. It's an inference from a particular to another particular. In this case, the inference being that a certain degree of hasty generalization makes you a douche.
^This
Calling 'Islam' the problem with the Middle East is as superficial as saying being 'black' is the problem. You're boiling down a huge swathe of people to a single attribute and making that one attribute the sole determinator of an outlandish claim.
Feel free to harp on "but Islam isn't a race" but it says infinitely more about your cognitive reasoning skills than anything
You can if you want to. I meet a few each session at my Uni. They don't bite and they don't run away from your gaze.
Lovely practices.
Of course some are doing great, and are well respected. Pakistan beat us to a female leader, though then shot her. But many millions are kept in base servitude based on those beliefs. Many are killed or tortured. Why is that acceptable?
It is not acceptable. Not anymore to me than to any of the muslim women (and men) I have met here. In fact, the only people I have ever heard say that it was acceptable (beside self-proclaimed imams) are westerners committing the moral relativism fallacy. But the problem of the state of feminism within Islam is not the problem of the use of terrorism by Islamist groups. Those two have no relation to another.
Tribalism/Oligarchy
Extreme Class Inequality
Horrible dependence on Oil for economic development
Their selection of Hats is lacking
Political corruption
Some extreme cases of nationalism and racism
Some of these things are related to Islam, some of them aren't, but either way, saying "Islam is the problem" is ignorance.
Without wanting to interrupt the whole islam may be the problem debate, or the subsequent black and female followups, just saw this and thought it might be of interest:
Iraqi intelligence officers warned France and other allies of an imminent assault by ISIS one day before the terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 132 people.
An Iraqi intel dispatch from coalition countries said the Islamic State’s leader, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi had ordered an attack on countries fighting them in Syria and Iraq “through bombings or assassinations or hostage taking in the coming days."
French authorities sought to downplay the signficance of the dispatch, saying it lacked specific details on when or where the attack would take place.
But six senior Iraqi officials said otherwise. Two of those officials said France had in fact been told of details regarding the attacks, which have not yet been made public.
Among them: that the Paris attacks appear to have been planned in Raqqa, Syria — the Islamic State's de-facto capital — where the attackers were trained specifically for this operation and with the intention of sending them to France.
The officials also said a sleeper cell in France met with the attackers after their training and helped them execute the plan.
There were 24 people involved in the operation, they said — 19 attackers and five others in charge of logistics and planning.
Iraq's Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, also told journalists in Vienna on Sunday that Iraqi intelligence agencies had obtained information that some countries would be targeted, including France, the United States and Iran, and had shared the intelligence with those countries.
Meanwhile the hunt was on for accomplices of the ISIS militants.
French police released the name of a German man suspected of renting the black Volkswagen Polo that dropped off attackers at the Bataclan theater, where at least 89 concert-goers were gunned down.
The alleged wheelman, Salah Abdeslam, of Brussels, is the brother of Ibrahim Abdeslam, who blew himself up during the attack, authorities said.
The fugitive is dangerous, police said, warning the public to “not intervene yourself” if he is spotted.
Authorities detained seven people in Belgium Sunday. Those detentions spurred a manhunt for a French suspect who is the brother of a man who died in the attacks and another man in custody.
Authorities also closed in on a car found in the Paris suburb Montreuil, which was believed to have carried a group of gunmen who struck Paris restaurants. Investigators found AK-47s in the abandoned black Seat Leon, about four miles from the eateries, French media reported.
As authorities continued their hunt President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin had a stern face-to-face on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Turkey.
The people of Paris remained on-edge. Mourners panicked and fled a memorial for the 132 who died — according to the latest figures from CNN — after hearing fireworks, police said.
Of course some are doing great, and are well respected. Pakistan beat us to a female leader, though then shot her. But many millions are kept in base servitude based on those beliefs. Many are killed or tortured. Why is that acceptable?
Sorry, just to be clear - you're linking to a news story that met with fairly widespread condemnation around the world as an example of people finding this sort of behaviour 'acceptable'...?
Added to which, you're pointing to an incident that happened in a Taliban-controlled area as an example of why Islam is bad.
You can't hold up the behaviour of extremists as proof that it's not just the extremists who are the problem...
Or maybe because Islam is a few centuries behind us. Stoning would've been a common thing 500-600 years ago (This probably isnt 100% accurate, but I am making a point)
Orlanth wrote: Where is this leprechaun dream of 'forced to quit the field'?
Railing against "Fenians" before, now "leprechauns"? If all you have are bigoted statements you have already lost.
Actually its a comment about your believe anything Irish Nationalists say mentality as seen before.
You don't realise it, the dogmatised rarely do, but you are unable to look at The Troubles rationally. Its a common occurance amongst those whose history of Ireland is separated from reality by several thousand miles, a few generations and many tales over pints. The sort of nonsense that made the USA one of major global donor states of terrorist funding back in the 80's and before.
This makes it sound like you're arguing over the exact percentage Islam contributes to the unrest in the ME rather than whether or not it does.
...
Problem has variables X, Y, and Z. You can focus exclusively on X, and completely ignore Y and Z, but it just means you're not really solving the problem and possibly don't even understand it.
Also note that when I say 'related' I didn't say 'contributes.' Islam for example is related to the issues some ME countries have with Nationalism, but only in so far as such countries identify Islam as core to their national identity in the same way many western states once identified with Christianity.
On the other hand, Islam does contribute to Class Inequality in many ME countries. The marriage and inheritance practices of many of these countries are very related to the popular Islamic beliefs of the region and have created a social dynamic were very powerful (and very large) family groups end up consolidating a lot of wealth among themselves. But in such case, is Islam really the problem. It's not like class inequality is unique to the ME. The ME isn't even the worst in the world on the subject (looking at you India!). In such case, Islam isn't the problem, so much as a mechanism creating the problem. It could easily be a dozen other things. We don't exactly need Islam here in the west to fuel class inequality.
The argument I'm making is the difference between ignorant superficiality and critical analysis.
LordofHats wrote: Stoning was never very popular in the West. We much preferred burning at the stake
Indeed. Although it wasn't nearly as common as some people might make it out to be. Witch Hunts were extremely rare with only a small handful of documented cases. Even during the fabled Inquisition they weren't extremely common, total numbers of people executed during the Inquisitions is actually pretty low(only 3-5 thousand at most). Most people got away with relatively minor punishments.
However there was a lot of torture, and the lesser punishments were often anything but minor..
The main problem with Inquisitors is the fear they generate. England had it less bad than most other European countries. There was a witch hunt, and a Witchfinder General, but his reign of terror did not last long, and he murdered relatively few women, but his investigations caused a climate of fear amongst women nationwide. Mostly because women (and most others) knew the justifications for accusation were bogus and this knew they were unsafe even if they were not witches.
Point is a witch hunt need find precious few victims to have a very widespread and enormously damaging societal effect.
Guerrilla movements count on this, the more you search for terrorists the more you alienate the culture they come from and the easier it is to recruit more terrorists.
To be fair, I think beheading is the all time human favorite method of execution. Lacking chemistry, electricity, and gunpowder, it's the most efficient option
Grey Templar wrote: True, but there really is no comparison with what is happening in the Middle East right now.
The analogy holds directly.
How do you find ISIS sympathisers and activists amongst a minority population?
- By scrutinising them.
How do you scrutinise them without infringing on privacy and human rights?
- With extreme difficulty and a much lowered chance of detecting murderous scum.
Read between the lines here. As the article explains Emwazi was one the way to radicalisation in 2009 according to an MI5 professional, and that his excuse that he was being forced into radicalisation was just an attempt to shirk responsibility for his own moral fall.
Cage said it had released the transcripts in a bid to support its claim that Emwazi was not a militant before the security services “harassed and intimidated” the Londoner, a suggestion that some will regard as risible.
It does raise questions as to whether some people join ISIS or similar movements due to a perception of mistreatment. Jihadists will certainly want to paint that picture and it can be an effective tool to rile impressionable people, especially converts, into extremism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: To be fair, I think beheading is the all time human favorite method of execution. Lacking chemistry, electricity, and gunpowder, it's the most efficient option
Its not very efficient because its very messy and needs clean up. Hanging issfar more efficient.
As for the favourite execution method, I would say forced starvation is. Deliberate cutting off of food and water supplies with the intent to kill is the historically most favoured method of 'executing' people. Working in the salt mines while dying is an optional extra.
We need to stop pretending that these attacks have nothing to do with Islam. We need to stop pretending that anyone who uses the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' is somehow a bigot or, more inaccurately, a racist (ignoring the fact that 'Muslims' aren't a race, but whatever...).
But don't take my word for it. Take the word of a Muslim, who perhaps has a far better perspective on this than any of us idiots:
Apologies if that took a while to load wrote:“I want to thank well-meaning non-Muslims who, in the wake of these attacks, have emphasised that they have been carried out by a small, twisted minority. A terrorist’s goal is to sow hatred and discord, and by not giving in, you are defeating their plans.
But I want to say that as a Muslim, I wish that we weren’t so quick to emphasise that this has nothing to do with us. While I personally have never killed anyone and none of my friends and family have ever resorted to violence, radicalism has everything to do with Islam. And the failure to address that out of a well-intentioned commitment to tolerance is making the problem worse.
ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and it is an Islamic problem. Let me say it again to be perfectly clear. ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and they are a cancer at the heart of Islam. And the problem will not go away until Muslims confront that.
ISIS attackers scream ‘Allah hu’akbar’ during their attacks.
ISIS recruits cite Qur’anic verses as justification for the rape and enslavement of women.
ISIS soldiers kill archaeologists, gay men and women, and people who refuse to convert to Islam because they are blasphemers.
There are no Christians in ISIS. There are no Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, Taoists, Houngans, Catholics, Wiccans, Hindus or even Scientologists in ISIS. ISIS is a Muslim organisation and they kill in the name of Islam.
So don’t say that ISIS aren’t ‘true Muslims’ or that they are ‘not really Muslims’. Like any large organisation, ISIS exists in a spectrum.
You have the aimless, restless teenager who never amounted to anything in his life and traveled to Syria because he can’t find a job and doesn’t know if the Qur’an is to be read from left to right or right to left. But you also have pious professionals, businessmen, and academics who read their Qur’an cover to cover, pray every day, were seduced into radicalism, and truly believe that the Islamic State’s goal of conquest is a noble one. The so-called ‘Caliph’ Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic studies.
So if you feel that Muslims are being oppressed or killed in Muslim countries, I expect you to also be just as outraged by ISIS. Because they have killed more Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Jordan than the entire US army.
They have done more damage to the name and reputation of Islam than any Western nation. ISIS is Islam’s biggest enemy, not the US, not Israel or France or Germany or the Russians.
We have to own the problem. We have to admit that this is a religious problem, and we need to renew our commitment to a secular country which treats all religions equally. I have believed in the importance of secularism all my life, and with every day that passes that belief grows stronger. Religion is no way to govern a nation. Not any religion, and not any nation.
ISIS is not America’s problem, nor the British, nor the French. ISIS is not Syria or Iraq’s problem. ISIS is a problem for Muslims. And if you can’t admit that, you’re not really a good Muslim either.”
H.B.M.C. wrote: We need to stop pretending that these attacks have nothing to do with Islam. We need to stop pretending that anyone who uses the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' is somehow a bigot or, more inaccurately, a racist (ignoring the fact that 'Muslims' aren't a race, but whatever...).
Nice strawman you've built for yourself there.
Taking issue with a sweeping generalization like "Muslims are the problem" is completely different from thinking Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.
Linked article is great though for making the point I have been making every time this issue comes up and someone inevitably jumps to "how terribad those Muslims are we should purge them" comments. Does this mean I won internets?
Just read page 1. Not much time to read, but I wanted to say this:
My sympathies for the people affected, the families affected, and the french nation in general. Also my sympathies for true muslims. There is nothing wrong with believing, and being framed because of a minority who have their own twisted culture and liken themselves to innocent people who have faith in their god is just horrible.
Yes these attacks are to convey the IS ideology. I am not a religious man, but with these terrorist organizations that have their thinking set in the middle ages i am all for an eye for an eye.
(although i mean destroying the organisation and not the innocents, but also fill the power vacuum so that some other organisation fills the void in a few years.)
LordofHats wrote: Exactly what has been the popular opinion concerning the Syrian Civil War in France? Maybe it's been mentioned before, but I missed it.
You mean, before ISIS ? Most of us supported the rebels.
Not exactly. We were still supporting those who fought Assad for their rights in Syria, but most forgot about them to focus on ISIS. Until recently our military goals were : Destroy ISIS and get Assad out of power.
Now would seem to be a time to consider the practicality of removing Assad, which is unfortunate. The guy is a tosser and it would be really nice to have him gone.
Gonna need to put thought in that one. Total douche and turd decision.
Tribalism/Oligarchy
Extreme Class Inequality
Horrible dependence on Oil for economic development
Their selection of Hats is lacking
Political corruption
Some extreme cases of nationalism and racism
Some of these things are related to Islam, some of them aren't, but either way, saying "Islam is the problem" is ignorance.
This is correct. Also, to say "Islam" is the problem is an insult to all our Islamic members.
Remember Rule no.1
Also keep away from calling Irish people leprechauns.
LordofHats wrote: To be fair, I think beheading is the all time human favorite method of execution. Lacking chemistry, electricity, and gunpowder, it's the most efficient option
LordofHats wrote: To be fair, I think beheading is the all time human favorite method of execution. Lacking chemistry, electricity, and gunpowder, it's the most efficient option
Are we discounting starvation?
Starving a person to death takes up space and time.
Burying them alive on the other hand, kill two birds with one stone. Especially if you get them to dig their own grave.
Ahtman wrote: If there isn't a cute hashtag does it really warrant any feigned interest? How can one pretend to do something online if there isn't a hashtag?!
Ahtman wrote: If there isn't a cute hashtag does it really warrant any feigned interest? How can one pretend to do something online if there isn't a hashtag?!
Change your facebook profile picture obviously.
1 like = 1 jihadist stopped. #SupportFranceAndStopTerrorismByDoingNothingAndUsingRidiculouslyLongHashtags
EDIT : We bombed Raqqa tonight, so things can only go deeper into violence.
LordofHats wrote: To be fair, I think beheading is the all time human favorite method of execution. Lacking chemistry, electricity, and gunpowder, it's the most efficient option
Well we did use to combine burning at the stake and explosive collars for a slightly more merciful death.................
LordofHats wrote: Now would seem to be a time to consider the practicality of removing Assad, which is unfortunate. The guy is a tosser and it would be really nice to have him gone.
Gonna need to put thought in that one. Total douche and turd decision.
So who would you replace Assad with? Nature abhors a vacuum and without a solid plan you risk strengthening ISIS.
LordofHats wrote: Now would seem to be a time to consider the practicality of removing Assad, which is unfortunate. The guy is a tosser and it would be really nice to have him gone.
Gonna need to put thought in that one. Total douche and turd decision.
So who would you replace Assad with? Nature abhors a vacuum and without a solid plan you risk strengthening ISIS.
We'll just have to find a puppet from the west. Because that never leads to bad things happening.
d-usa wrote: We tolerate gun owners, despite the actions of their murderous majority.
They weren't born holding on to their guns, but they choose to own them. How many must be mowed down by their bullets before we realize that gun ownership is not compatible with the west and that owning guns is a deranged ideology that breeds violence. Sure, I know some peaceful gun owners, but they are just a perversion of gun owners. You don't know the truth of being armed until you killed your first human.
Some day we will realize that our PC constitution is outdated and we will get rid of the scourge of gun owners who love to kill.
Or maybe we don't paint the majority with a brush tainted by the few.
Your analogy is cute but flawed. Its usually the guys with guns that do the scourging. "Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" is not just an epic movie line.
So can we keep that topic out of this one please?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Given the actual topic at hand, perhaps the discussion of the most efficient ways to kill people might just be a tad tasteless, no?
LordofHats wrote: Now would seem to be a time to consider the practicality of removing Assad, which is unfortunate. The guy is a tosser and it would be really nice to have him gone.
Gonna need to put thought in that one. Total douche and turd decision.
So who would you replace Assad with? Nature abhors a vacuum and without a solid plan you risk strengthening ISIS.
We'll just have to find a puppet from the west. Because that never leads to bad things happening.
Can we also arm the new regime so it can turn on us again?
LethalShade wrote: Here we go, our politicians are already starting to use the attacks to discredit our government.
*Sigh*
How do you mean?
The calls for a 3 month state of emergency?
Nope. They're just openly criticizing everything they can criticize, half-ignoring the government calls for the Union Sacrée (Sacred Union, a political truce between the different parties). I mean, they have the right to criticize the government, of course, (And there is a lot of things to criticize) but there are more important things to do at the moment than preparing the next election.
Lone Cat wrote: Have any of you ever see creepy cartoon showing support to the equally creepy ISIS like this before?
Spoiler:
So basically some ISIS supporters. Can't believe somebody doesn't alert the government to look into possible terrorists posting crap like that esp. considering people liked and possibly favorite'd it.
For those that don't have twitter the number on the left is basically how many clicked the 'share' button and the number on the right is how many 'liked' it.
Ahtman wrote: If there isn't a cute hashtag does it really warrant any feigned interest? How can one pretend to do something online if there isn't a hashtag?!
Change your facebook profile picture obviously.
1 like = 1 jihadist stopped. #SupportFranceAndStopTerrorismByDoingNothingAndUsingRidiculouslyLongHashtags
First world causes at their best (like 'cause' bracelets for giving barely any money). If I had any money (being poor sucks) I'd probably send some in a relief effort if it's even needed. Not sure how to legitimately help france without signing up to the military or to help with relief somehow. Certainly the families of the dead will need support for this.
Oddly enough my half sister was in france when this happened but she was about 7 hours south of Paris. Not only was she visiting Europe when this happened but was in france on the day. I'm not sure how much more the case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time could apply aside from being in the city and where the attacks took place. Oddly enough she's in Spain now so despite the 'lockdown' she was able to get out of the country pretty easily as a tourist. That's probably a cause for concern though.
LordofHats wrote: Now would seem to be a time to consider the practicality of removing Assad, which is unfortunate. The guy is a tosser and it would be really nice to have him gone.
Gonna need to put thought in that one. Total douche and turd decision.
So who would you replace Assad with? Nature abhors a vacuum and without a solid plan you risk strengthening ISIS.
Yeah that's one of issues. In my post I'm more referring to changing the international stance away from removing Assad, but if the course of remove Assad were to be continued one of the issues is what replaces him, especially since removing him will not end the conflict in Syria with ISIS.
On the one hand I don't really like the idea of abandoning the rebels who oppose Assad and ISIS. They want a lot of the things many of us want. At the same time though, are they more useful than Assad right now? Assad is only a threat to the people of Syria, but ISIS is clearly a threat to everyone west of the Indus River.
Lone Cat wrote: Have any of you ever see creepy cartoon showing support to the equally creepy ISIS like this before?
Spoiler:
So basically some ISIS supporters. Can't believe somebody doesn't alert the government to look into possible terrorists posting crap like that esp. considering people liked and possibly favorite'd it.
For those that don't have twitter the number on the left is basically how many clicked the 'share' button and the number on the right is how many 'liked' it.
.
Viewers 'liked' this post because the tweeting member denounced the cartoonist in question. Actually this member said 'Look at his transgression (cartoonist)!' . It is denounciation. he's actually attacking a cartoonist who drawn this.
While Thai (military junta) government is basically claimed that they have no love to the ISIS. their key supporters (especially the cartoonists in question, whom a full supporter to the Junta himself) are! Simply because France... as a member of E.U. shown no regards to the 22nd May 2014 Coup. suspended all negotiations with the Junta government 'until the free and fair election is held'. U.S. also responded the same.. Only China 'recognizes' the Junta as legitimate government. With this situations abroad. the Cartoonist viewed that 'The Free World is the Enemy of the State' and they MUST SUFFER. I don't think he cares about who's attacking his 'enemies'. he cares only that the prepetators had the attacks executed successfully. With the incident fully involved with the ISIS (their leadership later arrogantly claimed responsibility). this means the Cartoonist called the ISIS 'Ally'.
Also the earliest OFFICIAL announcement on this incident also berated 'Liberal Democracy is weak and inheriting to the social rift, proning toterrorists attack to any country adopting this political system.' and arrogantly promoted their brand of 'proper political system that instills unity to national citizenry'. so alerting government about this pro ISIS cartoonist helps nothing, since the NCPO is internationally desperate. the regime might see ISIS as their saviour that they can prevent full scale rebellion at home (which they believe that these Free World Allies will instigate any preexisting Anti-NCPO factions to wage war against them). Yet they don't think the ISIS will defeat the Free World Allies.
EDIT: But if you asking me wheter does ISIS supporters exists in Thailand, or Is there any Thai citizens ISIS sympathety here? I'd say 'Yes there are!' Most likely those with this political alignment also supports the Junta and hateful towards anyone opposing 'The Holy Reform' .... not just being simply 'Anti-Shinawatra' as they were. many new groups opposing the Junta, yet not related to the preexisting Red movements shown up, (And the Junta military garrisons are quick to catch them). Yet there are creepier irrenditism remarks sprang up only few hours after the incident.. like this one
'This is the Karmic Retribution to the French campaign to conquer Siam (resulting in 1893 Crisis) '
LordofHats wrote: Now would seem to be a time to consider the practicality of removing Assad, which is unfortunate. The guy is a tosser and it would be really nice to have him gone.
Gonna need to put thought in that one. Total douche and turd decision.
So who would you replace Assad with? Nature abhors a vacuum and without a solid plan you risk strengthening ISIS.
Ideally the international pressure makes Assad realize that he is bones, he takes the smart way out and makes a deal with Russia letting him spend the rest of his life as a rich man, he holds his office long enough as a "nice guy" until they can have fair elections, he hands off power to the newly elected government peacefully, and everybody goes home "happy".
How to make that scenario happen? No freaking idea.
You really cannot hold 'fair elections' when the Gov't does not have control over even half the population at this point. Huge areas controlled by DaIsh and other groups would be left without a voice in how the new gov't is formed.
I'm not saying you couldn't hold the elections anyway, but you end up either accepting a split country or you still have a civil war going on. Likely both to be honest.
CptJake wrote: You really cannot hold 'fair elections' when the Gov't does not have control over even half the population at this point. Huge areas controlled by DaIsh and other groups would be left without a voice in how the new gov't is formed.
I'm not saying you couldn't hold the elections anyway, but you end up either accepting a split country or you still have a civil war going on. Likely both to be honest.
That falls under the "how to make it happen, no idea" part of my plan!
LordofHats wrote: Jake raises a good point. Can we really form a new government prior to removing ISIS? Election day is a potential terrorist field event.
Well, once Assad realizes that a peaceful exit is his best future he will work together with the rebels, Russia, and the USA to defeat ISIS.
It's a plan with no chance of it happening, but it's a plan
Orlanth wrote: I suggest we leave Assad alone. We were happy to before the Arab Spring, he survived the fire.
Our biggest lesson over the last 15 years should really be that stable dictatorships are better for our national interest and security than unstable democracies.
Any major change in the political structure of a country (which also determines its social structure, to an extent) is going to lead to disruptions in the quality of life that people have come to expect. In every case, there will be those who fall from a position of relative comfort to one of discomfort.
These are the sorts of people that get recruited by extremists. The ones who feel as if they have lost everything, have no prospects, who think "things were better under the old ways!" and similar ideas are how groups like ISIS, or the Klan, recruit new members and stay relevant, *especially* if the political change is instigated/perpetuated by those viewed as "outsiders" (whether those "outsiders" are actually foreign powers or just different factions within one's own nation).
Let's be honest here, American-style capitalist democracy is actually pretty terrible in avoiding these scenarios, because capitalism *requires* a lower class, which leads to significant economic inequality, which is a powerful contributing factor to many other forms of inequality and injustice. And, as the saying goes, when justice dies? People are bound to follow.
So, however it shakes out, if "regime change" is the goal, those involved in the changing have to make damned sure they have the will and the capital to see it through to the end. They *must* remain to act as the defenders of the new order and, if that new order is meant to be a liberal democracy? To ensure that the precepts of liberal democracy are actually being carried out, and the grievances of the people are being addressed.
It is *not* enough to simply go in and kill a lot of people, because that will not solve anything other than the most immediate of problems, while creating many more (and basically ensures that you'll be back in 10 to 20 years to do it all over again once the next few generations of extremists, pissed that you left their country in ruins and killed their fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers, have blown up your shopping malls, your nightclubs and your theme parks.
The question remains, as it has for nearly twenty years now, is whether or not the people and the governments of the West have the will to actually see it through. Personally? I don't believe that they do. We have too many extremists in our own midst, and I mean natives, home-grown extremists, with access to the internet and social media, making posts (in relation to current events, things like "Islam is the problem" and "Kill all of them" and "Only let the Christians in") which are used by groups like ISIS to further their message that the West has declared war on all Muslims everywhere... which, again, feeds into the fears and uncertainties of the marginalized, which is, again, how such organizations recruit.
The extremists will keep going in their steady inexorable dominion of the whole Muslim world, including the immigrant communities in Europe and North America. The hawks will talk about going to war with Islam as if we could solve this problem by throwing enough bombs at it. And the totalitarian progressive left will silence anyone who dares to question their narrative that Islam is a problem-free religion.
mind you, at least they're offering something close to a roadmap:
A) We need to admit Islam has a huge problem with violence. We need to condemn that violence, without making any excuses for it.
B) We need to acknowledge that there’s a lot of people in the Islamic world who want to change that, and stop throwing them under the bus.
C) We need to channel a lot of resources into helping these people to be stronger, louder and more popular than they are right now.
unfortunately my money is on the status quo being maintained, until there is another attack that reaches four digits of victims. Stay safe, everyone
As a rebuttal to the article, Islam, itself, doesn't have a problem with violence. There's one and a half billion Muslims in the world. The vast majority of them live like, well, regular people, doing the 9-to-5 thing, like most people in the western world. Are they particularly devout Muslims living every moment of every day in accordance with the Quran?
Of course not but, then again, most Christians don't live by the Bible every second of every day (or even every day of the week), they have their sins, their vices, their all-too-human weaknesses. Some like to drink, some like porn, some like gakky game shows. Nobody's perfect.
Adding together the total populations of Boko Haram, al Qaeda, and ISIS, you end up with a total population that represents 0.003% of Muslims worldwide. Trying to claim that this tiny percentage represent Muslims worldwide is like trying to claim the Klan speaks for the entirety of the American South-east (I'm from there. Let me assure you, it most certainly does *not*).
Psienesis wrote: As a rebuttal to the article, Islam, itself, doesn't have a problem with violence. There's one and a half billion Muslims in the world. The vast majority of them live like, well, regular people, doing the 9-to-5 thing, like most people in the western world. Are they particularly devout Muslims living every moment of every day in accordance with the Quran?
Of course not but, then again, most Christians don't live by the Bible every second of every day (or even every day of the week), they have their sins, their vices, their all-too-human weaknesses. Some like to drink, some like porn, some like gakky game shows. Nobody's perfect..
Psienesis wrote: Adding together the total populations of Boko Haram, al Qaeda, and ISIS, you end up with a total population that represents 0.003% of Muslims worldwide. Trying to claim that this tiny percentage represent Muslims worldwide is like trying to claim the Klan speaks for the entirety of the American South-east (I'm from there. Let me assure you, it most certainly does *not*).
Indeed, from the article:
it’s really the Wahabis who are the problem. They are only 22 percent of Muslims, but have a huge amount of power in the Muslim world. And they are responsible for the 87 percent of terrorism.
You did read the article right? That's ok if you skimmed it.
Orlanth wrote: That was a different situation. Home rule was justifiable and necessary, the partition occurred on sectarian grounds due to a majority of orange in six of the counties of Ulster.
Oh, and before I forget again Ulster is 9 counties and is comprised of Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan, as well as the six that comprise Northern Ireland.
Just as well I didnt forget that in my comments, got you covered.
You also conveniently ignore the Catholic majorities of Derry, Tyrone, Armagh, and Fermanagh in your historical revisionism. So out of six counties in Northern Ireland (not Ulster) there was only two with a Protestant majority.
Actually thats BS. Protestants were a two third majority at the time of partition. It is considerably less now due to differences in the birth rate
Partition was a face saving measure by the British government who had been thoroughly embarrassed by the Irish rebels and wanted to save face while poisoning the well behind them as they were forced to quit the field.
More nonsense from you. Northern Ireland remained because the Orangemen (in particular) said so, and because the 1922 treaty at the time made efforts to accommodate them. The 1997 treaty reinforced this.
Where is this leprechaun dream of 'forced to quit the field'?
Jihadin wrote: Tighten security in the US. That's the icing on the cake
For that there actually needs to be effective border control. The exploits of cartels and coyotes shows this to be lacking.
Border control for the US is pretty much impossible. However Jihadists have to go a long way to get to the Americas in general, and cant effectively arrive en masse. The US has problems with 'home grown' radicals as with any nation in the west, but doesnt have large Islamic immigrant concentrations that there are in Europe.
Some folks in their rush to legitimise terrorism or at the least terrorist apologists ignore the fact that only 13% of the population of Northern Ireland want a United Ireland's and that's a huge nationwide poll published last week.....so I doubt there are too many counties with a true nationalist never mind republican majority. Partition was made possible because of the unionist people's sacrifice in ww1. Catholic people have served in many capacities in the British armed forces with considerable distinction. Including both world wars and as members of the udr and ruc. The number of Catholics who supported the IRA in 1916 was more miniscule and the numbe who supported them during the troubles was pretty tiny too. The fascist cult of Sinn Fein just like to rewrite history and the world let them away with it to keep their bombs and bullets at bay. Which to be honest is probably worth living with when you look at their brothers in ISIS and what they are doing.
Orlanth wrote: I suggest we leave Assad alone. We were happy to before the Arab Spring, he survived the fire.
Our biggest lesson over the last 15 years should really be that stable dictatorships are better for our national interest and security than unstable democracies.
Better for the local populace also. Assad wasn't particularly bad, you could live quite safely in Syria so long as you weren't actively trying to depose him. You could be critical of the regime and more than get away with it, a Saddam he was not.
Sure he had rough edges, but a lot of our own western politicians have those, yet we get all high and mighty about our own righteousness,
I have never believed he went mental and started shooting Turkish aircraft either. This was always laid at his door but was far more likely to be the work of rebel forces. Assad is not a crazy and knows it would do himself no good to take pot shots at the Turks.
Gaddafi had to go, and we had blood debts to call in. The UK and France especially wanted him out and quickly arranged for the rebels to gain the upper hand. Egypt was a mess from the beginning, Mubarak's removal was opportunistic, has solved nothing and only served to feth the country. Only Tunisia's spring has appeared to have worked out as intended.
Putin made the right call throughout. I do not see why the UK needed to have any policy of Assad at all, He wasn't our problem, and its a problem we need not have been party to. Even now the talk is about the eventual removal of Assad, time to wake up. Assad is staying, Russia says so and we all need Russia's help right now.
Some folks in their rush to legitimise terrorism or at the least terrorist apologists ignore the fact that only 13% of the population of Northern Ireland want a United Ireland's and that's a huge nationwide poll published last week.....so I doubt there are too many counties with a true nationalist never mind republican majority. Partition was made possible because of the unionist people's sacrifice in ww1. Catholic people have served in many capacities in the British armed forces with considerable distinction. Including both world wars and as members of the udr and ruc. The number of Catholics who supported the IRA in 1916 was more miniscule and the number who supported them during the troubles was pretty tiny too. The fascist cult of Sinn Fein just like to rewrite history and the world let them away with it to keep their bombs and bullets at bay. Which to be honest is probably worth living with when you look at their brothers in ISIS and what they are doing.
QFT, mostly.
The support for an independence process in 1916-22 was very substantial. It was major issue prior to that, and had a lot of support in the mainland UK. Irish Home Rule was an issue Gladstone tried to settle, but couldn't get the bill through. Wellesley was also in favour of full Irish independence but likewise was blocked.
The main problem is not from the Irish, who understand the issues clearly, but Irish Americans, who are divorced from the reality and are hoodwinked into believing hogwash version of Irish history that doesnt stand up to any scrutiny, but is unchallenged and thus believed anyway.
The whole idea that the UK was kicked out of Ireland by a heroic uprising and made Northern Ireland to save face is part of the ahistorical bollocks that many over there are spoonfed.
Knockagh wrote: Some folks in their rush to legitimise terrorism or at the least terrorist apologists ignore the fact that only 13% of the population of Northern Ireland want a United Ireland's and that's a huge nationwide poll published last week.....so I doubt there are too many counties with a true nationalist never mind republican majority. Partition was made possible because of the unionist people's sacrifice in ww1. Catholic people have served in many capacities in the British armed forces with considerable distinction. Including both world wars and as members of the udr and ruc. The number of Catholics who supported the IRA in 1916 was more miniscule and the numbe who supported them during the troubles was pretty tiny too. The fascist cult of Sinn Fein just like to rewrite history and the world let them away with it to keep their bombs and bullets at bay. Which to be honest is probably worth living with when you look at their brothers in ISIS and what they are doing.
You conveniently ignore the sacrifices of Catholics who served in the British army (including many of my relatives) during the First World War. The UDR and RUC both treated Catholics very poorly - as did their predecessors the RIC and also the Black and Tans. You can thank the British government for the popularity of the IRA. The Easter Rising had limited widespread support, but drawing out the executions over days and tying the wounded to chairs to shoot them actually strengthened the IRA. Gunning down innocent people on the streets of Derry who had the gall to ask for civil rights didn't to the British government any favours either.
I'm not fan of the IRA or Sinn Fein, but if you want to equate Sinn Fein to ISIS please continue to display your ignorance to the rest of the forum.
d-usa wrote: Our biggest lesson over the last 15 years should really be that stable dictatorships are better for our national interest and security than unstable democracies.
You conveniently ignore the sacrifices of Catholics who served in the British army (including many of my relatives) during the First World War. The UDR and RUC both treated Catholics very poorly - as did their predecessors the RIC and also the Black and Tans.
You can thank the British government for the popularity of the IRA.
Again you have drank too much Kool-Aid. In 1968 British troops were sent to police Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics, not the other way around. Because of the sectarian riots.
The IRA took this as an opportunity to attack and convince people it was an army of occupation, even so the IRA was never actually popular, even amongst Catholics.
The Easter Rising had limited widespread support, but drawing out the executions over days and tying the wounded to chairs to shoot them actually strengthened the IRA.
The Easter Rising was during World War 1. Having an insurrection then would be responded to in this manner in just about any country.
Gunning down innocent people on the streets of Derry who had the gall to ask for civil rights didn't to the British government any favours either.
Bloody Sunday happened once, and while once was once too much it happened because individual soldiers went off the deep end after the pressures of facing a terror campaign. Dont make out it was some sort of policy.
The army still maintains that the IRA were active that day and launched an abortive attack on the soldiers guarding the march.
I'm not fan of the IRA or Sinn Fein, but if you want to equate Sinn Fein to ISIS please continue to display your ignorance to the rest of the forum.
ISIS = murderous scum who execute prisoner by cutting off their heads with machetes or sitting them over explosives.
(P)IRA = murderous scum who execute prisoners by tying them down and cutting off the limbs with blowtorches.
Fairly morally compatible actually. The only thing the IRA didn't have was suicide bombers, because they never believed they would get 72 virgins by blowing themselves up with their victims.
d-usa wrote: Our biggest lesson over the last 15 years should really be that stable dictatorships are better for our national interest and security than unstable democracies.
Even Saudi Arabia who funds Jihadi groups?
Saudi Arabia doesn't fund jihadists. Individuals with a lot of disposable personal wealth fund jihadists. There is a HUGE difference. There is funding from within Saudi Arabia, yes, but its not official.
d-usa wrote: That Saudi myth gets debunked on a pretty regular basis, and then just gets repeated next week again.
The problem with the Saudi is that the ruling government is hesitant to participate in international banking rules that can curb this.
They're also concerned about any backlashes if they crack down on this.
Indeed. Even if the Saudi Government isn't acting in an official capacity, they also aren't doing anything to prevent it and are tacitly approving it by doing nothing.
Orlanth wrote: Saudi Arabia doesn't fund jihadists. Individuals with a lot of disposable personal wealth fund jihadists. There is a HUGE difference. There is funding from within Saudi Arabia, yes, but its not official.
So Saudi Arabia never covertly supports armed wahhabi groups in other countries to further its geopolitical interests? Every other great and regional power does so, I really don't think there is any difference here. It would very, very much be in Saudi Arabia's interests to have a wahhabi group in Syria (a sunni majority country) winning out, gaining them an important ally in their battle against Iran and other shia powers. Saudi Arabia probably no longer supports ISIS (Their declaration of a new Caliphate kinda ruined that, I guess), but they probably did support them in the beginning. It is also undeniable that Saudi Arabia is the source of the radical version of islam that ISIS (and the Saudi government) adhere to. I don't think the Saudi government wants to create terrorists like ISIS. But just like with the US and its support for Al-Qaeda, things sometimes get out of hand. Taking out the Saudis, and replacing them with moderate, secular rulers, would probably quiet things down in the Middle East, as radical sunni groups would lose their primary support (both from the Saudi government and individuals within Saudi Arabia, assuming the new regime would crack down on that)
My heart goes out to all French and all French dakka posters against a second cowardly assault against your people this year.
Whatever petty differences Americans and Europeans have and squabble about on the internet, it is just that....petty. At the end of the day we are tied tight to freedom and democracy however we each choose to practice it.
The French are too strong to be intimidated by such terrorism. They demonstrated such after the Hebdo attacks.
I suggest we all stand behind them. For all our sake.
WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists
Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.
"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.
While Saudi Arabia is often a secondary source of funds and support for terror movements who can find more motivated and ideologically invested benefactors (e.g. Qatar), Saudi Arabia remains perhaps the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Al-Nusra Front.[96]
Saudi Arabia is said to be the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist jihadism,[97] which forms the ideological basis of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and others. Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, according to Hillary Clinton.[98] According to a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups."
The violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is partly bankrolled by wealthy, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.[98] Three other Arab countries which are listed as sources of militant money are Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, all neighbors of Saudi Arabia. Taliban and their militant partners the Haqqani network earn "significant funds" through UAE-based businesses. Kuwait is described as a "source of funds and a key transit point" for al-Qaida and other militant groups.[98][100] The Pakistani militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005.[98][101] According to studies, most of suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis.[102][103][104] 15 of the 19 hijackers of the four airliners who were responsible for 9/11 originated from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.[105] Osama bin Laden was a Saudi by birth. His family is a wealthy one intimately connected with the innermost circles of the Saudi royal family.
So glad now have sources that back up the "Saudi Arabia doesn't sponsor terrorism; people from Saudi Arabia do" explanation we have to make everytime someone compares the rulers of SA to Gadaffi & Co?
Psienesis wrote: As a rebuttal to the article, Islam, itself, doesn't have a problem with violence. There's one and a half billion Muslims in the world. The vast majority of them live like, well, regular people, doing the 9-to-5 thing, like most people in the western world. Are they particularly devout Muslims living every moment of every day in accordance with the Quran?
Of course not but, then again, most Christians don't live by the Bible every second of every day (or even every day of the week), they have their sins, their vices, their all-too-human weaknesses. Some like to drink, some like porn, some like gakky game shows. Nobody's perfect.
Adding together the total populations of Boko Haram, al Qaeda, and ISIS, you end up with a total population that represents 0.003% of Muslims worldwide. Trying to claim that this tiny percentage represent Muslims worldwide is like trying to claim the Klan speaks for the entirety of the American South-east (I'm from there. Let me assure you, it most certainly does *not*).
Tell me, are only .003% of women living in Islamic areas brutalized? Or is that number a wee bit higher?
A criticism of an ideology is not inherently bigoted. When I start to see more Islamic countries respecting basic human rights, and when moderate Muslim leaders finally are allowed to assert themselves safely, I will withdraw my criticism.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Tell me, are only .003% of women living in Islamic areas brutalized? Or is that number a wee bit higher?
It's most certainly higher. ON a quick google, domestic violence rates in, say, Turkey are around 40%, with the global average around 30%.
Of course, USA sits around 22%... which would seem to call to mind a certain phrase about glass houses and the like...
Because noticing a higher rate in the ME somehow means there is none in the USA? Seems a bit of a stretch.
One can realize the ME has a higher rate of domestic violence elsewhere and still recognize problems in the USA. Not only does one not negate the other I don't see anyone making such a claim. Other than you in your snarky response of course.
Ahtman wrote: Because noticing a higher rate in the ME somehow means there is none in the USA?.
Not at all.
But the fact that most western nations have a fairly appalling track-record when it comes to treatment of women makes it a little harder to act all self-righteous about Muslim countries having an appalling track record in regards to treatment of women.
Sure, we might not be as bad. But we're an awful long way from being at a point where we can get all judgemental about others not living up to our standards.
Ahtman wrote: Because noticing a higher rate in the ME somehow means there is none in the USA?.
Not at all.
But the fact that most western nations have a fairly appalling track-record when it comes to treatment of women makes it a little harder to act all self-righteous about Muslim countries having an appalling track record in regards to treatment of women.
Sure, we might not be as bad. But we're an awful long way from being at a point where we can get all judgemental about others not living up to our standards.
How can the best treatment of women ever in history be classified as "appalling"?
Sure, there is a long way to go yet but I can hardly call what happens currently anywhere near appalling. We are certainly far enough ahead to be critical of those who are stuck 3,000 years in the past.
Right, but relative to the rest of the world that is pretty dang good. What ever way you slice it, its not appalling. Thats way too strong a word for what it currently is.
Says the guy who is way way overstating the extent of an issue which has made huge strides over the last century. Saying things are appalling is degrading to those strides and those who brought them about. Its basically saying they accomplished nothing.
But that's really the side issue. What started this little derail here was the idea that Islam is bad because they mistreat their womenfolk. My point was simply that not so long ago, so did we... and we still do... which makes it a little hard to be overly judgemental about it.
It means that what we're really saying isn't that Islamic countries are bad because their women are mistreated. It's that Isalmic countries are bad because they haven't changed their ways at the same completely arbitrary rate as we have.
And that's a bit of a shaky foundation for judging others.
I'm not saying that those acts are not appalling. They are, horribly so.
But the rate they occur in our country isn't, not relative to the rate they occur in other countries who don't have it as good. Insaniak was saying relative to other countries Western Countries had an appalling track record with women, which is 100% incorrect.
Grey Templar wrote: Saying things are appalling is degrading to those strides and those who brought them about. Its basically saying they accomplished nothing.
No it isn't. It's saying that something appalling is improving, but that there is still a ways to go before it stops being appalling.
Ahtman wrote: Because noticing a higher rate in the ME somehow means there is none in the USA?.
Not at all.
But the fact that most western nations have a fairly appalling track-record when it comes to treatment of women makes it a little harder to act all self-righteous about Muslim countries having an appalling track record in regards to treatment of women.
Sure, we might not be as bad. But we're an awful long way from being at a point where we can get all judgemental about others not living up to our standards.
The bolded part says you were indeed saying this. Otherwise you wouldn't have said Western nations, you would have just said everyone is appalling(which makes no sense at all, you need a point of comparison for appalling to have any meaning)
Besides, western nations have changed immensely over the past hundred years. They're not the same as they were 100 years ago. Unlike the middle east which has socially remained the same for thousands.
The bolded part says you were indeed saying this. Otherwise you wouldn't have said Western nations, you would have just said everyone is appalling(which makes no sense at all, you need a point of comparison for appalling to have any meaning)
I really don't. If I'm appalled by something, then it's appalling.
Besides, western nations have changed immensely over the past hundred years. They're not the same as they were 100 years ago. Unlike the middle east which has socially remained the same for thousands.
And that was exactly my point. People are judging the middle east because we changed, and they haven't changed as much.
And that's shaky ground. If my neighbour beats his wife twice a week, am I really in a position to judge him for his behaviour if I only beat mine on sunday afternoons?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that the middle east shouldn't do something about their issues with human rights. Just that we should be careful not to wallow in our own feelings of superiority when we still have so far to go on this ourselves.
I just don't think you can say something is appalling when its the best that currently exists. Appalling would be an adjective I'd use to describe whichever is the worst, never the best option. It gives a false impression.
Grey Templar wrote: I just don't think you can say something is appalling when its the best that currently exists.
Of course you can, if it's appalling.
Appalling would be an adjective I'd use to describe whichever is the worst, never the best option. It gives a false impression.
So the problem then is just that you have misunderstood what the word means.
'Appalling' means that something is horrifying or shocking, not that it is the worst.
1 in 5 women being a victim of domestic violence is horrifying. It's may not be the worst rate of domestic violence in the world (it's not). It may even be the best (it's not)... but that doesn't make it any less appalling a statistic.
Thats not the only definition or way to interpret it. When you use it as a relative adjective the way you did it is misleading. But I'll just chalk it up to us being from different parts of the world and having regional idiosyncrasies.
Ouze wrote: I dunno, I'm from the US and 20% sounds pretty appalling to me.
And I agree, but I also don't think conflating 40% and 20% does anyone any favors, unless 'whataboutism' is all there really is. The problems of each is different and require different approaches, and trying to say we can't approach one because of the other is spurious.
Grey Templar wrote: How can the best treatment of women ever in history be classified as "appalling"? .
Because it is?
Better than it it used to be, is not synonymous with good.
How is it appalling?
Because statistically, between my wife, my mom, my daughter, my mother-in-law and my sister in law, one of them will be the victim of violence.
But I don't even have to wait, because the victim was both my mother and also my wife when she was a child.
Thats why Texas is more civilized. Women have the "he needed killin, you honor" defense. Once invoked, no further inquiry. If performed with a vehicle it is important to follow all traffic laws. Thats why mom ran Dad over with a golf cart. Twice.
Who are we comparing the word "appalling" to? Western Countries? ME Countries? SE Asia Countries? Latin America? In regards to abuse of females. We talking physical abuse? Verbal abuse? Sexual Abuse? Disfigurement? All the above?
BIg soccer game cancelled in Hannover, Germany (Germany vs. Netherlands) because of an info on a possible bombing attempt by a foreign security agency. Officials not giving any detailed info. No actual bomb found yet.
Sigvatr wrote: BIg soccer game cancelled in Hannover, Germany (Germany vs. Netherlands) because of a bomb threat by a foreign security agency. Officials not giving any detailed info. No actual bomb found yet.
Yep, I heard about it one minute ago. Hope it was a false alert.
Our police forces are still searching for the two remaining terrorists, the one who rented the cars and the driver of said cars.
No probs, no bomb found. French intelligence informed the DE government but it (luckily) turned out to be okay.
In general, a military intervention against the IS gets closer. France called it an act of war and thus triggered EU contracts asking other countries to join their military offensive. Glad to hear that our most worthy and loyal allies, the UK and US are fully behind them, offering support.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Shootings between police and terrorists, possibly the last fleeing terrorist hiding. First unconfirmed news say that the scum maybe killed one police officer.
Two suspects are dead in Saint Denis, one was shot by a sniper and the second one blew herself up. Three others were arrested and a last one is barricaded in an apartment.
Three trucks full of soldiers are there.
(And they seem... Unwilling to take prisoners. Run you fethers, France isn't joking anymore)
LethalShade wrote: Two suspects are dead in Saint Denis, one was shot by a sniper and the second one blew herself up. Three others were arrested and a last one is barricaded in an apartment.
Three trucks full of soldiers are there.
(And they seem... Unwilling to take prisoners. Run you fethers, France isn't joking anymore)
Explosions and heavy gunfire were heard in Paris as armed police searching for suspects from Friday's attacks raided a flat in the suburb of Saint Denis.
Two people were killed in the raid, including a female suspect blew herself up with a suicide belt. Seven people have been arrested, police say.
A government spokesman has confirmed the operation has ended.
The focus of the raid is said to be the alleged mastermind of Friday's attacks that killed 129 people.
Abdelhamid Abaaoud, a 27-year-old Belgian of Moroccan origin, was originally suspected of organising Friday's attacks from Syria.
But this has not been confirmed.
Roads were blocked off around Rue de la Republique in Saint Denis, in the same district as the Stade de France where suicide attackers detonated bombs on Friday.
Truckloads of soldiers joined armed police at the scene as the operation got under way at 04:20 local time (03.20 GMT).
"I've been hearing gunshots continuously, like fireworks... There have been some breaks but... to me it sounds like continuous gunshots," one resident, Benson Hoi, told the BBC earlier.
Another witness, Amine Guizani, told the Associated Press he heard the sounds of grenades and automatic gunfire.
"They were shooting for an hour, non-stop. There were grenades. It was going, stopping, Kalashnikovs, Starting again," he said.
At least five people were believed to have been in the targeted third floor flat, French media report.
A woman inside the apartment set off an explosives vest at the beginning of the raid and died, the Paris prosecutor's office said.
The prosecutor said that, among the arrests, three men were detained in the apartment and a man and woman were stopped nearby.
Police said a second suspect was killed. France's BFMTV said he had been shot by sniper fire.
Five police officers were injured and a police dog was killed after entering the flat, police said.
There were unconfirmed reports that at least one suspect was still being sought - either holed up in the flat or on the run.
Earlier, Deputy Mayor Stephane Peu urged local residents to stay indoors, saying "it is not a new attack but a police intervention".
Security sources said on Tuesday that surveillance video showed a possible ninth assailant during Friday's attacks.
The video reportedly shows a third figure in the car carrying the group which attacked several bars and restaurants.
It is not clear if this ninth attacker is one of two suspected accomplices detained in Belgium or is someone still on the run.
The near simultaneous attacks on bars and restaurants, a concert hall and the Stade du France left more than 400 people wounded, with 221 still in hospital, 57 of them in intensive care.
European countries are on high alert. On Tuesday evening, a football friendly between Germany and the Netherlands was cancelled shortly before kick-off and the stadium in Hannover evacuated after "concrete" information about a bomb threat, according to the city's police chief.
Part of Hanover railway station was also closed while a suspicious object was investigated.
Meanwhile, two Air France planes heading to Paris from the US were diverted because of security threats. One was sent to Halifax in Canada, the other flew to Salt Lake City in the US state of Utah. Both planes landed safely and the passengers were unharmed.
What is Islamic State?
IS is a notoriously violent Islamist group which controls large parts of Syria and Iraq. It has declared its territory a caliphate - a state governed in accordance with Islamic law - under its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
What does it want?
IS demands allegiance from all Muslims, rejects national borders and seeks to expand its territory. It follows its own extreme version of Sunni Islam and regards non-believers as deserving of death.
How strong is IS?
IS projects a powerful image, partly through propaganda and sheer brutality, and is the world's richest insurgent group. It has about 30,000 fighters but is facing daily bombing by a US-led multi-national coalition, which has vowed to destroy it.
French Police GOING IN DRY ON THESE FOOLS. Woke up to a bunch of News reports.
Female suicide bombers are now entering the play:
Forensic experts were examining the apartment after a female suspect killed herself by detonating a vest rigged with explosives at the start of the operation in Saint-Denis early Wednesday, Paris prosecutor Francois Molins said.
BrotherGecko wrote: I can't help but wonder what would happen if the US did a similar crack down and what they would find.
Still, France you keep doing you right now.
Honestly ? Probably not as many wannabe terrorists. Not Islamic ones.
You do not seem to have a lot of alienated Muslim youths.
It seems like your president is doing the opposite of what a lot of our politicians are doing: still welcoming refugees and realizing that they are not the problem here.
Ian Sturrock wrote: Look at that shield. We might finally see the end of those racist jokes about the French being cowards.
*shrugs*
These jokes are kinda funny imo. Doubt these attacks will stop them.
I dunno. If the French start kicking serious ass then I expect most of the joking will stop and you'll see a newfound respect.
Hope so. Heard that some Americans already like us. Some.
It's interesting to see the change from 15 years ago when many of the same politicians were hating on France and stating that maybe they should be the next 9/11 style target to see what it feels like.
situation altogether
