Terror Attack in Paris. update page 23

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

Even Saudi Arabia who funds Jihadi groups?

**Orlanth**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

That was sectarianism for you.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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**

That Saudi myth gets debunked on a pretty regular basis, and then just gets repeated next week again.

**whembly**

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.

**Grey Templar**

whembly wrote:
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.

**Iron_Captain**

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)

I think this is a good article on it:
http://theconversation.com/whats-behind-saudi-arabias-connection-to-islamic-state-44552

**Strombones**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
That Saudi myth gets debunked on a pretty regular basis, and then just gets repeated next week again.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia

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.

**Breotan**

The reason we're so chummy with the Saudi government is because we oppose Iran and they control the world oil market.

**d-usa**

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?

**DutchWinsAll**

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.

**insaniak**

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...

**Ahtman**

insaniak wrote:
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.

**insaniak**

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.

**d-usa**

"Their teamreatment of women is horrible" does sound better than "they treat their women even worse than us!"

**Grey Templar**

insaniak wrote:
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.

**insaniak**

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.

Your definition of 'appalling' might be different to mine. For me, 1 in 5 women being a victim of domestic abuse sure as hell fits the bill.

**whembly**

insaniak wrote:
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?

**d-usa**

Obama is a pretty good President by that measure.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
insaniak wrote:
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.

**Grey Templar**

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.

**d-usa**

That might be the dumbest thing you have said since I joined...

**Grey Templar**

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.

**d-usa**

Edit: it's not my story to tell no matter how angry I get at dismissive posts about the treatment of women...

**insaniak**

whembly wrote:

How is it appalling?

How is it not?

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.

**Grey Templar**

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.

**insaniak**

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
. Insaniak was saying relative to other countries ....

No, he wasn't.

**Relapse**

I am a father to three daughters. You can believe I worry about how statistically they could be attacked.

**Grey Templar**

insaniak wrote:
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.

**insaniak**

Grey Templar wrote:

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.

**Grey Templar**

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.