View Full Version : Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris
a completely inoffensive name
11-18-2015, 05:36
More gunfire in the St Denis section of Paris as police track down suspects.
a completely inoffensive name
11-18-2015, 19:03
:inquisitive:
Well, it will be obvious who did it - the same operators as usual, no? The value isn't really in "trimming the hedges", but in comforting the electorates and in martial posturing between world powers. Better than throwing around nukes, I suppose, but still pretty wasteful.
This is what I am talking about Monty. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/obama-drone-war-isis-recruitment-tool-air-force-whistleblowers
When you send special forces in the middle of the night, people in the neighborhood will get woken up. When you drop a bomb from a drone, the entire city hears it. Minimize the exposure, change our tactics because our current strategy simply plays into the Islamist propaganda machine. This is what I am talking about when I say that the US simply does propaganda in the middle east wrong. No message you send out will resonate when they hear American bombs going off every day.
As it comes to "my fantasy", I maintain that encouragement from the West will not have much impact on Islamism either way; it must deflate itself through fraternal bloodshed.
What I am saying is that we can have an impact on Islamism by moving towards energy self-reliance, which will weaken the Arab governments in the region. We know that elements of the House of Saud are funding ISIS, but that is not the reason that ISIS chooses to avoid war with Saudi Arabia. ISIS is currently focused on the two destabilized areas of Syria and Iraq which are weak in comparison to their neighbors. Once the West (and China) remove their dependence on Middle East oil, Saudi Arabia and other oil exporting states become vulnerable. The goal of ISIS is to create a single Islamic Caliphate (if we take them at their word), and thus eventually they will try to control the cities that are most valuable to the Islamic faith. When ISIS takes the step to challenge the Arab governments, you will get your Islamist showdown.
Kagemusha
11-18-2015, 19:36
My prediction is that inside couple months we are going to see mainly European and Russian land troops at Syria. France is lobbying around Europe in order to free some of its land components from Africa additional to forces being deployed from France. Russian Duma has today approved the use of land forces at Syria. As act of solidarity i think other EU nations are going to either send smaller detachments to Syria or replace French troops at their current deployments. Hopefully some Arab countries like Jordan will join the forces. Im not sure what US is going to do, but i think we will know rather soon when next week Hollande will visit Washington. It seems behind the curtains US and Russia are working hard in order to get an cease fire at Syria between rebels and Assad.
I dont think this land operation will be very large scale as Isis has less then 50k fighters. Basically we need enough boots on the ground to draw Isis out to fight by attacking their area directly and then they can be destroyed from the air. Thats the easy part. What comes after that is a complete mystery.
When you send special forces in the middle of the night, people in the neighborhood will get woken up. When you drop a bomb from a drone, the entire city hears it.
When you lase someone from space in the middle of the night, only his wife smells it. When you poison someone's water or deliver a pill into his mouth via micro-drone, no one will know anything. Where are the movie/game assassins when you need them? Why not send ninjas? They won't even wake up the neighborhood. Why not exchange his Quran with one that looks the same but has only peaceful messages?
a completely inoffensive name
11-18-2015, 19:42
Mock it if you want. When you and Kage get your boots on the ground and it doesn't do jack shit against the bigger threat, there will be threads on who mismanaged the troops and which country is to blame and Islamic extremists will only have more converts.
But you are right, when we all hold hands and get ISIS to "draw out to fight", we will turn the tide of this war.
What comes after that is a complete mystery.
How well thought out!
Kagemusha
11-18-2015, 19:47
Mock it if you want. When you and Kage get your boots on the ground and it doesn't do jack shit against the bigger threat, there will be threads on who mismanaged the troops and which country is to blame and Islamic extremists will only have more converts.
But you are right, when we all hold hands and get ISIS to "draw out to fight", we will turn the tide of this war.
How well thought out![/COLOR]
Im not mocking you,nor commenting your post in any way. im just predicting what is going to happen and i liked Hus posts because thought of sending ninjas is rather funny. Whats up with you Yanks as of late?
Rhyfelwyr
11-18-2015, 19:48
What I am saying is that we can have an impact on Islamism by moving towards energy self-reliance, which will weaken the Arab governments in the region. We know that elements of the House of Saud are funding ISIS, but that is not the reason that ISIS chooses to avoid war with Saudi Arabia. ISIS is currently focused on the two destabilized areas of Syria and Iraq which are weak in comparison to their neighbors. Once the West (and China) remove their dependence on Middle East oil, Saudi Arabia and other oil exporting states become vulnerable. The goal of ISIS is to create a single Islamic Caliphate (if we take them at their word), and thus eventually they will try to control the cities that are most valuable to the Islamic faith. When ISIS takes the step to challenge the Arab governments, you will get your Islamist showdown.
Will ISIS ever be that strong? The impression I got is that they are starting to be forced back a bit now, for all their pretensions of being a state they're still a pretty lightly-armed army in the tens of thousands. Could they really fight a conventional war against a rival state?
a completely inoffensive name
11-18-2015, 19:51
Im not mocking you,nor commenting your post in any way. im just predicting what is going to happen and i liked Hus posts because though of sending ninjas is rather funny. Whats up with you Yanks as of late?
My apologies then to both you and Husar. I think it's a bit touchy because us Yanks have been through a gamut of policies aimed at preventing Islamic terrorism both domestic and abroad and we are all frustrated because nothing we have done seems to work. None of us wants France and the EU to fall into the same trap the US did after 9/11. Just remember that Iraq was no better in 2012 than in 2006, the surge did not work, the TSA does not work, Afghanistan the country might as well be a collection of cities surrounded by Taliban controlled countryside.
a completely inoffensive name
11-18-2015, 19:58
Will ISIS ever be that strong? The impression I got is that they are starting to be forced back a bit now, for all their pretensions of being a state they're still a pretty lightly-armed army in the tens of thousands. Could they really fight a conventional war against a rival state?
Well, IF their propaganda takes hold in these rival states, and IF they have consolidated their holds in Iraq and Syria, and IF they continue to have money coming in from black market oil sales as well as donors from high officials in these rival states, I think there is a case to be made that ISIS has a chance of being a very annoying pest to kill if they choose to be one.
Didn't matter how many troops the US sent into Iraq, 2007-2008 there must have been 150,000. We could have sent 500,000 and it wouldn't have made a difference in the end. They hide, we anger the population and when weakness appears the Islamists return with more recruits.
AE Bravo
11-18-2015, 20:08
Get Saudi Arabia to stop importing IS militants to Yemen. AQ and IS is quickly gaining a front in Yemen and there's really no need for them considering the coalition forces have already paid Senegal, Eritrea, and Sudan to fight the north. Those Colombian mercenaries are fighting side by side with IS too. There is a tactical alliance with IS and coalition forces, as long as that's not broken IS is not going anywhere soon. Their presence is stamped in the region. They're awarded some form of legitimacy every day.
Kagemusha
11-18-2015, 20:16
My apologies then to both you and Husar. I think it's a bit touchy because us Yanks have been through a gamut of policies aimed at preventing Islamic terrorism both domestic and abroad and we are all frustrated because nothing we have done seems to work. None of us wants France and the EU to fall into the same trap the US did after 9/11. Just remember that Iraq was no better in 2012 than in 2006, the surge did not work, the TSA does not work, Afghanistan the country might as well be a collection of cities surrounded by Taliban controlled countryside.
I think you are right that there is no magic solution to this can of worms. The thing is that ISIS just needs their teeth kicked in, because they want to kill us that bad. It is inevitable or soon all the cool kids in Europe think that joining them is the best deal ever.
What can be done afterwards is that the Kurds should get their state in order to balance the North Iraq and Syria somewhat.
Iraq may have to be split into several states. The Southern Shia and central Sunni will just not fit into one country.
If we can get free elections at Syria after defeating ISIS maybe Baath will actually win. Maybe Sunni parts of Iraq could be actually merged into Syria, or a new country be created.
None of that might not happen. Some might or all might, but it could still all go down the toilet. But what is certain is that ISIS cant be allowed to continue running around in their pseudo state.
Montmorency
11-18-2015, 21:12
Interestingly, Hollande's reactions may all be part of a confrontation between Merkel (i.e. Germany) in her insistence on a narrowly-utilitarian domestic and foreign policy for Europe - and more generally over France's role in the leadership of Europe.
It is true that Obama has basically ruled out participation in a ground coalition, and that both France and the US are still eager to sell weapons to the Saudis without criticism, so the one real political goal at stake here may well be a reassertion of France's leading role in the politics of Europe, uncharacteristically-muted as it has been over the past generations. After all, if Germany has managed to push through past all the many grumblings on its periphery, then France has to present an alternative in the one place where Germany refuses to: the military. Thus, Hollande proclaims that he will fund military ventures against ISIS (and beyond) regardless of violations of Euro-zone fiscal and monetary rules, and urges as many other European countries to join him in doing so. Reaching out to the US and Russia simultaneously is an indicator of how serious he is.
I wonder, then, if Obama is taking a Merkelian stance by refusing to join in, keeping faith in Germany to hold Europe together, holding out on disrupting relations with Saudi Arabia (even though he has clearly wanted to make a partnership with Iran)...
Regardless, Hollande is forcing many countries, including those more powerful than his own, to make some hard choices.
#JeSuisChien, the latest sign racist westerners care more about dead dogs than dead humans (http://www.salon.com/2015/11/18/jesuischien_the_latest_sign_racist_westerners_care_more_about_dead_dogs_than_dead_humans/)
:laugh4:
The Onion should hire this guy. Salon delivers again.
Now excuse me while I go and write an angry article about all the people who died of gangrene this week, and whose stories didn't make it to international media.
Montmorency
11-18-2015, 22:39
#JeSuisChien, the latest sign racist westerners care more about dead dogs than dead humans (http://www.salon.com/2015/11/18/jesuischien_the_latest_sign_racist_westerners_care_more_about_dead_dogs_than_dead_humans/)
:laugh4:
The Onion should hire this guy. Salon delivers again.
Now excuse me while I go and write an angry article about all the people who died of gangrene this week, and whose stories didn't make it to international media.
Even so, the incidental point of the article still stands: there is a funny disproportion in how popular sentiment manifests vis-a-vis humans coming to harm and other mammals (especially cat-dogs) coming to harm.
AE Bravo
11-18-2015, 22:44
I dunno. Maybe animals dying is more saddening at this point.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-19-2015, 00:22
I would say it has to do with the perception that animals are innocent and helpless - like children.
Papewaio
11-19-2015, 00:23
I'm I do find it interesting that France is calling this an act of war and there first response was to bomb ISIS.
Something they have been doing since September.
At what point do us Western nations expected that bombing opponents was risk free?
Yes we prioritize military targets and have a euphemism for civilians that get in the way of collateral damage.
Yes the terrorists attack soft targets first which in general are the same civilians who are big as collateral damage.
But that is what guerrilla warfare is. And it is not such a big leap to understand that the move from countryside to urban conflict is because that is where the populations have moved. As of this century we now live in a world where over half of the population is urban based.
So asymmetric warfare is going to follow the population, it is going to go for the easiest most high publicity events. Olympic Games has been done, more sports events to follow.
HopAlongBunny
11-19-2015, 01:04
Military solutions appear to be no win.
USA or allies do drone strikes=> ISIS: "See? We told you THEY are out to kill US"
USA or allies occupy ISIS territories=> "THEY have occupied our lands, we shall never be free unless we kill them all!"
Every military action results in grist for the propaganda mill.
If the impetus for the removal of ISIS does not come from within the area, I think it is ultimately doomed to fail.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-19-2015, 05:25
Mass graves of older Yazidi women: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/12000148/Islamic-State-sex-slaves-Sinjar-mass-graves-show-what-were-fighting.html
According to IS the Yazadi are devil worshippers (they aren't, they're a minor monotheistic group who worship what is theoretically the same God as the Jews, Christians and Muslims).
Anyway, IS has been using the younger women as sex slaves - which is both horrible and a sign of their disjointed thinking, giving their fighters these "non human" devil worshippers seems decidedly dangerous from here.
Lest we forget, for all that IS are happy to attack fellow Muslims the real horrors are reserved for the minority faiths who have lived mostly unmolested for centuries.
Yazidis's beliefs have also plenty of Zoroastrian elements, a religion which was not recognized as acceptable by the pro-Roman Mohammad.
On your second point, according to the slogans of moderate and not so moderate rebels alike, Christians should get exiled from Syria and Iraq, while the Shias should be massacred indiscriminately.
I find that Jesuischien kinda hilarious really, I apreciate the irony
Military solutions appear to be no win.
USA or allies do drone strikes=> ISIS: "See? We told you THEY are out to kill US"
USA or allies occupy ISIS territories=> "THEY have occupied our lands, we shall never be free unless we kill them all!"
Every military action results in grist for the propaganda mill.
If the impetus for the removal of ISIS does not come from within the area, I think it is ultimately doomed to fail.
Depends on how hard you go in I think. But the state itself isn't a threat, but IS traveling to Europe is, nobody knows who's who
Rhyfelwyr
11-19-2015, 12:28
This surprised me a bit, Boko Haram were responsible for more deaths last year than ISIS:
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/boko-haram-ranked-ahead-of-isis-for-deadliest-terror-group/ar-BBnbjBW?li=AAaeUIW&ocid=mailsignout
Greyblades
11-19-2015, 12:45
It makes sense. The nations Boko Haram attack have less anti terrorism capabilities than the ones Daesh operates in, so it's obvious they would have more success.
Montmorency
11-19-2015, 13:00
No, that's not the case at all. The difference is simply that in population size.
Greyblades
11-19-2015, 13:24
Monty, west Africa doesn't have more people in it than Europe and the Middle East combined.
It's more likely their body count is due to the lack of anti terror capability countries like Nigeria and Cameroon have compared to nations like France Germany and even Syria.
A lack that is not helped by politicians embezzling massive amounts of the Nigeria's national defense budget. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34855695)
Montmorency
11-19-2015, 13:27
Greyblades, you seem extremely confused as to what Al-Shabaab is and where it operates, let alone what security resources the countries it afflicts possess.
Greyblades
11-19-2015, 13:34
...dude, I'm confused? We're talking about Boko Haram not Al-Shabaab.
Boko haram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram)
Strength: 7,000-10,000
Area of operations: Northeast Nigeria, Northern Cameroon, Niger, Chad
Even then the nations that Al-Shabaab attack arent that great themselves, nor are they all that numerous.
Al-Shabaab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shabaab_(militant_group))
Strength: 7,000-9,000
Area of operations: Southern Somalia,
Yemen
Montmorency
11-19-2015, 13:46
I replied just before you edited your post. :shrug:
But you still haven't understood the difference between what has been going on in Africa, and what has been going on in Syria and Iraq.
This surprised me a bit, Boko Haram were responsible for more deaths last year than ISIS:
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/boko-haram-ranked-ahead-of-isis-for-deadliest-terror-group/ar-BBnbjBW?li=AAaeUIW&ocid=mailsignout
Drugged up psychopaths. IS spares most civilians, Boko Haram just kills everybody
Greyblades
11-19-2015, 13:55
I replied just before you edited your post.
But you still haven't understood the difference between what has been going on in Africa, and what has been going on in Syria and Iraq.
For a moment I was confused and thought north Africa counted as everything north of the Congo. I refreshed myself on primary school geography and corrected my misconception.
Either way, unless you're arguing that a smaller population is contributing to their body count (I don't know how that would work.) population size is not a contributor as you claimed.
Care to explain yourself for once?
It is, Boko Haram attacks small villages, not entire towns like IS does. They can cause a lot more trouble with much fewer man. Army can never be on time to save a village.
Montmorency
11-19-2015, 14:10
ISIS is a quasi-state. Boko Haram is a guerrilla army.
ISIS kills primarily combatants, on the front lines. Boko Haram kills primarily civilians in bombings and shootings, escaping before they can be targeted by security forces.
Kagemusha
11-19-2015, 14:43
Both are scum of the earth. Apparently the planner of Paris attacks was among the dead of yesterdays police raid at St. Dennis. Good riddance.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34867615
Both are scum of the earth. Apparently the planner of Paris attacks was among the dead of yesterdays police raid at St. Dennis. Good riddance.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34867615
I came to ask a question of the multi-culti crowd here. The only politically correct way to report this news is that he was a Belgian citizen, right? So basically, the attacks in Paris were organized by a Belgian.
Both are scum of the earth. Apparently the planner of Paris attacks was among the dead of yesterdays police raid at St. Dennis. Good riddance.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34867615
amen to that I hope it hurted.
pictures of the victims are soon comming up, going to be hard to watch them but I'm going to anyway
Gilrandir
11-19-2015, 14:50
When I told this Chinese girl that Germans deem Chinese goods to be of inferior quality, she seemed offended.
As for what I mean, I'm not sure, maybe I just like anecdotal evidence or exploding accumulators...
A couple of years ago I talked to a guy who repairs electronics. He said that the quality of the details of Chinese make he buys depends on the markings: if it carries "made in China" on it, it is likely to be crap, but if it has "made in PRC" written on it, its quality is much better. Don't know if it applies to other things produced there.
Why not exchange his Quran with one that looks the same but has only peaceful messages?
Make sure it is not Mein Kampf by accident, though.
At least looks like multiple attacks were planned al over Europe, hardly surprising of course after the current influx of course. Nothing have been comfirmed mind you, but it looks like a bigger plan. In any case it's what I have been expecting (and warned against if you don't mind) for years.
Strike For The South
11-19-2015, 15:48
Screaming "help me" right before she detonates.
That is some cold blooded shit.
Pannonian
11-19-2015, 16:04
Both are scum of the earth. Apparently the planner of Paris attacks was among the dead of yesterdays police raid at St. Dennis. Good riddance.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34867615
From the report I saw, all the Paris attackers had been to Syria, except for one who grew up in a notorious ghetto in Belgium. We should bar the return of anyone who's been to the radicalisation hotbeds. If it includes barring genuine refugees, too bad.
Greyblades
11-19-2015, 16:07
Meet the woman in the American flag hijab (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-34852817)
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/121AB/production/_86755147_foxcommentarytweet.jpg
"The message we were trying to portray was that we are Americans, we are Muslims, we are Republicans. We need to be accommodated and accepted," says Ahmed.
Methinks muslims would get less grief if more acted like this woman.
ISIS is a quasi-state. Boko Haram is a guerrilla army.
ISIS kills primarily combatants, on the front lines. Boko Haram kills primarily civilians in bombings and shootings, escaping before they can be targeted by security forces.
Well why didn't you say that in the first place?
Greyblades
11-19-2015, 16:11
From the report I saw, all the Paris attackers had been to Syria, except for one who grew up in a notorious ghetto in Belgium. We should bar the return of anyone who's been to the radicalisation hotbeds. If it includes barring genuine refugees, too bad.
Actually I think we should make an exception for those who deserted from Daesh and are trying to get back home. It would be very valuable to have some Muslims with first hand experience of the horrors of the Islamic State telling those who are thinking of leaving for Syria how bad it really is.
Screaming "help me" right before she detonates.
That is some cold blooded shit.
Could be that she really needed help, these devices often come with something you must squeeze, if you don't squeeze they go of. I wonder if she had a stabbing wound because it's a rather useless place to detonate it yourself
Strike For The South
11-19-2015, 16:17
Donald Trump can't shut down the mosques.
I have no problem with her wearing what she wants. Plenty of people would probably spit on her and try to stone her though. Like a large portion of the people she's trying to defend. American Muslims are a very small, highly educated, highly monied minority. They are not their counterparts in Europe.
Could be that she really needed help, these devices often come with something you must squeeze, if you don't squeeze they go of. I wonder if she had a stabbing wound because it's a rather useless place to detonate it yourself
I have a bridge to sell you mijn liefde
It's possible, these guys are ruthless. She had a fetish for cowboy-hats by the way, just saying.
It's what I would have done if I were terrorist, stab her in her lower back, you live long enough to get out and faint BOOM
Greyblades
11-19-2015, 16:25
It's also possible her cousin or his associates strapped the bomb to her ala hurt locker, we wont know either way.
Kagemusha
11-19-2015, 16:28
Donald Trump can't shut down the mosques.
I have no problem with her wearing what she wants. Plenty of people would probably spit on her and try to stone her though. Like a large portion of the people she's trying to defend. American Muslims are a very small, highly educated, highly monied minority. They are not their counterparts in Europe.
16979
Well there is UK from Europe in top ten.
Strike For The South
11-19-2015, 16:31
claim
[kleym]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/source-synonyms)
Examples (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/source-example-sentences)
Word Origin (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/source-word-origin)
verb (used with object)1.to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due:to claim an estate by inheritance.
2.to assert and demand the recognition of (a right, title, possession,etc.); assert one's right to:to claim payment for services.
3.to assert or maintain as a fact:She claimed that he was telling the truth.
4.to require as due or fitting:to claim respect.
verb (used without object)5.to make or file a claim:to claim for additional compensation.
noun6.a demand for something as due; an assertion of a right or an allegedright:He made unreasonable claims on the doctor's time.
7.an assertion of something as a fact:He made no claims to originality.
8.a right to claim or demand; a just title to something:His claim to the heavyweight title is disputed.
9.something that is claimed, especially a piece of public land for whichformal request is made for mining or other purposes.
10.a request or demand for payment in accordance with an insurancepolicy, a workers' compensation law, etc.:We filed a claim for compensation from the company.
Idioms11.lay claim to, to declare oneself entitled to:I have never laid claim to being an expert in tax laws.
Strike For The South
11-19-2015, 16:34
I can buy 10,000 twitter followers who will post from any location I want in about an hour.
Social media is disinformation.
It's possible, these guys are ruthless. She had a fetish for cowboy-hats by the way, just saying.
It's what I would have done if I were terrorist, stab her in her lower back, you live long enough to get out and faint BOOM
She was also a notorious boozer, apparently. It's weird how the one thing that sticks is "kill the unbelievers" I suppose it's what you hammer home the most.
Pannonian
11-19-2015, 16:34
Actually I think we should make an exception for those who deserted from Daesh and are trying to get back home. It would be very valuable to have some Muslims with first hand experience of the horrors of the Islamic State telling those who are thinking of leaving for Syria how bad it really is.
We'd be better off if those who are thinking of going went and never came back.
It's also possible her cousin or his associates strapped the bomb to her ala hurt locker, we wont know either way.
No we won't, but she wasn't really the type to do this. She was an outgoing girl, loved wine, weared sexy clothes. Wouldn't she have tried to get any closer to the police, I think she was probably wounded
Rhyfelwyr
11-19-2015, 16:52
She was also a notorious boozer, apparently. It's weird how the one thing that sticks is "kill the unbelievers" I suppose it's what you hammer home the most.
That's not unusual, I guess it's that strange mix of radical Islam and underclass culture. One of our most public Islamists loved to drink, smoke pot, party etc, a lot of low-level crime links in the family as well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161909/Swilling-beer-smoking-dope-leering-porn-hate-preacher-Andy-Choudary.html
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-19-2015, 17:08
It's the same phenomenon as Born-Again Christians.
Person becomes disenchanted with materialistic society > searches for meaning > was raised by near-atheists so has no context for intellectualised, mainstream, religion > joins fundamentalist cult with bizarre and nonsensical theology.
The reason, I suspect, that this is less common in the US is that they already have mass religion and as much as many American preachers are morons or money grubbing shills the sheer number of them makes them more moderate than the relatively small number of radical preachers, of all faiths, in Europe.
Mock it if you want. When you and Kage get your boots on the ground and it doesn't do jack shit against the bigger threat, there will be threads on who mismanaged the troops and which country is to blame and Islamic extremists will only have more converts.
But you are right, when we all hold hands and get ISIS to "draw out to fight", we will turn the tide of this war.
How well thought out![/COLOR]
Where did I mention "my" boots on the ground? I'd be the first to run away...
My apologies then to both you and Husar. I think it's a bit touchy because us Yanks have been through a gamut of policies aimed at preventing Islamic terrorism both domestic and abroad and we are all frustrated because nothing we have done seems to work. None of us wants France and the EU to fall into the same trap the US did after 9/11. Just remember that Iraq was no better in 2012 than in 2006, the surge did not work, the TSA does not work, Afghanistan the country might as well be a collection of cities surrounded by Taliban controlled countryside.
I talked to someone who said it is a full success because the US (and ultimately the NWO, who control the US) want to destabilize the EU with all the refugees in order to prevent it from rivalling the US. That's also why they ordered Merkel to let them all in. To have ISIS as a convenient scapegoat is part of the plan of course. I'm sure you agree because I also heard (from the same person) people from the US are even more critical of their government than Europeans.
Montmorency
11-19-2015, 18:11
I talked to someone who said it is a full success because the US (and ultimately the NWO, who control the US) want to destabilize the EU with all the refugees in order to prevent it from rivalling the US. That's also why they ordered Merkel to let them all in. To have ISIS as a convenient scapegoat is part of the plan of course. I'm sure you agree because I also heard (from the same person) people from the US are even more critical of their government than Europeans.
You heard it from me, personally.
Just doing my bit to divide and conquer. :cool2:
Strike For The South
11-19-2015, 19:13
It makes sense. The nations Boko Haram attack have less anti terrorism capabilities than the ones Daesh operates in, so it's obvious they would have more success.
I just noticed this. Point of fact, the psychopathic rapist-killers don't care what you call them. Liberal clap trap, no doubt thought up by someone who has "the pen is mightier than the sword" embroidered on *his/her/their/its* free trade duvet.
I talked to someone who said it is a full success because the US (and ultimately the NWO, who control the US) want to destabilize the EU with all the refugees in order to prevent it from rivalling the US. That's also why they ordered Merkel to let them all in. To have ISIS as a convenient scapegoat is part of the plan of course. I'm sure you agree because I also heard (from the same person) people from the US are even more critical of their government than Europeans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXVE01oOTAM
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-19-2015, 19:43
I just noticed this. Point of fact, the psychopathic rapist-killers don't care what you call them. Liberal clap trap, no doubt thought up by someone who has "the pen is mightier than the sword" embroidered on *his/her/their/its* free trade duvet.
Pretty sure it's intended to show you're down with the Muslim Plebs.
Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite.
It's cheap propaganda that's actually mildly offensive.
AE Bravo
11-19-2015, 22:11
Unfortunately I’ve seen so far that there’s some truth to the claims that many Muslims sympathize or are indifferent towards the attacks, even though one of the victims was a Moroccan Muslim.
Granted most of the people I heard saying this come from the only two Wahhabi countries in the world. Also terrifying that they didn't give a flying fuck that one of the victims was a Muslim, as long as in the grand scheme of things they "showed our strength."
I guess some people really need to have sex. Or have a drink at least. I'm convinced now that strict Sharia states produce mentally ill people.
Greyblades
11-19-2015, 22:18
I just noticed this. Point of fact, the psychopathic rapist-killers don't care what you call them. Liberal clap trap, no doubt thought up by someone who has "the pen is mightier than the sword" embroidered on *his/her/their/its* free trade duvet.
Dont care if they dont care so long as it pisses someone off.
It's cheap propaganda that's actually mildly offensive
It worked!
AE Bravo
11-20-2015, 00:33
I just noticed this. Point of fact, the psychopathic rapist-killers don't care what you call them. Liberal clap trap, no doubt thought up by someone who has "the pen is mightier than the sword" embroidered on *his/her/their/its* free trade duvet.
As apologist as they sound they're not lying. Daesh "Islam vs the world" narrative is pretty popular, and that sort of thing reinforces that story. It gives a sense of empowerment for the oppressed.
Daesh was initially a reactionary movement to 1 up the Shia militias in Iraq burning down Sunni towns. Their brutality was a statement that you as a Sunni can be protected and respond in kind to the Shia. It's them against the world, unlike the Shia's "Iran and us" against the world.
They care more than any other Jihadi group cares.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-20-2015, 01:06
Unfortunately I’ve seen so far that there’s some truth to the claims that many Muslims sympathize or are indifferent towards the attacks, even though one of the victims was a Moroccan Muslim.
Granted most of the people I heard saying this come from the only two Wahhabi countries in the world. Also terrifying that they didn't give a flying fuck that one of the victims was a Muslim, as long as in the grand scheme of things they "showed our strength."
I guess some people really need to have sex. Or have a drink at least. I'm convinced now that strict Sharia states produce mentally ill people.
The only surprising thing about this is that you are surprised - this is all common knowledge.
Now, I don't know about alcohol but the average IS fighter can get himself a sex slave for about a packet of cigarettes. If he beats her enough and she doesn't die he might be able to force her to convert and then he can marry her.
As apologist as they sound they're not lying. Daesh "Islam vs the world" narrative is pretty popular, and that sort of thing reinforces that story. It gives a sense of empowerment for the oppressed.
Daesh was initially a reactionary movement to 1 up the Shia militias in Iraq burning down Sunni towns. Their brutality was a statement that you as a Sunni can be protected and respond in kind to the Shia. It's them against the world, unlike the Shia's "Iran and us" against the world.
They care more than any other Jihadi group cares.
IS/Daesh/Satan's Own don't "care" at all - you might be able to use that argument with Hamas and Hezbollah because they set up hospitals and don't just shoot anyone who looks at them funny.
The depredations of the Shia militias in Iraq are well known but that is a result of Saddam's marginalisation of the Shia creating resentment that has boiled over after his death and defeat - and the successive failed Iraqi governments. If IS are "one upping" the Shia then they are, per definition, worse and they are perpetuating the cycle of religious violence.
In any case, IS will attack anyone who isn't their brand of Sunni - Shia hardly get the brunt of it, that falls on the Druze, the Zorastrians, the Jews, the Christians, the Yazadi.
You seem immune to their plight but you're shocked Muslims would support the attacks just becasue of one Morrocan Muslim? Why should that even matter? they killed plenty of Christians in those attacks - are they not "People of the Book"?
AE Bravo
11-20-2015, 10:05
Not sure what you’re on about. I’m just pointing out why they care what people say about them. It’s how they started, I meant being more brutal than the others. They exploited the plight of Sunnis in Iraq. Daesh hates nothing more than Shia, that's common knowledge.
I guess some people really need to have sex. Or have a drink at least. I'm convinced now that strict Sharia states produce mentally ill people.
It's not like some of the most violent people(s) in world history were known for debaucherous lifestyles, or anything. Violence might just be another form of sensual pleasure (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2648522/).
Looks like I was right about the woman who blew {herself?} up. Looks like she was a victim with strapped up explosives. I'll spare you the video but she's obviously terrified
Yazidis's beliefs have also plenty of Zoroastrian elements, a religion which was not recognized as acceptable by the pro-Roman Mohammad.
Ironic as Zoroastrianism was the origin of the Abrahamic religions.
InsaneApache
11-20-2015, 11:59
I've been struggling to articulate my feelings about this without going over old ground. However this sums it up for me.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eP_9kMmOO0
Brillo sticks it to the bad guys!
On a lighter note, this from the comments.
He forgot Eric Cantona :laugh4:
Shaka_Khan
11-20-2015, 12:13
http://news.yahoo.com/gunmen-attack-luxury-hotel-mali-capital-hostages-084238110.html
Gunmen attack luxury hotel in Mali capital, 170 taken hostage
By Tiemoko Diallo
BAMAKO (Reuters) - Islamist gunmen stormed a luxury hotel packed with foreigners in Mali's capital Bamako on Friday, taking 170 hostages in a former French colony that has been battling rebels allied to al Qaeda for several years.
A senior security source said some of the hostages had been freed after being made to recite verses from the Koran. The French newspaper Le Monde quoted the Malian security ministry as saying at least three hostages had been killed.
The raid on the Radisson Blu hotel, which lies just west of the city center near government ministries and diplomatic offices in the former French colony, comes a week after Islamic State militants killed 129 people in Paris.
The identity of the Bamako gunmen, or the group to which they belong, is not known.
Northern Mali was occupied by Islamist fighters, some with links to al Qaeda, for most of 2012. They were driven out by a French-led military operation, but sporadic violence has continued in Mali's central belt on the southern reaches of the Sahara, and in Bamako.....
Doesn't look so bad at the moment there, not many casualties so far. Greater concerns: drinking water. I am going to drink bottled water for a while untill everything is properly secured.
Looks like I was right about the woman who blew {herself?} up. Looks like she was a victim with strapped up explosives. I'll spare you the video but she's obviously terrified
"Ait Bboulahcen detonates a suicide belt as she pretends to give herself up, screaming 'Help me, help me!' at police. In doing so, she becomes Europe's first woman suicide bomber. Her head and spine were found in the street after being blasted through a window."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3326120/Final-moments-Europe-s-female-suicide-bomber-revealed.html
"Ait Bboulahcen detonates a suicide belt as she pretends to give herself up, screaming 'Help me, help me!' at police. In doing so, she becomes Europe's first woman suicide bomber. Her head and spine were found in the street after being blasted through a window."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3326120/Final-moments-Europe-s-female-suicide-bomber-revealed.html
I know, the video isn't very pleasant to watch so I'm not going to post it. What got me sceptical is that she was obviously really scared. The police asked where her friend was, and she replied 'he is not my friend'. I would at least consider that she might have been an innocent victiim, and that her name should be cleared should it be that way. I of course possibly can't know it, it's nothing but a bit of a hunch I have, I am also naturally guilty of having a soft spot for women so feel free to redicule me for considering that she might have been completily innocent
Strike For The South
11-20-2015, 15:00
Untrained people usually panic in stressful situations.
Strike For The South
11-20-2015, 15:15
I've been struggling to articulate my feelings about this without going over old ground. However this sums it up for me.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eP_9kMmOO0
Videos like this are awful and the mindset they breed are part of the problem. The people who commit these atrocities do not care about French culture nor do they think it's the way of the future. I can't for the life of me figure out who those videos are for? Is this supposed to make me take heart at because France has given so much to the world? I know that, it's one of the reasons I am so upset.
Untrained people usually panic in stressful situations.
This is Europe ffs we are used to atrocities. I saw a video of a plane flying over NY, people were actually running towards the most dangerous spot they could be. Bombing warnings are very normal in big Europian citiies, can count five on my personal list from Londen and Paris, nobody panics we are used to that it sometimes happens. As for this, I don't think she's guilty but I could be wrong, but I am usually right
Strike For The South
11-20-2015, 15:27
This is Europe ffs we are used to atrocities. I saw a video of a plane flying over NY, people were actually running towards the most dangerous spot they could be. Bombing warnings are very normal in big Europian citiies, can count five on my personal list from Londen and Paris, nobody panics we are used to that it sometimes happens. As for this, I don't think she's guilty but I could be wrong, but I am usually right
I fail to see what that has to do with her being unstained? Or are you talking about the video? In any event, No one in the west is "used to" atrocities. There are bomb warnings constantly here too, it doesn't make anyone hard.
I fail to see what that has to do with her being unstained? Or are you talking about the video? In any event, No one in the west is "used to" atrocities. There are bomb warnings constantly here too, it doesn't make anyone hard.
live in it
Not that it counts for anything, I may be an idiot but I can recognise what I see. Times are changing mia muca, and you live in it
chinese proverb: may you live in interesting times
Montmorency
11-20-2015, 16:04
Chinese proverb: Tofu is better than centralized socialist economy
Chinese proverb: Tofu is better than centralized socialist economy
Coincidentally, that's my favourite Einstein quote.
Videos like this are awful and the mindset they breed are part of the problem. The people who commit these atrocities do not care about French culture nor do they think it's the way of the future. I can't for the life of me figure out who those videos are for? Is this supposed to make me take heart at because France has given so much to the world? I know that, it's one of the reasons I am so upset.
Maybe he is just venting and I for one also agree with him.
As for the woman being innocent or not, her neighbors described her as a very nice and kind person. You may say that's how they described every school shooter as well, but I'm not sure if school shooters and islamists can be compared like that. So Fragony may have a point, but I guess the experts will have to find out. If she was not a suicide bomber then I guess someone else must have had the trigger, if not then she probably blew herself up and cried to attract the policemen to take them with her...
As much as I also have a soft spot for women, I do not believe them to be incapable of doing such things.
Montmorency
11-20-2015, 17:25
On the other hand, if there was a live agent (someone as of yet unknown to security or intelligence forces) waiting to trigger the explosion, then why get the fall gal into a situation in which police evacuate an area and approach her with extreme caution? Why not just move her into some crowded place and take another 10 or 20 civilians out. It would definitely exacerbate tensions coming so soon after the main attack.
As for the possibility that she was set up with time-locked or preprogrammed explosives long before time, well, I'm pretty sure only European terrorists or corporate megalomaniacs go for that sort of thing.
As much as I also have a soft spot for women, I do not believe them to be incapable of doing such things.
I am just starting to realise what kind of seriously radical people I am surrounding myself with here - thinking the unthinkable.
Gilrandir
11-20-2015, 17:34
As much as I also have a soft spot for women, I do not believe them to be incapable of doing such things.
Ironically, women like that spot as hard as possible.
On the other hand, if there was a live agent (someone as of yet unknown to security or intelligence forces) waiting to trigger the explosion, then why get the fall gal into a situation in which police evacuate an area and approach her with extreme caution? Why not just move her into some crowded place and take another 10 or 20 civilians out. It would definitely exacerbate tensions coming so soon after the main attack.
As for the possibility that she was set up with time-locked or preprogrammed explosives long before time, well, I'm pretty sure only European terrorists or corporate megalomaniacs go for that sort of thing.
I assume the surprise, but I was more thinking of the other terrorist guy who died rather than some secret mastermind. The explosion may have blown the trigger out of the window or so. Seems more likely that she triggered it herself though, no argument from me.
I am just starting to realise what kind of seriously radical people I am surrounding myself with here - thinking the unthinkable.
The radicals are everywhere, even talking about other radicals. I suggest you migrate to the US, that country is boringly average.
Also: https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/12227743_1136088566403090_3682838297484226890_n.png?oh=cc6b55d64e6980cb9778fa6ee785dfdf&oe=56B61712&__gda__=1454242090_b16eeff2251c6d32cbfc930c5bc78829
HopAlongBunny
11-20-2015, 18:41
It's the Popes fault.
http://wonkette.com/596232/pope-francis-declares-war-on-christmas
"Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite." I am now fully confident in your sources of knowledge and powers of analyse. For more insight, can you give the names of this elite?:book2:
Montmorency
11-20-2015, 23:37
"Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite." I am now fully confident in your sources of knowledge and powers of analyse. For more insight, can you give the names of this elite?:book2:
Isn't it a bit premature to be asking for a prosopography?
Papewaio
11-20-2015, 23:46
"Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite." I am now fully confident in your sources of knowledge and powers of analyse. For more insight, can you give the names of this elite?:book2:
I think the correct quote was "Remember - France was run over by a non-aristocratic elite rugby team 62-13"
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-20-2015, 23:48
"Remember - France is run by an aristocratic elite." I am now fully confident in your sources of knowledge and powers of analyse. For more insight, can you give the names of this elite?:book2:
A rather surprising number of French Presidents and other senior politicians are members of either the class of landed gentry or the lower aristocracy. Mostly recently Sarkozy, though in his case the aristocrats were Hungarians. Even in the case of Hollande, though hardly nobles or gentry his parents were wealthy and he has a privileged background.
I'll grant you these are not the sons of Kings, even their illegitimate ones, but they're not bastards born out of wedlock of the sons of school teachers, or members of an ethnic minority subject to prejudicial linguistic legislation either.
So, when I said "aristocratic elite" I did not mean they were all blue blooded, perhaps "intellectual and social elite" would have been more apt.
Pannonian
11-21-2015, 00:01
A rather surprising number of French Presidents and other senior politicians are members of either the class of landed gentry or the lower aristocracy. Mostly recently Sarkozy, though in his case the aristocrats were Hungarians. Even in the case of Hollande, though hardly nobles or gentry his parents were wealthy and he has a privileged background.
I'll grant you these are not the sons of Kings, even their illegitimate ones, but they're not bastards born out of wedlock of the sons of school teachers, or members of an ethnic minority subject to prejudicial linguistic legislation either.
So, when I said "aristocratic elite" I did not mean they were all blue blooded, perhaps "intellectual and social elite" would have been more apt.
Isn't that the case for most countries though? Among the post-war UK PMs, I can only think of Major who wasn't from the traditional academic (and thus social, cf. Cameron) powerhouses.
Kagemusha
11-21-2015, 03:14
live in it
Not that it counts for anything, I may be an idiot but I can recognise what I see. Times are changing mia muca, and you live in it
chinese proverb: may you live in interesting times
I wouldnt trade 20 Stfts from single frags.Frags is a real man with his flaws, while strike is just a coward with his issues.When did you exactly got under bomb threat Strike?
AE Bravo
11-21-2015, 04:08
Not calling anyone a coward as I don't know anyone here but Frag is definitely a gentleman. I actually feel for his "Islamophobia," unlike others...
From my recollection, we armed Syrian rebels to undermine Assad, and Iran has been doing the same to us in Yemen. Also, the Syrian civil war was in large part driven by climate change causing a devastating drought from 2006 to 2009. You can't say that Assad screwed everything up by itself.
Yes but Assad has been receiving aid from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, I doubt the aid the rebels receive from the US has been enough to prevent Assad from ending the war.
Climate change may have been a factor but the brutality and corruption of the Syrian government shouldn't be discounted either. And if Assad hadn't chosen to try quelling the uprising by shooting unarmed protesters the civil war might never have happened.
Will ISIS ever be that strong? The impression I got is that they are starting to be forced back a bit now, for all their pretensions of being a state they're still a pretty lightly-armed army in the tens of thousands. Could they really fight a conventional war against a rival state?
Recently they've lost Shingal in Iraq, and al-Hasakah and al-Hawl in Syria. I think they've lost their momentum and are now on the defensive, their last major gain that I remember/heard about was Palmyra which was clear back in May. I've heard that most of the tanks and heavy weaponry they captured from the Iraqi Army have already been destroyed and I don't think they could ever take on the likes of Turkey or Iran.
I just noticed this. Point of fact, the psychopathic rapist-killers don't care what you call them. Liberal clap trap, no doubt thought up by someone who has "the pen is mightier than the sword" embroidered on *his/her/their/its* free trade duvet.
Some people have been calling them Daesh already for a while now, it's the transliteration of their Arabic acronym.
I wouldnt trade 20 Stfts from single frags.Frags is a real man with his flaws, while strike is just a coward with his issues.When did you exactly got under bomb threat Strike?
Thanks but Strike really doesn't deserves to be called a coward. I am not a real man I am a total softy
a completely inoffensive name
11-21-2015, 09:33
Yes but Assad has been receiving aid from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, I doubt the aid the rebels receive from the US has been enough to prevent Assad from ending the war.
Climate change may have been a factor but the brutality and corruption of the Syrian government shouldn't be discounted either. And if Assad hadn't chosen to try quelling the uprising by shooting unarmed protesters the civil war might never have happened.
Recently they've lost Shingal in Iraq, and al-Hasakah and al-Hawl in Syria. I think they've lost their momentum and are now on the defensive, their last major gain that I remember/heard about was Palmyra which was clear back in May. I've heard that most of the tanks and heavy weaponry they captured from the Iraqi Army have already been destroyed and I don't think they could ever take on the likes of Turkey or Iran.
This is as close to "mission accomplished" since PVC [sorry, I keep forgetting your new name]. Look, if you want to reclaim the vast majority of ISIS territory, you will need a large force. The West cannot do it because it simply fuels more ISIS fighters and disorder. To be frank, even after Paris, the US does not have the will to tackle Iraq again for a long time. Russia and Iran cannot do it because the West wouldn't accept such a presence in the region. The only solution to ISIS that is permanent is for the Arab countries to get their hands dirty. And they won't.
I have not read any convincing argument in this thread that gives a long term solution for deescalating and deradicalizing the region. Hence why the person that makes the most sense is Monty and his assertion that the only way it will get better is for the area to turn into even more of a bloodbath.
Rhyfelwyr
11-21-2015, 11:53
This is as close to "mission accomplished" since PVC [sorry, I keep forgetting your new name]. Look, if you want to reclaim the vast majority of ISIS territory, you will need a large force. The West cannot do it because it simply fuels more ISIS fighters and disorder. To be frank, even after Paris, the US does not have the will to tackle Iraq again for a long time. Russia and Iran cannot do it because the West wouldn't accept such a presence in the region. The only solution to ISIS that is permanent is for the Arab countries to get their hands dirty. And they won't.
I have not read any convincing argument in this thread that gives a long term solution for deescalating and deradicalizing the region. Hence why the person that makes the most sense is Monty and his assertion that the only way it will get better is for the area to turn into even more of a bloodbath.
I'm coming round to a boots on the ground solution. In Iraq, Western forces always had the toughest time in the big cities like Baghdad and Basra, neither of which are controlled by IS. Raqqa and Mosul are the only big urban areas they control (afaik) and would be much more manageable. Only about 20% of Iraq's population is Sunni and corresponds largely with the IS-controlled areas, and I remember reading there's about 8-10 million people in the IS across Iraq and Syria, compared to about 40m in Iraq or 18m in Syria.
Also, the Western public had no appetite for taking down Saddam, but that appetite is there for taking down IS. Plus even the Sunnis are less happy with IS than they were with Saddam.
I'm coming round to a boots on the ground solution. In Iraq, Western forces always had the toughest time in the big cities like Baghdad and Basra, neither of which are controlled by IS. Raqqa and Mosul are the only big urban areas they control (afaik) and would be much more manageable. Only about 20% of Iraq's population is Sunni and corresponds largely with the IS-controlled areas, and I remember reading there's about 8-10 million people in the IS across Iraq and Syria, compared to about 40m in Iraq or 18m in Syria.
Also, the Western public had no appetite for taking down Saddam, but that appetite is there for taking down IS. Plus even the Sunnis are less happy with IS than they were with Saddam.
Well, they also control Ramadi and Falloujah. Also, I disagree with Basra and Baghdad being the most difficult to control Iraqi cities. Basra is clearly located in a Shia majority region and the only opposition were Shia partisans, like the Sadr Army.
Baghdad was the site of really lethal attacks, but it was mostly bombing against the Shias.
On the Contrary, Ramadi, the capital of Anbar is full of sunni extremists, while the US army paid a really big price to manage to control Falloujah, which was the first to be captured by ISIL.
From a friend in Facebook:
In case you don't know what's happening in the middle east. ��
President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)
So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).
Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.
Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).
So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm, might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!!
So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!!
Welcome to (Middle East) politics!
What he forgot to mention was that the NWO (good) has planned all of this.
Oh, yeah, he did forget a lot of things, i.e. Saudis (good) having links with IS (bad) bombing Yemen insurgents (bad) allied with Iran (new good). Turkey (good) sells oil from IS (bad) to Europe (good) and US (good) market.
France (good) is now going to Russia (bad becoming good) to put boots on the grounds (if not yet done) and French (good) fleet is now co-operating with Russian (bad becoming good). This of course cannot be achieved with Assad (lesser bad becoming relatively good) agreement...
Hezbollah (the one that blew-up Marines and French Paratroopers and executed hostages in Lebanon) is becoming good, following Iran. Well, history is marching...
a completely inoffensive name
11-21-2015, 19:43
Also, the Western public had no appetite for taking down Saddam,
That's absolutely false, 100%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq
That's absolutely false, 100%.
Even I thought at the time that taking out Saddam was not a bad idea.
Of course I also wasn't as old and wise yet as I am now. ~;)
Rhyfelwyr
11-22-2015, 00:31
That's absolutely false, 100%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq
Fair enough, I guess I was just thinking of the protests over here.
Papewaio
11-22-2015, 00:48
Of course I also wasn't as old and wise yet as I am now. ~;)
You are lucky I just got older.
Might become a busy day if anominous's is right
Just for caution http://www.ibtimes.com/anonymous-says-isis-plans-attacks-against-paris-world-sunday-2194926
"You are talking about single cases of high born men reaching high rank in the military":laugh4: I missed this one during my week of the org. The General Dumas was slave, as he was the child of a slave and the father being the owner of his mother. When the father having no son with the regular wife, he decided to take his son out of slavery (there were soooo nice this slavers, weren't they!)... High born indeed...
Kinda funny, the alledged brain of the attacks was apparently a frequent guest at gay-bars. Could be nonsense of course.
Even I thought at the time that taking out Saddam was not a bad idea.
Of course I also wasn't as old and wise yet as I am now. ~;)
A bit of sarcasm mixed with reality... I echo this.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-24-2015, 11:25
Turkey Shoots down Russian plane: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34907983
Possibly with F-16's.
Turkey Shoots down Russian plane: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34907983
Possibly with F-16's.
And probably not in Turkish airspace, bit of a problem then if so
edit, comfirmed that two Turkish F16 shot it down, and that they knew it was a Russian plane. Oh my. Russian pilot is ok by the way before you ask.
extra edit, one pilot certainly isn't ok
Steven Pinker's opinion on how attacks like this one fit with the supposed general decline in violence:
Certain categories of violence could continue to see statistical declines, Pinker said, including homicide, domestic violence, and rape. But others, notably the use of “cheap, low-depth, high-publicity violence such as terrorism and rampage shootings,” may hold to current levels far into the future.
Reflecting on overall historical trends, Pinker said, “Violence reduction might be like other types of technological progress — that is, not linear and not exorable, but highly likely over the long run.”
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/11/more-peace-in-our-time-yes-actually/
Shaka_Khan
12-03-2015, 06:32
Something happened in California. The motive isn't determined yet. Whatever the motive is, it's terrorism for sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXVDqmCEdX0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUbz0w02EQI
Not much is known yet but it certainly looks like it. This is something we will just have go get used to, especially in Europe but also in the USA
Not much is known yet but it certainly looks like it. This is something we will just have go get used to, especially in Europe but also in the USA
I predict that it could count for as much as 0.2%% of the traffic deaths each year.
I predict that it could count for as much as 0.2%% of the traffic deaths each year.
Sure, but it does have a greater impact, there is a difference, an accident is just that, but this is senseless murder. Not implying anything yet but you probably know what I expect it to be. For now only RIP victims and condolences to their family and friends.
Edit, more is known by now, it was indeed a radicalised muslim, one at least. Know what you welcome I'd say, not just for us but also for your Turkish baker.
Salience is everything for humans. If we are bombarded with alarming stories about terrorism, we think it's more important.
Is this terrorism? Yeah of course it is. Just like the hundreds of other US mass murders are. But these are brown mass murderers with muslim names. They are, in media terms, different and more scary.
Personally, if I was American, I would be no more afraid of brown terrorist mass murderers, than the usual sort. In the end they are the same.
Salience is everything for humans. If we are bombarded with alarming stories about terrorism, we think it's more important.
Is this terrorism? Yeah of course it is. Just like the hundreds of other US mass murders are. But these are brown mass murderers with muslim names. They are, in media terms, different and more scary.
Personally, if I was American, I would be no more afraid of brown terrorist mass murderers, than the usual sort. In the end they are the same.
I don't understand the need to relativate an obvious kick in the nuts. How many do you need before you understand that someone is kicking you in the nuts. Radical islam is just a threat, and more attacks like in Paris (and possibly this one) are just going to happen, especially after that eastblock-workhorse Merkel with her messias-complex welcomed them to travel along
Papewaio
12-03-2015, 11:06
Salience is everything for humans. If we are bombarded with alarming stories about terrorism, we think it's more important.
Is this terrorism? Yeah of course it is. Just like the hundreds of other US mass murders are. But these are brown mass murderers with muslim names. They are, in media terms, different and more scary.
Personally, if I was American, I would be no more afraid of brown terrorist mass murderers, than the usual sort. In the end they are the same.
Funny that's how I see conventional vs atomic weapons. You are dead either way.
I don't understand the need to relativate an obvious kick in the nuts. How many do you need before you understand that someone is kicking you in the nuts. Radical islam is just a threat, and more attacks like in Paris (and possibly this one) are just going to happen, especially after that eastblock-workhorse Merkel with her messias-complex welcomed them to travel along
Ok - I'll run with that analogy.
So it's like this:
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch - OMG! End of the world! Bomb everything! Catastrophe!
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
You are only singling out one particular kick in the nuts because it's high on the news agenda, and because it segways neatly into your pre-existing discourse.
Ok - I'll run with that analogy.
So it's like this:
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch - OMG! End of the world! Bomb everything! Catastrophe!
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
You are only singling out one particular kick in the nuts because it's high on the news agenda, and because it segways neatly into your pre-existing discourse.
What makes you think I want to bomb everything, I just want a problem to be acknowledged. Better than relativating everything no
I want it to be acknowledged too. People believe crazy crap all the time. The attackers, however, when their lives are examined, are rarely what you would term "devout". In fact the best description is usually "disaffected".
Indeed I bet the actual ISIS soldiers probably talk a lot of religious sounding talk, but in reality are the same raping, intoxicated, mixed up bunch who are the usual people who find comradeship and purpose in a war.
I want it to be acknowledged too. People believe crazy crap all the time. The attackers, however, when their lives are examined, are rarely what you would term "devout". In fact the best description is usually "disaffected".
Indeed I bet the actual ISIS soldiers probably talk a lot of religious sounding talk, but in reality are the same raping, intoxicated, mixed up bunch who are the usual people who find comradeship and purpose in a war.
Perhaps 'determinent'? If you let go the idea that islam is a religion of peace it all makes sense.
Perhaps 'determinent'? If you let go the idea that islam is a religion of peace it all makes sense.
I don't really think of islam at all in my thinking. You are determined to find that it's all about islam. That's your hobby horse. So are you saying if they all converted to Christianity or Hinduism, the problem would go away?
It's nonsense. Let's look at it empirically. If islam causes people to be violent and warring, and the absence of islam removes this and makes people more peaceful - we would expect countries with large islamic populations to be violent and warring. We would also expect the biggest and most violent wars of the last 100 years to be amongst islamic nations.
Something happened in California. The motive isn't determined yet. Whatever the motive is, it's terrorism for sure.
Was there any point during the creation of your post at which you thought about the actual information contained in your videos or did you just want to waste my time? ~;)
Not much is known yet but it certainly looks like it. This is something we will just have go get used to, especially in Europe but also in the USA
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-51938
Montmorency
12-03-2015, 20:33
While Islamic violence is indeed a subset of violence, it would be strange to suggest that any other subset of violence should have its individual characteristics and contributing factors ignored because 'violence is violence, and one sort is not of more concern than another'. What I am getting at is that when studying a subset of violence, you need both the broad and common analysis as well as the deep and comparative analysis.
Otherwise, you simply get the inverted image of the "War on Drugs".
Pannonian
12-03-2015, 21:30
While Islamic violence is indeed a subset of violence, it would be strange to suggest that any other subset of violence should have its individual characteristics and contributing factors ignored because 'violence is violence, and one sort is not of more concern than another'. What I am getting at is that when studying a subset of violence, you need both the broad and common analysis as well as the deep and comparative analysis.
Otherwise, you simply get the inverted image of the "War on Drugs".
In this case, it's yet another instance of someone going abroad to one of the radicalisation hotspots, and returning to wreak havok in their host country having been converted to violence. The US are free to draw their own conclusions. But I wish Europe, or at the very least UK, should bar anyone who goes to these areas from returning. If they want to be devout and radical, let them live in devout and radical countries. I prefer the UK and Europe to remain largely secular.
I don't really think of islam at all in my thinking. You are determined to find that it's all about islam. That's your hobby horse. So are you saying if they all converted to Christianity or Hinduism, the problem would go away?
It's nonsense. Let's look at it empirically. If islam causes people to be violent and warring, and the absence of islam removes this and makes people more peaceful - we would expect countries with large islamic populations to be violent and warring. We would also expect the biggest and most violent wars of the last 100 years to be amongst islamic nations.
I siimply don'f know the nuances, all I got is what other people say
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-03-2015, 23:15
I don't really think of islam at all in my thinking. You are determined to find that it's all about islam. That's your hobby horse. So are you saying if they all converted to Christianity or Hinduism, the problem would go away?
It's nonsense. Let's look at it empirically. If islam causes people to be violent and warring, and the absence of islam removes this and makes people more peaceful - we would expect countries with large islamic populations to be violent and warring. We would also expect the biggest and most violent wars of the last 100 years to be amongst islamic nations.
If we look at empirically we would note that, currently, Islamic terrorists are unique in a number of ways:
they usually plan to die in their attacks.
They tend to attack soft civilian targets with no military or strategic value.
They are constantly planning attacks on the US and Europe whether or not we are actively fighting their particular organisation or not.
Attacks aim not only to cause terror, but also maximise casualties.
The closest I can come to this sort of MO would be Communists during the last century, but even then the Isalmic terrorists are not the same.
Remember, from the point of view of Westerners this all started with 9/11, an unprovoked attack which led to a punitive war, which led to another war which lead to more terrorists attacks, breakdown in Iraq, then we had the Arab Spring which we failed to support (and initially tried to stop) and now we have IS.
Islamism has been bubbly in the background though, trying to kill us and establish a new Caliphate, all this time.
So you should think about Islam.
Pannonian
12-03-2015, 23:29
If we look at empirically we would note that, currently, Islamic terrorists are unique in a number of ways:
they usually plan to die in their attacks.
They tend to attack soft civilian targets with no military or strategic value.
They are constantly planning attacks on the US and Europe whether or not we are actively fighting their particular organisation or not.
Attacks aim not only to cause terror, but also maximise casualties.
The closest I can come to this sort of MO would be Communists during the last century, but even then the Isalmic terrorists are not the same.
Remember, from the point of view of Westerners this all started with 9/11, an unprovoked attack which led to a punitive war, which led to another war which lead to more terrorists attacks, breakdown in Iraq, then we had the Arab Spring which we failed to support (and initially tried to stop) and now we have IS.
Islamism has been bubbly in the background though, trying to kill us and establish a new Caliphate, all this time.
So you should think about Islam.
They have absolutely no intention of engaging politically with us. The hyperbole has been used in the past to say that Communists and other westernised oppositional organisations want to destroy us, but they always had a political organisation that maintained a voice in the (sort of) mainstream. Not so Islamism, for whom our very being is anathema to them. And while I count myself as a liberal where such norms are reciprocated, I see no point in tolerating people who game the system to destroy our liberal democracy.
Montmorency
12-03-2015, 23:48
A comparison to Communists would be sort of like if, instead of taking both violent and non-violent action to foment and enable the revolution of the proletariat state-by-state and across the world, Communist terrorists were looking to cause destruction such that enemy states would collapse with maximum internal damage, with the Select moving in through the rubble under the leadership of Zombie Lenin to absorb fragmented communities and enforce proper Communist rule over humanity.
Another way to put it is that Islamism is the opposite of Communism in terms of parochiality. Islamism is only "international" in the most technical sense of our terminology.
Pannonian
12-04-2015, 00:09
A comparison to Communists would be sort of like if, instead of taking both violent and non-violent action to foment and enable the revolution of the proletariat state-by-state and across the world, Communist terrorists were looking to cause destruction such that enemy states would collapse with maximum internal damage, with the Select moving in through the rubble under the leadership of Zombie Lenin to absorb fragmented communities and enforce proper Communist rule over humanity.
Another way to put it is that Islamism is the opposite of Communism in terms of parochiality. Islamism is only "international" in the most technical sense of our terminology.
Communists sought the destruction of the state though, not random individuals who have nothing to do with the institutionalised state. The only way that ordinary individuals would be affected was if the opposing blocs flared into formal war. Other than that, the Communist states kept to themselves, and the capitalist states kept to themselves. Unlike Islamists, who view western civilisation as something against their creed, who hold westernised individuals as representative of the state that they live in, and who randomly but actively target individuals and try to maximise civilian damage.
I'll ask this question: how do we keep from being targets of Islamist militants? If we don't have an answer, and we don't know how to get a definitive answer, that is indicative of the difference between Communism and Islamism.
Montmorency
12-04-2015, 00:29
Communists sought the destruction of the state though, not random individuals who have nothing to do with the institutionalised state.
When I was referring to destruction of states, I said "collapse with maximum internal damage", which is to say that the states would be destroyed in order to precipitate a collapse of the society, with concomitant human catastrophe.
So it's basically just what you said. Communists sought to transition - forcibly or not - capitalist societies to (Communist-run) socialist societies. Meanwhile, Islamists at the extreme perceive that they already have their society and the existence of other societies is both an active and passive threat; moreover, there is some motivation to simply accumulate as much territory and as many subjects as possible for the glory (more-or-less).
Pannonian
12-04-2015, 00:38
When I was referring to destruction of states, I said "collapse with maximum internal damage", which is to say that the states would be destroyed in order to precipitate a collapse of the society, with concomitant human catastrophe.
So it's basically just what you said. Communists sought to transition - forcibly or not - capitalist societies to (Communist-run) socialist societies. Meanwhile, Islamists at the extreme perceive that they already have their society and the existence of other societies is both an active and passive threat; moreover, there is some motivation to simply accumulate as much territory and as many subjects as possible for the glory (more-or-less).
With the Communist MO, while the capitalist state was still in being (and we now know there wasn't ever any danger of them collapsing), individuals in capitalist states were not individually in danger, other than maybe the odd terrorist attack independent of the Communist institutions (who had open channels with us throughout). Contrast with the Islamist MO, which is to cause as much damage to the softest targets possible. There are some Communist ideals and achievements that I will readily laud, space exploration not least among them (and many other scientific fields). Islamism has contributed nothing to the good of humanity, nor will it ever do. It is entirely destructive in ethos.
Montmorency
12-04-2015, 00:51
The nice thing about the Communist frontrunners - USSR and PRC - is that they developed around very anxious and unstable societies, which meant that for most of their history (though of course the PRC isn't likely changing fundamentally anytime soon) their governments were very inwardly focused on managing their internal affairs. Major expansionist periods, such as Stalin's occupation of Eastern Europe and China's reaching out toward Central Asia and the Indian peninsula and supporting the North Korean regime was a dual matter of maintaining buffer zones and economic clients for security and a callback to the maximum extents of the historical Russian and Chinese empires. When they reached out far abroad, it was usually to secure resources for themselves or to balance Western attention away from the core territories - and that's just basic politics since ancient times, really.
Pannonian
12-04-2015, 01:22
The nice thing about the Communist frontrunners - USSR and PRC - is that they developed around very anxious and unstable societies, which meant that for most of their history (though of course the PRC isn't likely changing fundamentally anytime soon) their governments were very inwardly focused on managing their internal affairs. Major expansionist periods, such as Stalin's occupation of Eastern Europe and China's reaching out toward Central Asia and the Indian peninsula and supporting the North Korean regime was a dual matter of maintaining buffer zones and economic clients for security and a callback to the maximum extents of the historical Russian and Chinese empires. When they reached out far abroad, it was usually to secure resources for themselves or to balance Western attention away from the core territories - and that's just basic politics since ancient times, really.
These nationalist interests weren't alien to us since, as you said, they've been basic politics since ancient times. Everyone does it, and everyone knows the rules of the game. We know what the boundaries are, which no side will step over, since all sides are orthodox states. Islamism is jihad transplanted into modern society, themselves abiding by rules which we've left behind centuries ago, yet who game our modern society to allow them to inflict maximum damage in areas which we consider off limits by the rules recognised by orthodox states. That's why I despise them, and almost as much, the bleeding heart liberals who genuinely believe that liberal rights apply to these Islamists. No they don't. Rights come with responsibilities. Islamists deny all their responsibilities as a matter of principle, and hold those that value them as their enemy.
If we look at empirically we would note that, currently, Islamic terrorists are unique in a number of ways:
1) they usually plan to die in their attacks.
2) They tend to attack soft civilian targets with no military or strategic value.
3) They are constantly planning attacks on the US and Europe whether or not we are actively fighting their particular organisation or not.
4) Attacks aim not only to cause terror, but also maximise casualties.
The closest I can come to this sort of MO would be Communists during the last century, but even then the Isalmic terrorists are not the same.
Remember, from the point of view of Westerners this all started with 9/11, an unprovoked attack which led to a punitive war, which led to another war which lead to more terrorists attacks, breakdown in Iraq, then we had the Arab Spring which we failed to support (and initially tried to stop) and now we have IS.
Islamism has been bubbly in the background though, trying to kill us and establish a new Caliphate, all this time.
So you should think about Islam.
Eh, let me enumerate your points to give a better structured answer:
1) That is correct and more or less directly owed to the religious teachings they believe in
2) Isn't that one of the hallmarks of terrorism in general? If a group used to try and kill as many soviet or other enemy soldiers we used to call them resistance fighters and if they killed our soldiers they were partisans or subversive elements or whatever but not exactly terrorists. Nowadays the word is thrown around all the time just like Hitler's name.
Besides, the neo nazis who murdered a lot of immigrants in Germany also chose soft targets. The guy who shot up the planned parenthood complex last Friday also chose soft targets, as did other people who had political goals but chose to attack soft targets. I don't see how that is unique.
3) And so do a lot of other people, how is that unique? Besides, they also plan plenty of attacks in other countries in case that distinction was part of your argument.
4) That seems like an artificial point because there is no real distinction in the case of terrorists. The number of victims is more or less proportional to the terror caused and therefore to the achievement of the goal. School schooters nd many other murderers have the same goal. In fact your point applies far more to serial killers who try to kill as many people as possible without getting attention.
Apart from the fact they want to die and go to heaven because of their religion, I do not really see the huge difference.
Paul also wrote plenty of times that he can't wait for the lord to take him to heaven. Not that he was a terrorist, but the wish to go to heaven isn't even unique, only the way to get there seems relatively unique to Islam, but they have to have something special or they'd just be ecumenic, no?
As for communist terrorists, how about Stalin and his secret police? Didn't they kill thousands/millions of people to scare the others into submission?
Phil and Frag both think that it's all about the Muslims. Is this a perspective they have come to from a sober assessment of the situation? No, I don't believe so. I think their perceptions have been selectively taken to slot in with their own preexisting mental narratives. Phil with his Christianity-in-a-country-gone-secular. And Frag with his overrun-by-darkies fear.
Communists sought the destruction of the state though, not random individuals who have nothing to do with the institutionalised state. The only way that ordinary individuals would be affected was if the opposing blocs flared into formal war. Other than that, the Communist states kept to themselves, and the capitalist states kept to themselves. Unlike Islamists, who view western civilisation as something against their creed, who hold westernised individuals as representative of the state that they live in, and who randomly but actively target individuals and try to maximise civilian damage.
I'll ask this question: how do we keep from being targets of Islamist militants? If we don't have an answer, and we don't know how to get a definitive answer, that is indicative of the difference between Communism and Islamism.
I don't tnink there is an answer, they are already here and we must find out who is who. Best we can do right now. We should reconsider border policies we have been warned for this for decades, but all they got was ridicule and insinuations.
Fisherking
12-04-2015, 13:38
Idaho, I don’t know if you have tried an objective view of the situation. You seem to think it is a matter of religiosity or racism. The biggest factor is one you don’t seem to have examined.
Here is the rub. Islam and western ideals of liberty are incompatible. All religions have some elements that could be called repressive, to one extent or another but there are grounds for accommodation and a sprit of live and let live, except with Islam. None of the others have as a tenant of their faith that all others must be converted, subjugated, or slain. Others have proven a willingness to live under a secular rule. The other religions do not call for forced conversion.
Many Muslims have also submitted themselves to live in secular countries but in doing so they violate the rules of their faith. The world view of the faith is that the world is divided into two. The lands of the faith and the lands of war.
Our ethics forbid us from assaults on the beliefs of others, while the faith of Islam demands it.
How are we logically to treat this threat to our values? Do we submit to eventual theocracy or do we resist?
Gilrandir
12-04-2015, 15:25
Paul also wrote plenty of times that he can't wait for the lord to take him to heaven.
How disillusioned he must feel now.
[MENTION=3769]
Our ethics forbid us from assaults on the beliefs of others, while the faith of Islam demands it.
How are we logically to treat this threat to our values?
Our MODERN ethics is what you say it is. But the initial attempts to interpret the Holy Texts literally resulted in numerous similar assaults from Christians. Since then Christian ethics has evolved through a series of changes to reach the current liberal stage. Evidently, Muslim world has been reluctant to such sweeping changes which eventually amount to divorcing people from reading too much into religious texts and distancing religious practices from real life. So the ultimate goal of those who wish to change the current lay of things should be secularizing Muslim countries as much as possible.
Fisherking
12-04-2015, 15:51
Our MODERN ethics is what you say it is. But the initial attempts to interpret the Holy Texts literally resulted in numerous similar assaults from Christians. Since then Christian ethics has evolved through a series of changes to reach the current liberal stage. Evidently, Muslim world has been reluctant to such sweeping changes which eventually amount to divorcing people from reading too much into religious texts and distancing religious practices from real life. So the ultimate goal of those who wish to change the current lay of things should be secularizing Muslim countries as much as possible.
Islam is particularly difficult to reform. The books are sacred and not to be altered. Quran, Sunnah, or Hadith. Can anyone name any reforms in the last 1400 years?
Trying to reform it is blaspheme. You become an apostate or worse and usually results in the reformer being executed or murdered.
Islam is particularly difficult to reform. The books are sacred and not to be altered. Quran, Sunnah, or Hadith. Can anyone name any reforms in the last 1400 years?
Trying to reform it is blaspheme. You become an apostate or worse and usually results in the reformer being executed or murdered.
What of this is not true for Christianity?
Catholics don't go to heaven because they pray to people other than Jesus (saints).
Greyblades
12-04-2015, 16:33
Is this bait? What idiot told you that praying to Saints is blasphemy to Catholics?
Ignoring that, all of what you said is indeed false for Modern Christianity, It's been reformed and re-reformed for over a thousand years and even the Irish have mostly stopped killing each other over apostasy.
Fisherking
12-04-2015, 16:52
What of this is not true for Christianity?
Catholics don't go to heaven because they pray to people other than Jesus (saints).
Some Christians may hold some outlandish beliefs but they do not come from the text of that religion in the same way.
Most of their reforms have been to extra biblical beliefs instituted by church or state leaders.
It is not explicitly mandated as an article of faith. Christians may proselytise but nothing mandates it at sword point. Just as nothing in Jewish or Christian theology requires it to be the only religion on earth.
Gilrandir
12-04-2015, 16:56
Islam is particularly difficult to reform. The books are sacred and not to be altered. Quran, Sunnah, or Hadith. Can anyone name any reforms in the last 1400 years?
Trying to reform it is blaspheme. You become an apostate or worse and usually results in the reformer being executed or murdered.
Yet Christianity went through reforms during which there were plenty of people shouting bloody murder and sticking labels of heresy and blasphemy at large.
But I suggested not reforming islam (foreseeing the difficulty thereof), but gradual reducing the role of religion in muslim countries.
Though, to tell the truth, both solutions are very long-term perspectives.
Gilrandir
12-04-2015, 17:03
It is not explicitly mandated as an article of faith. Christians may proselytise but nothing mandates it at sword point.
Don't even start it. How many sword-points did Christians dip into those that were of other faiths or those of their own faith who were deemed wrong in interpreting some of its tenets?
Just as nothing in Jewish or Christian theology requires it to be the only religion on earth.
:laugh4:
The Ten Commandments
20 And God spoke all these words:
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Greyblades
12-04-2015, 17:10
That doesn't say that Christianity/Judaism cannot tolerate the existence of other religions, it says they cant tolerate any of it's own members following a second religion simultaneously.
Fisherking
12-04-2015, 17:44
Gilrandir , I am not here to defend Christianity or any other religion. All I am telling you is that no other religion I know of is at war with every other religion on earth.
So far as I know, that distinction belongs to Islam and only to Islam.
As it seems it was what was to expected it to be, seems like lone wolves though
Is this bait? What idiot told you that praying to Saints is blasphemy to Catholics?
Only the bible, but I guess it would be unfair to judge Christians by adherance to the bible if we cn do it for Muslims.
http://www.gotquestions.org/prayer-saints-Mary.html
Ignoring that, all of what you said is indeed false for Modern Christianity, It's been reformed and re-reformed for over a thousand years and even the Irish have mostly stopped killing each other over apostasy.
The thing is that all the reformers who reform things which are wrong according to the book are false prophets according to the same book. We can discuss about taking things literally and how the book came to be the book now, but then there are also imams who say the Quran is not always to be taken literally and then it comes down to whether you find them or the terrorists more trustworthy...
Or in other words, whose interpretation you, as an atheist, would rather support in public and which path would support your goals more...
Is it surprising that many youngsters think the terrorists are right when they read Fragony and many others saying theirs is the one true interpretation of Islam? I wouldn't be surprised if the recruiters collect these gems and go "see, even the kuffar know deep in their hearts that we are right!" This kind of attitude may even hamper any attempts at reform. And this is not coming from nowhere, I've heard this kind of argument in many Christian churches.
Some Christians may hold some outlandish beliefs but they do not come from the text of that religion in the same way.
"in the same way"? That's just a very vague distinction, as I said there are even islamist scholars who think the Quran is not always meant literally but then a Nigel Falanga or a similar type comes along and tell them that the terrorists are indeed right and every true muslim should indeed follow the terrorists....
But hey, it's Merkel who is doing the real harm. :rolleyes:
Most of their reforms have been to extra biblical beliefs instituted by church or state leaders.
And if we think that was a good thing, why do we not support the same thing in Islam?
Although I would grant Chritianity that the message of Jesus does not exactly need many alterations to be peaceful, it was more that the "reforms" led to all the wrong interpretations. But I assume we are talking about practical application here and how we can improve things. And I think the whole "Islam is inherently out to kill us, the others are not true muslims and the only solution is to turn them all into atheists" that seems to be the argument of many, is not exactly a productive or workable solution.
It's just a blame game without a real solution.
It is not explicitly mandated as an article of faith. Christians may proselytise but nothing mandates it at sword point. Just as nothing in Jewish or Christian theology requires it to be the only religion on earth.
There are plenty of Muslims who believe they can live alongside other religions, as was the case in previous caliphates. But as I said, the solution is apparently to tell everyone that even we Christians and Atheists believe that they should slaughter us all to be good muslims...
Greyblades
12-04-2015, 18:59
As it seems it was what was to expected it to be, seems like lone wolves thoughNot according to the evening standard. A couple of farook's facebook buddies are on the fbi watch list. Add to that a report from a neighbour of an unusual gathering of middle eastern men at his residence in the weeks before the attack and the lone wolf angle becomes less likely.
Probably, but with things like this it is us that we should be worried about, screw political correctnes of multiciculturalists everybody with half a brain knows that it has everything to do with islam.
Idaho, I don’t know if you have tried an objective view of the situation. You seem to think it is a matter of religiosity or racism. The biggest factor is one you don’t seem to have examined.
Here is the rub. Islam and western ideals of liberty are incompatible. All religions have some elements that could be called repressive, to one extent or another but there are grounds for accommodation and a sprit of live and let live, except with Islam. None of the others have as a tenant of their faith that all others must be converted, subjugated, or slain. Others have proven a willingness to live under a secular rule. The other religions do not call for forced conversion.
Many Muslims have also submitted themselves to live in secular countries but in doing so they violate the rules of their faith. The world view of the faith is that the world is divided into two. The lands of the faith and the lands of war.
Our ethics forbid us from assaults on the beliefs of others, while the faith of Islam demands it.
How are we logically to treat this threat to our values? Do we submit to eventual theocracy or do we resist?
You are being melodramatic. Sensational news stories about American or French civilians justifying "something be done" is matched by no interest in the mindlessness of the proposed reaction. This is a fringe group, and a dangerous one. But it's still fringe.
They have absolutely no intention of engaging politically with us. The hyperbole has been used in the past to say that Communists and other westernised oppositional organisations want to destroy us, but they always had a political organisation that maintained a voice in the (sort of) mainstream. Not so Islamism, for whom our very being is anathema to them. And while I count myself as a liberal where such norms are reciprocated, I see no point in tolerating people who game the system to destroy our liberal democracy.
How have we engaged politically with them? In Falluja for example.
Greyblades
12-04-2015, 19:48
Only the bible, but I guess it would be unfair to judge Christians by adherance to the bible if we can do it for Muslims.
http://www.gotquestions.org/prayer-saints-Mary.html So, using an intermediary is pointless according to the bible, but I must have missed the part saying the attempt is blasphemy.
The thing is that all the reformers who reform things which are wrong according to the book are false prophets according to the same book. We can discuss about taking things literally and how the book came to be the book now, but then there are also imams who say the Quran is not always to be taken literally and then it comes down to whether you find them or the terrorists more trustworthy...
The point I made is that christians dont generally punish or kill apostates anymore, while muslims generally do when they can get away with it.
Or in other words, whose interpretation you, as an atheist, would rather support in public and which path would support your goals more... I'm Catholic.
everybody with half a brain knows that it has everything to do with islam.
No, it's buddhism!
So, using an intermediary is pointless according to the bible, but I must have missed the part saying the attempt blasphemy.
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a134.htm
St. Bernard writes: "It is true, of course, that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator of justice between human beings and God, and that, by virtue of His own merits, He can obtain for us, and wants to obtain, pardon and grace as He promised. But in Christ human beings cannot help recognizing and fearing the Divine Majesty, which belongs to Him as God. So it was necessary to appoint another Advocate, to whom we can have recourse with less fear and with greater confidence. And this second Advocate is Mary" (Quoted in 'The Glories of Mary' by St Alphonsus Liguori). What a distortion of the goodness of God! God is ever near His children, for His Son had bridged the infinite gap which had previously separated us. Contrary to the blasphemous words of man, the Bible assures us that in Christ "we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him" (Ephesians 3:12).
It is basically based on false teachings and following a false prophet won't help you a lot.
The bible says you have to check the words of the people you follow against the word of god to find the false prophets. Therefore following the teachings of the Catholic Church is following a false prohpet and as we all know these are sent by the devil to keep people from going to heaven...
The point I made is that christians dont generally punish or kill apostates anymore, while muslims generally do when they can get away with it.
And the solution is to tell them that it's the only way to be a good muslim?
What about the ones who do not kill apostates?
Or are you saying every muslim secretly has a strong desire to kill apostates?
I'm Catholic.
I expected that to happen, doesn't change the point though.
AE Bravo
12-04-2015, 19:53
Can anyone name any reforms in the last 1400 years?
There are more revivalist movements than reform. That's how the uneducated and oppressed react, Islam is just a backdrop to that frustration.
Chicken egg argument. What kind of fanatic could a middle eastern man be if he weren't a Muslim fanatic? There's nothing else. It may have "everything to do with Islam" but the Islam part could just as easily be replaced with some other strong regional impression if there actually was another one.
Greyblades
12-04-2015, 19:55
Chicken egg argument. What kind of fanatic could a middle eastern man be if he weren't a Muslim fanatic?
Jewish.
Sardony aside, this becomes moot once non middle eastern muslims start seeking the 72 virgins, like our farook here.
Incidentally, his wife turns out to have been in IS. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35006404)
Jewish.
Sardony aside, this becomes moot once non middle eastern muslims start seeking the 72 virgins, like our farook here.
Incidentally, his wife turns out to have been in IS. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35006404)
Sorry, thread moving too fast, I edited my last reply with a reply to you in order to not doublepost...
AE Bravo
12-04-2015, 20:12
Jewish.
Sardony aside, this becomes moot once non middle eastern muslims start seeking the 72 virgins, like our farook here.
Incidentally, his wife turns out to have been in IS. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35006404)
Farook is a middle eastern Muslim, second generation. He was either influenced by his first generation fanatic friends or his Pakistani heritage.
Greyblades
12-04-2015, 20:26
And the third/fourth generation British teens running away to IS training camps?
It is basically based on false teachings and following a false prophet won't help you a lot.
The bible says you have to check the words of the people you follow against the word of god to find the false prophets. Therefore following the teachings of the Catholic Church is following a false prohpet and as we all know these are sent by the devil to keep people from going to heaven...Still failing to see how praying to the saints for guidance and support as blasphemy.
And the solution is to tell them that it's the only way to be a good muslim?
What about the ones who do not kill apostates?
Or are you saying every muslim secretly has a strong desire to kill apostates?Solution? I have none, merely an observation that the pre reformation church was very similar to present day islam (I'm sure that PVC will show up to contest that) and that church did not become what it is today without centuries of rebellions against orthodoxy that brought such war, ruin and rape to the christian nations involved that it make the prospect of fighting another one so unpalatable as to end the great inter-faith wars for good.
I hope that any upcoming Muslim reformation is less bloody, but going by the current trend towards violence and vitriol against critics from even the moderate majority of muslims(as emphasised by the repeated outcry whenever someone so much as looks at islam with a hard eye) I doubt it will be.
I expected that to happen, doesn't change the point though.Which was?
AE Bravo
12-04-2015, 20:38
The thing about confronting Islamic orthodoxy is that it doesn't need to be bloody.
A reform would only require three things:
1) Removing Muhammad's semi-divine status
2) Discarding Sharia, enabling coexistence
3) Delegitimizing holy war , I know easier said than done unlike the other two
Which in no way exposes Islam to accusations of perversion or necessarily leads to conflict. These are very simple things that Muslims can easily accept.
Still failing to see how praying to the saints for guidance and support as blasphemy.
I said they don't go to heaven, where is the blasphemy coming from?
I hope that any upcoming Muslim reformation is less bloody, but going by the current trend towards violence and vitriol against critics from even the moderate majority of muslims(as emphasised by the repeated outcry whenever someone so much as looks at islam with a hard eye) I doubt it will be.
I haven't seen much of that. A lot who try the hard-eye looking end up being wrong and quite a few others don't get an outcry.
Which was?
That it is counter-productive to say that the terrorists' interpretation of Islam is the only true one.
Pannonian
12-04-2015, 21:14
That it is counter-productive to say that the terrorists' interpretation of Islam is the only true one.
Theirs is the most strident one. There are some interpretations of their culture that can mesh with the general western secular culture. But once that culture turns to faith, alarm bells ring, and interpretations of Islamic faith that fit into the general western secular culture are so quiet as to be unnoticeable. AFAIK PVC (or whatever he's called nowadays) believes in a Christian faith, but I feel no discomfort in mocking his faith and generally asserting my secular beliefs. His Christian beliefs, and most Christian beliefs in the UK, mesh seamlessly into the general western secular culture.
Pannonian
12-04-2015, 21:15
Jewish.
Sardony aside, this becomes moot once non middle eastern muslims start seeking the 72 virgins, like our farook here.
Incidentally, his wife turns out to have been in IS. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35006404)
Anyone who's been to these hotspots shouldn't be allowed back.
Montmorency
12-04-2015, 21:23
The thing about confronting Islamic orthodoxy is that it doesn't need to be bloody.
A reform would only require three things:
1) Removing Muhammad's semi-divine status
2) Discarding Sharia, enabling coexistence
3) Delegitimizing holy war , I know easier said than done unlike the other two
Which in no way exposes Islam to accusations of perversion or necessarily leads to conflict. These are very simple things that Muslims can easily accept.
What do you think of Islam El-Beheiry?
of course it's
There are more revivalist movements than reform. That's how the uneducated and oppressed react, Islam is just a backdrop to that frustration.
Chicken egg argument. What kind of fanatic could a middle eastern man be if he weren't a Muslim fanatic? There's nothing else. It may have "everything to do with Islam" but the Islam part could just as easily be replaced with some other strong regional impression if there actually was another one.
Of course it's a chicken and egg thing, but why should we make it our problem.. Refugees leave sorry world behind, colonists bring their sorry world with them.
Greyblades
12-04-2015, 21:56
I said they don't go to heaven, where is the blasphemy coming from?
Slight mix up, regardless, still failing to see how praying to the saints for guidance and support gets you banned from heaven.
AE Bravo
12-04-2015, 22:39
What do you think of Islam El-Beheiry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University
http://www.ibtimes.com/sisi-islam-reform-blasphemy-case-against-reformist-islam-el-beheiry-undercuts-1947460
Maintaining the position and authority of the institution is thus a major priority for Sisi. The leader’s so-called religious revolution is “part and parcel of a broader and more traditional statist project,” said Michael Hanna, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor. “This is why both religious expression and religious immoderation are to be tightly controlled, as they are understood as potential sources of instability that could disrupt public order.”
Sisi gonna Sisi. There are many of him but his mistake was that he was televised.
Theirs is the most strident one. There are some interpretations of their culture that can mesh with the general western secular culture. But once that culture turns to faith, alarm bells ring, and interpretations of Islamic faith that fit into the general western secular culture are so quiet as to be unnoticeable. AFAIK PVC (or whatever he's called nowadays) believes in a Christian faith, but I feel no discomfort in mocking his faith and generally asserting my secular beliefs. His Christian beliefs, and most Christian beliefs in the UK, mesh seamlessly into the general western secular culture.
And is that surprising? As I will say to Fragony below, you cannot expect people to have a 180° change of mind. And I assume that part of the reason they teach their kids not to adopt too much of our culture is that they are often not very welcome here (even before terrorism was a thing). And giving up a religion is only easy for atheists, everybody else is afraid of ending up in a sea of fire or so. I can also live with people who may not agree with me as long as they don't turn disagreement into violence.
As for being quiet and unnoticeable, wouldn't be the first time that a vocal minority drowns out the rest, that's more or less a fact of life.
Of course it's a chicken and egg thing, but why should we make it our problem.. Refugees leave sorry world behind, colonists bring their sorry world with them.
Man Fragony, I'm fully with you on the don't let them impose their values on us, but the way you talk about it it usually sounds like you see a few pictures with five meanies and then you immediately want to throw all the families out with the dishwasher. When I hear of families that came here as refugees and built mafia structures, threatening judges and police etc., I wish the government would drive tanks through their homes and send them back to where they came from tomorrow. But I would never extend that to all refugees or think we can expect them to have a 180° change of mind just because they had to flee a place.
Slight mix up, regardless, still failing to see how praying to the saints for guidance and support gets you banned from heaven.
Because the only way there leads through Jesus and not through saints. By praying to them you turn them into little side-gods but the first of the ten commandments says you shall have no gods next to God.
Include all the idolatry and stuff and it really gets a bit much to the point where some catholics worship them almost more than God.
Of course not all catholics are the same, some may even be better catholics than others.
Pannonian
12-05-2015, 03:05
And is that surprising? As I will say to Fragony below, you cannot expect people to have a 180° change of mind. And I assume that part of the reason they teach their kids not to adopt too much of our culture is that they are often not very welcome here (even before terrorism was a thing). And giving up a religion is only easy for atheists, everybody else is afraid of ending up in a sea of fire or so. I can also live with people who may not agree with me as long as they don't turn disagreement into violence.
As for being quiet and unnoticeable, wouldn't be the first time that a vocal minority drowns out the rest, that's more or less a fact of life.
Then it's the duty of the supposed majority to assert themselves. The principal foundation of western secular society is to treat others as you would be treated. One aspect of this is that fanatics and any kind are unwelcome. In the past it used to be Jehovah's witnesses who were shunned lest your marginal interest should encourage them to take up more of your time. But at least they were peaceful, and respected your rights as an individual. See my point about Christians generally meshing well with the general secular society. Islamists respect no individual bar their own, and will happily exploit their host liberal society to widen their voice, and there is a far, far disproportionate tendency for their like to turn to violence. I try not to impose on anyone, except to help those in need of help where I see it. Why should I feel guilty about their so called less than warm welcomes, and why should I accommodate their subsequent turn to violence?
And as for giving up religion being a hard thing for these second generationers: from childhood they were brought up to be British. Why was this easier to give up than a religion that they had to actively, to the point of leaving this country, pursue? IIRC at least one of these militants disgusted his father, someone who actually moved to this country and regarded himself as British through and through. His father disowned him as a traitor to the country that raised him.
Then it's the duty of the supposed majority to assert themselves.
Does the NRA apologize very loudly every time a white guy shoots up a school or an abortion clinic?
Also see below, if you accept no group blame, why should they? Why do immigrants have more group responsibility than natives?
If you are so proud of our values, individual responsibility and same rights for all are good ones to start with.
Why should I feel guilty about their so called less than warm welcomes, and why should I accommodate their subsequent turn to violence?
Wooow, wrong connection. I meant the less than warm welcomes may hinder stronger integration of the more normal muslims, not that they excuse all violence or even terrorism. And if you see no need to feel bad for it, why should moderate muslims feel bad for islamist terrorism?
And as for giving up religion being a hard thing for these second generationers: from childhood they were brought up to be British.
Were they? Or were their families placed near other immigrant families because noone British wanted them and they basically grew up in Little Arabia? Do employers accept them as British or are they less likely to hire them?
Why was this easier to give up than a religion that they had to actively, to the point of leaving this country, pursue? IIRC at least one of these militants disgusted his father, someone who actually moved to this country and regarded himself as British through and through. His father disowned him as a traitor to the country that raised him.
Good for the father, or maybe bad after all. What is this anecdote supposed to tell me? Should I want the father to be thrown out of Britain now for being muslim and not fitting in? Did I say anywhere that all muslims in Britain are cute innocent little puppies and this proves me wrong? Are you saying sometimes young people do really stupid things and listen to the wrong people? Do you think British people protesting in streets and parliaments saying muslims have no place in Britain helped the young muslim guy listen to islamists telling him that the kuffar hate him for what he is or do you think it made it harder for him to betray Britain?
Man Fragony, I'm fully with you on the don't let them impose their values on us, but the way you talk about it it usually sounds like you see a few pictures with five meanies and then you immediately want to throw all the families out with the dishwasher. When I hear of families that came here as refugees and built mafia structures, threatening judges and police etc., I wish the government would drive tanks through their homes and send them back to where they came from tomorrow. But I would never extend that to all refugees or think we can expect them to have a 180° change of mind just because they had to flee a place..
You forgot gassing them all, get your reactionary right. But most aren't real refugees. Christians gays and women aren't safe in these centres, gays and women and christians are to be relocated away from people with culture, all these brain-surgeons ICT-experts and rocket-scientists keep the police from doing their job, they are too busy with 'refugees'. So yeah, a real refugee leaves his problems behind, they are timid not demanding. As some are. They even complain about not having a flatsscreen and the wifi is too slow. owwwwwwww they don't even get the food they eat at home
Fisherking
12-05-2015, 10:49
Does the NRA apologize very loudly every time a white guy shoots up a school or an abortion clinic?
Have you ever seen a headline, NRA Member Shoots Up School. That is because it hasn't happened. Why do you assume the NRA is a whites only organisation? Why must they apologise for the actions of nonmembers? Do you apologise every time a white guy does something insane and illegal?
It is only a political interest group, focused on one issue. The right to keep and bare arms. Its membership is about 5 million. Less than 2% of the population. It would not be an obstacle to legislation were it not for the fact that very many nonmembers also hold that right near and dear.
Pannonian
12-05-2015, 11:29
Does the NRA apologize very loudly every time a white guy shoots up a school or an abortion clinic?
Also see below, if you accept no group blame, why should they? Why do immigrants have more group responsibility than natives?
If you are so proud of our values, individual responsibility and same rights for all are good ones to start with.
Wooow, wrong connection. I meant the less than warm welcomes may hinder stronger integration of the more normal muslims, not that they excuse all violence or even terrorism. And if you see no need to feel bad for it, why should moderate muslims feel bad for islamist terrorism?
Were they? Or were their families placed near other immigrant families because noone British wanted them and they basically grew up in Little Arabia? Do employers accept them as British or are they less likely to hire them?
Good for the father, or maybe bad after all. What is this anecdote supposed to tell me? Should I want the father to be thrown out of Britain now for being muslim and not fitting in? Did I say anywhere that all muslims in Britain are cute innocent little puppies and this proves me wrong? Are you saying sometimes young people do really stupid things and listen to the wrong people? Do you think British people protesting in streets and parliaments saying muslims have no place in Britain helped the young muslim guy listen to islamists telling him that the kuffar hate him for what he is or do you think it made it harder for him to betray Britain?
So we should throw out anecdotes because they're anecdotes, in favour of philosophical theorising from a distance away that's based on nothing but your theories of how things should work. Do they build particularly high ivory towers in Germany or something?
What the anecdote shows is that there is an alternative to radicalisation, which you'd argued was an inevitable consequence of a welcome for Muslims that's been less warm that you would term adequate. The father himself didn't feel the welcome the country gave him to be unreasonably cold, and he's thrown himself into the identity of being British. Yet his son went down the radicalisation route, despite being raised from childhood by the state (and whatever your opinion of UK vs Germany, the British state helps a lot more with child rearing that the states that these people come from).
Your every post argues that Britain is in some way lacking that has produced all these radicals. Yet nearly every one of these radicals has been through a radicalisation process in the hotspots that I talked about. Those who don't go to find their identity in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. don't cause problems. They integrate well with the general dominant culture. Those who go to find their identity in these places are usually the troublemakers.
Gilrandir
12-05-2015, 14:41
That doesn't say that Christianity/Judaism cannot tolerate the existence of other religions, it says they cant tolerate any of it's own members following a second religion simultaneously.
... in which case they are counted among the worshippers of other religions which the first two commandments deny in being REAL religions.
Gilrandir , I am not here to defend Christianity or any other religion. All I am telling you is that no other religion I know of is at war with every other religion on earth.
So far as I know, that distinction belongs to Islam and only to Islam.
I'm not defending Islam either. But what you say of Islam is true here and now, when (some of) its adherents choose to follow the most violent tenets of it. The Bible has plenty of such, but Christians don't take them literally. That is the difference. So it is not the religion which is to blame, but the way people interpret it.
Greyblades
12-05-2015, 16:09
Because the only way there leads through Jesus and not through saints. By praying to them you turn them into little side-gods but the first of the ten commandments says you shall have no gods next to God.
Include all the idolatry and stuff and it really gets a bit much to the point where some catholics worship them almost more than God.
Of course not all catholics are the same, some may even be better catholics than others.
Prayer isnt worship it's communication to those in heaven. It can be used as an avenue of worship but praying to a saint for guidance doesnt automatically make them a mini god, it certainly doesnt get you banned from heaven.
... in which case they are counted among the worshippers of other religions which the first two commandments deny in being REAL religions.
...but they do not tell the worshippers of Yahweh to kill or forcably convert the non believers: kind of my point.
Gilrandir
12-05-2015, 16:23
...but they do not tell the worshippers of Yahweh to kill or forcably convert the non believers: kind of my point.
I don't know the Bible well enough to claim the opposite, but perhaps they do. Anyway, on condition of a biased reading it may be interpreted the way you suggest. And it was, not once. My point was that one shouldn't take any words in the holy texts as direct or indirect guidance to action.
... in which case they are counted among the worshippers of other religions which the first two commandments deny in being REAL religions.
I'm not defending Islam either. But what you say of Islam is true here and now, when (some of) its adherents choose to follow the most violent tenets of it. The Bible has plenty of such, but Christians don't take them literally. That is the difference. So it is not the religion which is to blame, but the way people interpret it.
Bible: did this
Quran: do this
Don't like either but the difference isn't that hard to grasp
Fisherking
12-05-2015, 17:30
I'm not defending Islam either. But what you say of Islam is true here and now, when (some of) its adherents choose to follow the most violent tenets of it. The Bible has plenty of such, but Christians don't take them literally. That is the difference. So it is not the religion which is to blame, but the way people interpret it.
If memory serves, and it has been decades since I even held a bible, let alone studied it, the violence in it is always directed at specific peoples for a set duration or goal. Not an open and ongoing struggle for supremacy with all the rest of the world.
Were it only the minority beliefs of a few within the whole of the religion it would not be terribly alarming. It is primarily one branch of Islam, the Sunni, but not completely limited to them. However, some 940 million of the estimated 1 billion Muslims are adherents to this branch of Islam and of the Sunnah.
All branches seek the imposition of Sharia Law universally.
We prefer to ignore studies showing 23 to 25% of Muslims have been radicalised. I guess it makes us feel better to think that it is only a tiny percentage. Even so, one percent of a billion is 10 million. Let us say that only 5% would sympathise with the 1%. That is only another 50 million who would harbour or protect the most militants.
While I think if left in isolation within Muslim Nations this movement may play its self out but the active importation into Europe, in the name of Multiculturalism, is political, if not actual suicide for western civilisation.
If memory serves, and it has been decades since I even held a bible, let alone studied it, the violence in it is always directed at specific peoples for a set duration or goal. Not an open and ongoing struggle for supremacy with all the rest of the world.
Were it only the minority beliefs of a few within the whole of the religion it would not be terribly alarming. It is primarily one branch of Islam, the Sunni, but not completely limited to them. However, some 940 million of the estimated 1 billion Muslims are adherents to this branch of Islam and of the Sunnah.
All branches seek the imposition of Sharia Law universally.
We prefer to ignore studies showing 23 to 25% of Muslims have been radicalised. I guess it makes us feel better to think that it is only a tiny percentage. Even so, one percent of a billion is 10 million. Let us say that only 5% would sympathise with the 1%. That is only another 50 million who would harbour or protect the most militants.
While I think if left in isolation within Muslim Nations this movement may play its self out but the active importation into Europe, in the name of Multiculturalism, is political, if not actual suicide for western civilisation.
I woudn't look too far into that, if you ask an devout muslim if he wwould prefer islamimic law and he says yes it can also only mean that he would prefer it. Prefering it is ok, imposing is not.People tend to forget that ordinary muslims are terrified of these guys.
Do you apologise every time a white guy does something insane and illegal?
Yes, because the majority has to assert itself. I usually start on Instagram, then go via Twitter before I call Infowars live.
What the anecdote shows is that there is an alternative to radicalisation, which you'd argued was an inevitable consequence of a welcome for Muslims that's been less warm that you would term adequate.
Exactly, my argument was that ALL white British people are horrible creatures and that is why ALL muslims are radicals, that is why I said inevitable and totally excusable. I'm glad we agree.
Your every post argues that Britain is in some way lacking that has produced all these radicals. Yet nearly every one of these radicals has been through a radicalisation process in the hotspots that I talked about. Those who don't go to find their identity in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. don't cause problems. They integrate well with the general dominant culture. Those who go to find their identity in these places are usually the troublemakers.
I was always a supporter of the idea of an inferior Britain, you really should have joined Hitler during the war. Would you ever mind explaining why the ones who do not want to cut our heads off have to apologize for the others or get thrown out of the country?
I'm glad that you noticed how I silently steered the discussion towards one about Britain to show its inferiority and that you saw how I apologized for terrorists.
Fragony: I want gas chambers only for white people because of their inherent guilt.
The Irish and Italian waves comes and all they bring with them are street hooligans and organized crime! We have to deport them all, their papist values are incompatible with American culture. They're more loyal to the pope than they are to our own laws! They will never integrate into our society!
Signed, Reasonable Man from 1920
CrossLOPER
12-06-2015, 03:27
The Irish and Italian waves comes and all they bring with them are street hooligans and organized crime! We have to deport them all, their papist values are incompatible with American culture. They're more loyal to the pope than they are to our own laws! They will never integrate into our society!
Signed, Reasonable Man from 1920
That's just your "narrative".
a completely inoffensive name
12-06-2015, 03:48
The Irish and Italian waves comes and all they bring with them are street hooligans and organized crime! We have to deport them all, their papist values are incompatible with American culture. They're more loyal to the pope than they are to our own laws! They will never integrate into our society!
Signed, Reasonable Man from 1920
Society in general was a lot harsher to people who didn't assimilate. Just because they did assimilate does not mean in general all types will assimilate. Your logic is terrible.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-06-2015, 04:25
Society in general was a lot harsher to people who didn't assimilate. Just because they did assimilate does not mean in general all types will assimilate. Your logic is terrible.
If you make people miserable and take away their ability to fight back they will assimilate.
a completely inoffensive name
12-06-2015, 04:30
If you make people miserable and take away their ability to fight back they will assimilate.
What's your point?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-06-2015, 04:46
What's your point?
America forced people to assimilate, pretty brutally at times, and now it doesn't.
My point is that it has less to do with the incoming group and more to do with the society they come into.
Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes.
a completely inoffensive name
12-06-2015, 05:14
America forced people to assimilate, pretty brutally at times, and now it doesn't.
My point is that it has less to do with the incoming group and more to do with the society they come into.
Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes.
Ahh ok. Well, I agree with everything you just said. I think that since we do not behave the same way that we did back in the 1920s, it is bad reasoning to assume that new immigrants will be as receptive to assimilation as those in previous eras.
I'm curious on your thoughts regarding the recent London stabbings.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-06-2015, 05:26
Ahh ok. Well, I agree with everything you just said. I think that since we do not behave the same way that we did back in the 1920s, it is bad reasoning to assume that new immigrants will be as receptive to assimilation as those in previous eras.
I'm curious on your thoughts regarding the recent London stabbings.
London stabbings?
Oh - there were some stabbings by a man claiming to be retaliating for Syria?
I'm afraid that stabbings in London are rather like shooting in New York some years ago.
I'm inclined to think he may have been drunk and he may have been a Muslim. The motives may be slightly novel but in general this sort of thing is relatively common crime-wise in the Capital.
a completely inoffensive name
12-06-2015, 05:29
London stabbings?
Oh - there were some stabbings by a man claiming to be retaliating for Syria?
I'm afraid that stabbings in London are rather like shooting in New York some years ago.
I'm inclined to think he may have been drunk and he may have been a Muslim. The motives may be slightly novel but in general this sort of thing is relatively common crime-wise in the Capital.
Thanks, that's good for me to hear (not the fact that there are frequent stabbings, but you understand what I am saying). It was blowing up in my news feed and I have been getting more critical about how "newsworthy" these type of events are.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-06-2015, 06:33
Thanks, that's good for me to hear (not the fact that there are frequent stabbings, but you understand what I am saying). It was blowing up in my news feed and I have been getting more critical about how "newsworthy" these type of events are.
It's newsworthy that he mentioned Syria and so people are saying "terrorism" but stabbings in London are no longer shocking.
London stabbings?
Oh - there were some stabbings by a man claiming to be retaliating for Syria?
I'm afraid that stabbings in London are rather like shooting in New York some years ago.
I'm inclined to think he may have been drunk and he may have been a Muslim. The motives may be slightly novel but in general this sort of thing is relatively common crime-wise in the Capital.
Slitting someones throat with a machette normal? Nah this is not your ordinary stabbing
"Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes." :laugh4: That is a nice point of view, but, unfortunately, quite remote from reality.
If you were not a Muslim you were part of the sub-humans categories if you belonged to the Religions from the Book (Jews and Christians) and none-humans if you were a Pagan.
The second one was promptly executed.
The first category was permanent slave, had to pay for life every year, and no legal right whatsoever, had a status of dhimmis. Their children could be taken as slaves for whatever purpose for sexual use to military use.
So the reason why they convert was to save their lives, get legal rights and pay taxes only in money, having access to proper job, having the right to own properties (and not being one). Roughly.
non-islamapoligists call it dhimmitude for a reason
Gilrandir
12-06-2015, 14:56
Bible: did this
Quran: do this
Don't like either but the difference isn't that hard to grasp
I advise you to read Leviticus, in which you will find many do's and dont's. For instance:
Leviticus 20
Punishments for Sin
20 The Lord said to Moses,
2 “Say to the Israelites:
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
(Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are still not stoned?)
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’”
Generally speaking, both books are supposed to be value models for the adherents. If it is written in a holy book, it is the example to follow. It doesn't really matter what tense or mood of verbs is there.
If memory serves, and it has been decades since I even held a bible, let alone studied it, the violence in it is always directed at specific peoples for a set duration or goal. Not an open and ongoing struggle for supremacy with all the rest of the world.
Yet it was used as an ultimate guidance for many attacks on any unfaithful and heretics which is more or less equal to the desire to turn everyone to Christianity.
"Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes." :laugh4: That is a nice point of view, but, unfortunately, quite remote from reality.
If you were not a Muslim you were part of the sub-humans categories if you belonged to the Religions from the Book (Jews and Christians) and none-humans if you were a Pagan.
The second one was promptly executed.
The first category was permanent slave, had to pay for life every year, and no legal right whatsoever, had a status of dhimmis. Their children could be taken as slaves for whatever purpose for sexual use to military use.
So the reason why they convert was to save their lives, get legal rights and pay taxes only in money, having access to proper job, having the right to own properties (and not being one). Roughly.
Perhaps it was true of later epochs, but at the time of the First Crusade the Cristians of Outremer were not molested by the Muslims and many of them OPPOSED the crusaders.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-06-2015, 19:02
"Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes." :laugh4: That is a nice point of view, but, unfortunately, quite remote from reality.
If you were not a Muslim you were part of the sub-humans categories if you belonged to the Religions from the Book (Jews and Christians) and none-humans if you were a Pagan.
The second one was promptly executed.
The first category was permanent slave, had to pay for life every year, and no legal right whatsoever, had a status of dhimmis. Their children could be taken as slaves for whatever purpose for sexual use to military use.
So the reason why they convert was to save their lives, get legal rights and pay taxes only in money, having access to proper job, having the right to own properties (and not being one). Roughly.
No, you are conflating Arab Islamic law with later Turkish Law. Under the Arabs Christians and Jews were afforded limited rights and were required to pay additional taxes. The situation was roughly similar to the one Gentiles were in during the early Roman Empire. Christians and Jews were not "sub humans" but nor were they citizens, being outside the Islamic community. Roughly, a Christian man was worth 1/3 of a Muslim in a court of law.
Now, under the Ottoman Turks the situation was very different and, frankly, all non-Turks were abused to a degree up until the late 18th century, I think.
I advise you to read Leviticus, in which you will find many do's and dont's. For instance:
Leviticus 20
Punishments for Sin
20 The Lord said to Moses,
2 “Say to the Israelites:
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
(Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are still not stoned?)
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’”
Generally speaking, both books are supposed to be value models for the adherents. If it is written in a holy book, it is the example to follow. It doesn't really matter what tense or mood of verbs is there.
Yet it was used as an ultimate guidance for many attacks on any unfaithful and heretics which is more or less equal to the desire to turn everyone to Christianity.
Ignorenta Sacerdoti are responsible for most of the ill in the world. If you actually read the Christian Bible then you'll see that Christians are not required to follow Leviticus, so Frag is broadly correct when he says "Bible" and "did this" because the history of the Jews in the Christian Bible is not meant to be a blueprint for society.
Of course, that only applies to Christians.
"No, you are conflating Arab Islamic law with later Turkish Law" Turkish Islamic Law.
The Turkish Empire was built on Islam, and the Turks were as Islamic that the Arabs/Kurdes were.
"Roughly, a Christian man was worth 1/3 of a Muslim in a court of law." Less than a woman... And it really looks like a good definition of sub-human to me... A lesser class, not worth of...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-06-2015, 23:22
"No, you are conflating Arab Islamic law with later Turkish Law" Turkish Islamic Law.
The Turkish Empire was built on Islam, and the Turks were as Islamic that the Arabs/Kurdes were.
Well, that's a matter of opinion - but my point is still valid because the Ottoman Empire presided over territory that had already undergone Islamisation under the Arabs.
Anyway, why are you arguing about this? You're just saying the same thing as me, but a bit more extreme.
"Roughly, a Christian man was worth 1/3 of a Muslim in a court of law." Less than a woman... And it really looks like a good definition of sub-human to me... A lesser class, not worth of...
You are familiar with the concept of citizenship - we are a bit nicer about things today but the fact remain that if you aren't a part of the polity you aren't entitled to a say in how the country is run. Our law courts are more even handed because over the last two centuries the countries of the world have developed reciprocal arrangements.
Compare this to the areas under Germanic or Roman Law - non Christians were actual non-people.
"Compare this to the areas under Germanic or Roman Law - non Christians were actual non-people." Certainly, but a lot of people were not people in Rome or under Germanic Law, this was not reserved to the Christian... Note that when the Christians took power, first it was thanks to a military victory, not really by conversions, then the Pagans became the sub-humans and were persecuted, under the same laws they kept from the Roman Empire...
Times were like this, and it is not about blame games... The reality is/was that all powers tend to impose their rules, and my point was not to paint it in too rosy colours...
Gilrandir
12-07-2015, 13:48
If you actually read the Christian Bible then you'll see that Christians are not required to follow Leviticus, so Frag is broadly correct when he says "Bible" and "did this" because the history of the Jews in the Christian Bible is not meant to be a blueprint for society.
I read a thick (or should I say "bulky"?) black book which has Біблія written on its cover. Leviticus, as much as other elements of the Old Testament, ARE a part of the Bible thus are supposed to be followed by Christians. Otherwise it should be officially extracted. Or is the law for a brother not to marry his sister apply only to Jews? And the Ten commandments which are also in the Old Testament shouldn't be obeyed by the British or Russian Christians? Holy texts can't be selective, as well as the faithful can't choose which parts of them to revere. Jesus himself didn't:
Matthew 5
The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
On the other hand, some of the things Jesus preached (thus should be revered by Christsians) are not followed either:
Mark 11
15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
and churches feel free to sell whatever they like against the explicit command of Jesus.
Bottomline: no one follows EVERYTHING written in the Bible and its quite sensible given the change of time and mores that has happened since then. But those who wish will always find in it justification for whatever they do.
I read a thick (or should I say "bulky"?) black book which has Біблія written on its cover. Leviticus, as much as other elements of the Old Testament, ARE a part of the Bible thus are supposed to be followed by Christians. Otherwise it should be officially extracted. Or is the law for a brother not to marry his sister apply only to Jews? And the Ten commandments which are also in the Old Testament shouldn't be obeyed by the British or Russian Christians? Holy texts can't be selective, as well as the faithful can't choose which parts of them to revere. Jesus himself didn't:
Matthew 5
The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
On the other hand, some of the things Jesus preached (thus should be revered by Christsians) are not followed either:
Mark 11
15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
and churches feel free to sell whatever they like against the explicit command of Jesus.
Bottomline: no one follows EVERYTHING written in the Bible and its quite sensible given the change of time and mores that has happened since then. But those who wish will always find in it justification for whatever they do.
Yeah but that's quite inconvenient, so can we just go back to picking and choosing from the good book?
Pannonian
12-08-2015, 11:17
I read a thick (or should I say "bulky"?) black book which has Біблія written on its cover. Leviticus, as much as other elements of the Old Testament, ARE a part of the Bible thus are supposed to be followed by Christians. Otherwise it should be officially extracted. Or is the law for a brother not to marry his sister apply only to Jews? And the Ten commandments which are also in the Old Testament shouldn't be obeyed by the British or Russian Christians? Holy texts can't be selective, as well as the faithful can't choose which parts of them to revere. Jesus himself didn't:
Matthew 5
The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
On the other hand, some of the things Jesus preached (thus should be revered by Christsians) are not followed either:
Mark 11
15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
and churches feel free to sell whatever they like against the explicit command of Jesus.
Bottomline: no one follows EVERYTHING written in the Bible and its quite sensible given the change of time and mores that has happened since then. But those who wish will always find in it justification for whatever they do.
Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.
How dare you state the oh so obvious
Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.
You are proposing we defend liberal humanism by being illiberal and anti human?
No. Better to just weather the storm and ignore the attempts by the stupid to repeat the errors of history.
You are proposing we defend liberal humanism by being illiberal and anti human?
No. Better to just weather the storm and ignore the attempts by the stupid to repeat the errors of history.
What errors are you refering to, I hope you don't mean what happened in Europe in WW2 but it would be of. But yes we should weather the storm and don't overeact.
Pannonian
12-09-2015, 10:53
You are proposing we defend liberal humanism by being illiberal and anti human?
No. Better to just weather the storm and ignore the attempts by the stupid to repeat the errors of history.
What's illiberal and inhuman about barring the reentry of people who visit these places? It's not an intrinsic right of people to travel wherever they wish, otherwise passports would not exist, nor would visas and similar documents. Practically all Islamist troublemakers fit the profile of people who travel to these hotspots (Pakistan seems to be the most common for British Islamists) and return radicalised. I've said it for quite a while, in the recent attacks, the Paris attackers also fit this profile (Syria), and so do the San Bernardino attackers (Saudi Arabia). No doubt others will, too.
What's illiberal and inhuman about barring the reentry of people who visit these places? It's not an intrinsic right of people to travel wherever they wish, otherwise passports would not exist, nor would visas and similar documents. Practically all Islamist troublemakers fit the profile of people who travel to these hotspots (Pakistan seems to be the most common for British Islamists) and return radicalised. I've said it for quite a while, in the recent attacks, the Paris attackers also fit this profile (Syria), and so do the San Bernardino attackers (Saudi Arabia). No doubt others will, too.
Barring entry back should be a given, but isn't a bit late by now. It isn't all that bad here in the Netherlands, but especially England, France and Sweden kinda have a problem with homegrown and 'refugees'. Let's not denie that, it IS a problem. Remove the leftist church, bring back sanity. The multicultural left is so dangerous. They will abandon theirworldview, they should be gently but firmly be escorted to their padded walls.
wtf did anyone expect
Pannonian
12-09-2015, 11:41
Barring entry back should be a given, but isn't a bit late by now. It isn't all that bad here in the Netherlands, but especially England, France and Sweden kinda have a problem with homegrown and 'refugees'. Let's not denie that, it IS a problem. Remove the leftist church, bring back sanity. The multicu'tsrl left is so dangerous.
Muslims who've lived in this country all their lives and don't feel the urge to visit their "home" countries which they'd never been to before don't tend to be a problem. They tend to be British through and through, with Muslim describing a culture rather than their being.
What's illiberal and inhuman about barring the reentry of people who visit these places? It's not an intrinsic right of people to travel wherever they wish, otherwise passports would not exist, nor would visas and similar documents. Practically all Islamist troublemakers fit the profile of people who travel to these hotspots (Pakistan seems to be the most common for British Islamists) and return radicalised. I've said it for quite a while, in the recent attacks, the Paris attackers also fit this profile (Syria), and so do the San Bernardino attackers (Saudi Arabia). No doubt others will, too.
I would be interested first in the ratio of people who make these trips to those who go on to commit atrocities. And then I'd like to see the ratio of people who make these trips AND commit atrocities to people who DON'T make these trips and commit atrocities.
My guess would be less than 1 in a million for the former, and 1:5 for the latter.
I'm guessing that you find it easy to remove the rights of a large group of people because it won't directly affect you.
Muslims who've lived in this country all their lives and don't feel the urge to visit their "home" countries which they'd never been to before don't tend to be a problem. They tend to be British through and through, with Muslim describing a culture rather than their being.
Resseting that to mostly, without saying anything myself, can you dismiss that a lot of areas in Europe are now no-go areas. Multicurtulism has always been a narcist dream of self-congratuling gutmenschen. Reality is now, it doesn't work.
Resseting that to mostly, without saying anything myself, can you dismiss that a lot of areas in Europe are now no-go areas. Multicurtulism has always been a narcist dream of self-congratuling gutmenschen. Reality is now, it doesn't work.
Where are these "no go" areas? And who is it that can't go?
Where are these "no go" areas? And who is it that can't go?
Ambulances, police. Can't is a shade too grey, but they avoid area's that are enriched with people with culture when they can. Ambulances refuse to go there unles they get police protection. You know that's true, don't pretend you don't know it. It isn't just England where there are self-acaimed sharia-police monitoring the street and people are just hostile, problem is everywhere where islam is.
Gilrandir
12-09-2015, 13:05
Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.
This kind of argument is much better. I suggest we talk about PEOPLE who do things, not about BOOKS which can make people do quite opposite things.
Pannonian
12-09-2015, 13:06
I would be interested first in the ratio of people who make these trips to those who go on to commit atrocities. And then I'd like to see the ratio of people who make these trips AND commit atrocities to people who DON'T make these trips and commit atrocities.
My guess would be less than 1 in a million for the former, and 1:5 for the latter.
I'm guessing that you find it easy to remove the rights of a large group of people because it won't directly affect you.
So don't go to these places. Nothing else would change, bar the "right" to go to these places. If these countries refused to issue visas to UK citizens, would it be an infringement on liberty? During the cold war, it was a fact of life. Communist countries would not allow NATO bloc citizens to enter, and anyone travelling between the blocs regardless of this would be profiled as a risk. What were your thoughts during that era?
Ambulances, police. Can't is a shade too grey, but they avoid area's that are enriched with people with culture when they can. Ambulances refuse to go there unles they get police protection. You know that's true, don't pretend you don't know it. It isn't just England where there are self-acaimed sharia-police monitoring the street and people are just hostile, problem is everywhere where islam is.
Fact free post. Where are these places and who can't go. I want some basic factual support for this.
This kind of argument is much better. I suggest we talk about PEOPLE who do things, not about BOOKS which can make people do quite opposite things.
But we should talk about books making people do things. And if we are wrong admit we are wrong
So don't go to these places. Nothing else would change, bar the "right" to go to these places. If these countries refused to issue visas to UK citizens, would it be an infringement on liberty? During the cold war, it was a fact of life. Communist countries would not allow NATO bloc citizens to enter, and anyone travelling between the blocs regardless of this would be profiled as a risk. What were your thoughts during that era?
So adjust the rights of large chunks of humanity because it makes you feel like something is being done? Hysterical nonsense.
Greyblades
12-09-2015, 13:39
Where are these places and who can't go. I want some basic factual support for this.
Seconded.
So adjust the rights of large chunks of humanity because it makes you feel like something is being done? Hysterical nonsense.
Can I counter that by saying that a large chunk isn't interested in humanity? The gab is too big to take humanity for granted, man is wolf to man
Pannonian
12-09-2015, 14:11
So adjust the rights of large chunks of humanity because it makes you feel like something is being done? Hysterical nonsense.
What did you think of the reciprocal relations of the two blocs' governments during the Cold War? Did you think, at the time, that it was unreasonably restrictive on basic human rights? Or did you accept it as a fact of life? I'd like to know what your experience of it was. My own experience is that planes flying over the USSR expected to be shot down, so even transit across airspace wasn't allowed, let alone actual travel to and from these countries. I didn't think it was unreasonable then. The USSR could do whatever it liked with its borders.
Difficult to know where to begin unpicking this.
Things can be "facts of life" and still be unjust.
Travel to the eastern bloc was certainly possible, and happened quite a bit.
What does that have to do with the current situation? We aren't talking about federations of nation states lining up in opposition. It would be clearer if we were, and perhaps that's your issue. You long for clarity and simplicity so that your clear and simple approaches make sense. You need to disavow yourself of this misunderstanding.
Pannonian
12-09-2015, 18:41
Difficult to know where to begin unpicking this.
Things can be "facts of life" and still be unjust.
Travel to the eastern bloc was certainly possible, and happened quite a bit.
What does that have to do with the current situation? We aren't talking about federations of nation states lining up in opposition. It would be clearer if we were, and perhaps that's your issue. You long for clarity and simplicity so that your clear and simple approaches make sense. You need to disavow yourself of this misunderstanding.
And you refuse to recognise a common fact that distinguishes between Muslims who don't cause trouble and Muslims who do. By your theoretical and philosophical arguments, you seek to mix the former with the latter, when the latter are easily and clearly distinguishable using existing methods. How would you define the latter? Or are you arguing that the latter does not exist?
BTW, I'm a frequent traveller on the east London railways, where the 2005 actual and attempted bombings took place, and where the recent stabbing took place. Unlike an Exeterian like you, I am familiar with the surroundings of Liverpool Street, Aldgate, The Oval, Leytonstone, etc. So if you want to talk about people not being affected, maybe you should be looking at yourself.
NB. I went to see the Lord's Test 2 days after the 7/7 bombings. 7/7 was, of course, the day that the Test started. People who went on the Thursday, if they hadn't been directly affected by the bombs, would have had to walk home from NW London (you do read the Standard, right?). For me, that would have meant 30-40 miles to the other end of the city.
BTW, were you around during the Cold War era? You seem to be only aware of the post-Cold War world, and you assume that the world now is the world that's always been.
My background, which you know nothing about, is irrelevant. I would rather rebutt your arguments than attempt to measure our lifetime proximity to terror attacks or where I was during the cold war.
What is this "fact" that distinguishes violent from non violent Muslims?
Pannonian
12-09-2015, 21:41
My background, which you know nothing about, is irrelevant. I would rather rebutt your arguments than attempt to measure our lifetime proximity to terror attacks or where I was during the cold war.
I'm guessing that you find it easy to remove the rights of a large group of people because it won't directly affect you.
I guess it's easy for Exeterian uber-liberals to preach philosophy from an ivory tower when they're not affected by how their philosophy works out in practice.
What is this "fact" that distinguishes violent from non violent Muslims?
Radicalisation. I await your definition of it.
I've been doing this Internet bickering thing for over 20 years. I can't be provoked that easily. I'll stick to actually discussing the issue and steer clear of the inaccurate and desperate ad hominem.
You still haven't been clear on the fact that differentiates violent and non violent Muslims. Saying "radicalisation" doesn't give any further illumination.
AE Bravo
12-09-2015, 22:16
You seem a bit detached from your fellow Brits who happen to be Muslim. Don't you know that a lot of them feel obligated to go to Saudi Arabia for religious reasons at some point?
You'd be exiling most ordinary Muslims based on your logic that the religious ones are the problem.
Pannonian
12-09-2015, 22:35
I've been doing this Internet bickering thing for over 20 years. I can't be provoked that easily. I'll stick to actually discussing the issue and steer clear of the inaccurate and desperate ad hominem.
You still haven't been clear on the fact that differentiates violent and non violent Muslims. Saying "radicalisation" doesn't give any further illumination.
Illumination doesn't work when the other party persists in pinching out the light. I've already given an effective definition using methods available to us.
You seem a bit detached from your fellow Brits who happen to be Muslim. Don't you know that a lot of them feel obligated to go to Saudi Arabia for religious reasons at some point?
You'd be exiling most ordinary Muslims based on your logic that the religious ones are the problem.
That's their problem with their religion. If they can't redefine their culture into one that fits with the dominant British culture, which has been remarkably undemanding to the point where nearly anyone and their dog can make the mark, then they can leave of their own accord, since that's the definition I can see working. If they don't want to leave, then I see no problem with them, as they've obviously opted to throw in their lot with Britain. People who throw in their lot with Britain's liberal humanist society don't tend to want to blow innocents up on the streets of London (or indeed under them).
AE Bravo
12-10-2015, 00:28
How does pilgrimage not make them fit for british culture?
Pannonian
12-10-2015, 01:31
How does pilgrimage not make them fit for british culture?
They go to countries that are notable for producing radicals who return to Britain and other countries to cause trouble. Christianity has dropped the idea of pilgrimage. Maybe British Muslims should think about that too. There are many beautiful places in the world that are untainted by extremist Islamism that they can travel to instead.
Papewaio
12-10-2015, 06:24
Better stop Catholics and Protestants traveling to Northern Ireland then...
Greyblades
12-10-2015, 07:44
...you do know the troubles have been over for about 20-30 years right?
Papewaio
12-10-2015, 08:32
...you do know the troubles have been over for about 20-30 years right?
1. Omaha bombing which was the worst one was only 17 years ago so get your fecking facts right.
2. We didn't ban Catholic's going to the Vatican even at the height of the Troubles.
3. It wasn't until 9/11 that the U.S. figured out the hard way that fianacing terrorist groups makes one complicit
Greyblades
12-10-2015, 08:42
Angry much?
2. We didn't ban Catholic's going to the Vatican even at the height of the Troubles.Did the vatican teach people how to create bombs? Or for that matter encourage violence against protestants?
Pannonian
12-10-2015, 09:34
1. Omaha bombing which was the worst one was only 17 years ago so get your fecking facts right.
2. We didn't ban Catholic's going to the Vatican even at the height of the Troubles.
3. It wasn't until 9/11 that the U.S. figured out the hard way that fianacing terrorist groups makes one complicit
The Northern Ireland troubles were always political in nature. Potential troublemakers were profiled that way. Define a way of profiling potential Islamist troublemakers that doesn't involve greater and more zealous religious belief. You won't find a more culturally neutral, yet almost completely accurate way that the definition that they've been to the usual radicalisation hotspots. I made that definition some years ago based on the profiles of past attackers, and in this year alone, nearly all the Paris attackers (Syria) and San Bernardino attackers (Saudi Arabia) have fit this profile. The only one that did not was someone who grew up in a ghetto in Belgium. I'd be surprised if the police did not already highlight British citizens who have been to Syria as an alarm bell for greater attention.
All of these attackers have drunk a cup of coffee at some point in their life. Therefore, by your logic, we should ban coffee.
How about the people this soldier talks about. They are all Muslims who've been active in a middle east warzone:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35054442
Pannonian
12-10-2015, 10:12
All of these attackers have drunk a cup of coffee at some point in their life. Therefore, by your logic, we should ban coffee.
How about the people this soldier talks about. They are all Muslims who've been active in a middle east warzone:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35054442
You disagree with a proposition, and therefore come up with an absurd counter proposition to "prove" that the original was equally absurd. I've already asked you to define a way by which we can practically profile potential troublemakers, but you've not done owt so far.
As for your second point, I've already qualified my bar in the past with people who have been officially approved by the British government. That's centralised control and monitoring of who's been there. People serving over there in a government approved capacity qualify. People over there doing government business qualify. Private travel is barred. Why would anyone go to, for instance, Syria, but with the aim of causing trouble, or to join ISIS? And if that's what they've done, why should we welcome them back?
Gilrandir
12-10-2015, 10:19
But we should talk about books making people do things. And if we are wrong admit we are wrong
As I have once argued, books don't make people do things. When people take up a book of this kind, they have a system of values and beliefs already entrenched inside their mind and heart. The book only resonates with what is already there. Since Holy Books under discussion are full of controversial and mutually excluding premises he chooses those that chime with his image of the world. So blaming books is like stating that the Moon shines on its own.
They go to countries that are notable for producing radicals who return to Britain and other countries to cause trouble. Christianity has dropped the idea of pilgrimage. Maybe British Muslims should think about that too.
Let's forbid people (especially the British, they seem so easily influenced by cultures they come in contact with) to go to Papua New Guinea which is notable for producing cannibals, Central Africa notable for FGM and Singapore, where you get inhumanely fined several hundred dollars for throwing a chewing gum on the ground.
Pannonian
12-10-2015, 10:25
Let's forbid people (especially the British, they seem so easily influenced by cultures they come in contact with) to go to Papua New Guinea which is notable for producing cannibals, Central Africa notable for FGM and Singapore, where you get inhumanely fined several hundred dollars for throwing a chewing gum on the ground.
Since you don't believe that Muslims who travel to these hotspots to get radicalised don't exist, why doesn't Ukraine offer to take them in instead? Why don't you argue for Ukraine to take in European Muslims who have been to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.? Come to think of it, what's Ukraine's share of the Syrian exodus? Google tells me the number is a massive "more than 300".
Greyblades
12-10-2015, 10:32
Let's forbid people (especially the British, they seem so easily influenced by cultures they come in contact with) to go to Papua New Guinea which is notable for producing cannibals, Central Africa notable for FGM and Singapore, where you get inhumanely fined several hundred dollars for throwing a chewing gum on the ground.
We have multiple examples of middle east visits radicalizing western muslims. Its a bit late to start trying to declare the concept absurd.
Pannonian and Greyblades are making the same logical error.
This is called a Type I error. A false postive. You are looking at an outcome, finding common precursors in that outcome, and suggesting we act on all of those who share those common precursors.
So, for example, if you were testing for a disease - let's call it terroritis. Your test is whether the person is a) Muslim and b) frequently visits certain countries. If both a) and b) are met, the person is supposed to have terroritis.
But if we look at the actual numbers of people with terroritis - it's a very very rare disease. With less than, say 20 incidences a year. We are testing a group of over two million (a wild guess of how many people frequently travel back and forth to visit family in Pakistan, or who go to Haj in Saudi each year).
So first off we are adversely affecting the lives of a few million people for a common trait in 20 people.
But the situation is even more complex than that. Of the 20 people with terroritis - actually only 15 have condition a) and b). So it's a poor test logically, and an utterly unworkable and unjust one in reality.
Gilrandir
12-10-2015, 11:19
Since you don't believe that Muslims who travel to these hotspots to get radicalised don't exist, why doesn't Ukraine offer to take them in instead? Why don't you argue for Ukraine to take in European Muslims who have been to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.? Come to think of it, what's Ukraine's share of the Syrian exodus? Google tells me the number is a massive "more than 300".
Who said I don't believe? I just point out that sorting them will take much time and effort and meet a huge uproar for violating human rights and yadda yadda.
As for Syrians coming to Ukraine - :laugh4::laugh4: You corroborate what I said: they aren't REFUGEES they are immigrants. They don't camp at the first place where shelling isn't heard, instead they pick and choose trying to get where they will be better off, not just safe from bombings. If it were otherwise, Ukraine would have faced the same deluge Germany is experiencing. Or, more probably, all refugees would have stayed in Turkey, Jordan and Lebannon.
Besides, Ukraine is hard put to it to deal with refugees from Donbas, so new ones will be just too much for it.
We have multiple examples of middle east visits radicalizing western muslims. Its a bit late to start trying to declare the concept absurd.
I have expressed my opinion on the question: no entrance for ANY outsiders. Attempts to sort them (as well as those who travel outside) into categories will get you bogged into discussions on how liberal the EU should be and is it short of leaving people to starve etc. You can't apply your system of values (including political ones) to aliens.
Gilrandir
12-10-2015, 11:25
Pannonian and Greyblades are making the same logical error.
This is called a Type I error. A false postive. You are looking at an outcome, finding common precursors in that outcome, and suggesting we act on all of those who share those common precursors.
So, for example, if you were testing for a disease - let's call it terroritis. Your test is whether the person is a) Muslim and b) frequently visits certain countries. If both a) and b) are met, the person is supposed to have terroritis.
But if we look at the actual numbers of people with terroritis - it's a very very rare disease. With less than, say 20 incidences a year. We are testing a group of over two million (a wild guess of how many people frequently travel back and forth to visit family in Pakistan, or who go to Haj in Saudi each year).
So first off we are adversely affecting the lives of a few million people for a common trait in 20 people.
But the situation is even more complex than that. Of the 20 people with terroritis - actually only 15 have condition a) and b). So it's a poor test logically, and an utterly unworkable and unjust one in reality.
They follow the same logics that vaccinators offer. Why call it false?
They follow the same logics that vaccinators offer. Why call it false?
The maths of vaccination is quite different - and depends on which disease is being vaccinated against.
Greyblades
12-10-2015, 11:48
If we are going to stretch this disease metaphor; what is proposed isn't supposed to be a cure, it is a quarantine. Limit or sever access to a proven disease carrier will reduce rate of infection at the cost of a mild inconvenience for the vulnerable population resulting in a net benefit for the group as a whole.
The only concession that really needs to be made would be allowing pilgrimages to Mecca.
If we are going to stretch this disease metaphor; what is proposed isn't supposed to be a cure, it is a quarantine. Limit or sever access to a proven disease carrier will reduce rate of infection at the cost of a mild inconvenience for the vulnerable population resulting in a net benefit for the group as a whole.
The only concession that really needs to be made would be allowing pilgrimages to Mecca.
"Mild inconvenience" in this instance means "won't bother me, and I don't know or care how much it will bother others".
It's not a proven disease carrier. It's just a correlation.
Greyblades
12-10-2015, 12:15
Oh please, it's hardly a human rights violation to forbid visiting a war zone/sharia state. Besides, I'm leaning more on the stick them on a watch list side of the argument.
It's not a proven disease carrier. It's just a correlation.
Seems someone wasn't paying attention over the last month.
Pannonian
12-10-2015, 12:39
Oh please, it's hardly a human rights violation to forbid visiting a war zone/sharia state. Besides, I'm leaning more on the stick them on a watch list side of the argument.
Seems someone wasn't paying attention over the last month.
Border controls are a violation of human rights apparently, going by the above arguments. I wonder if Gilrandir is in favour of free movement of Russians to and from Ukraine. Or, for that matter, free movement of Ukrainians aligned with Russia, to and from western Ukraine.
If I had family in Pakistan who I liked to visit a few times a year, or a business in Pakistan that I wanted to visit frequently, I would consider an arbitrary, and pointless movement embargo a violation of my human rights.
This kind of simplistic, xenophobia-motivated internet armchair solution plays well to keyboard mavericks such as yourself, but no serious civil servant, politician (other than a Trumpesque mob demagogue) takes it seriously. It's unworkable, counter-productive and nonsensical.
Pannonian
12-10-2015, 13:52
If I had family in Pakistan who I liked to visit a few times a year, or a business in Pakistan that I wanted to visit frequently, I would consider an arbitrary, and pointless movement embargo a violation of my human rights.
This kind of simplistic, xenophobia-motivated internet armchair solution plays well to keyboard mavericks such as yourself, but no serious civil servant, politician (other than a Trumpesque mob demagogue) takes it seriously. It's unworkable, counter-productive and nonsensical.
Or a relative in the USSR that you wanted to visit frequently, etc. I wonder what you think of the government's warnings not to go to certain places (eg. Tunisia). Are they a violation of your human rights?
Kralizec
12-10-2015, 13:55
So don't go to these places. Nothing else would change, bar the "right" to go to these places. If these countries refused to issue visas to UK citizens, would it be an infringement on liberty? During the cold war, it was a fact of life. Communist countries would not allow NATO bloc citizens to enter, and anyone travelling between the blocs regardless of this would be profiled as a risk. What were your thoughts during that era?
Maybe it's my limited knowledge but I don't know of many examples of countries forbidding their own citizens to go to X or Y. Only ones that come to mind are unfree states like Syria (bans travel to Israel and Iraq, or at least used to) and certain other Arab countries (again, Israel)
Which admittedly doesn't invalidate the idea by itself. I wouldn't reject your idea out of hand, but I doubt that your premise is correct. Many western muslims make the Hajj. I googled it and a Dutch news article from several years ago said that around 5000 Dutch muslims make the journey on a yearly basis (before the world economy went to shit). Even with a strict interpretation of Islam the Hajj is mandatory only once, so I think we can assume that most of those make the journey for the first and only time.
I can believe that making the Hajj impossible would prevent a few people from radicalising, but it would piss off a far greater number.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.