View Full Version : Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris
Greyblades
12-10-2015, 14:26
I would consider an arbitrary, and pointless movement embargo a violation of my human rights.That would make you ignorant of international human rights, so I believe you.
It's unworkable, counter-productive and nonsensical.
I don't think those word mean what you think they mean.
Pannonian
12-10-2015, 14:36
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.
If it's a once only journey, they can apply for special dispensation for a once in a lifetime journey, and tick it off their list, and make it the only point in their itinerary. Pakistan's religious schools were the destination of choice for would be British Islamists in the past, while Syria is the more current training ground from which the Paris attackers got their schooling. Saudi Arabia is, of course, the most active promoter of the worst of Islam. When people complain about the US funding unsavoury activities, they should ask themselves why they're excusing Saudi Arabia in all this, since they're the biggest funders of them.
Also, note that I never said anything about barring anyone travelling from Britain. They can travel to wherever they like. But if they go into these hotspots, Britain should have nothing more to do with them. They can go there, and Britain can't stop them (even though there is established liberal-founded precedent for stopping minors from doing so), but they can't return. Whom Britain lets is is our own business.
Gilrandir
12-10-2015, 15:37
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.
Then it is a selective quarantine. You forbid access only to one group of people but allow others a free hand in taking journeys everywhere.
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.
My aunt lives in Russia and my wife's friends, so I don't see anything wrong in mutual border crossing. If it happens in places controlled by Ukrainian authorities who thus decide who can cross the border and who can't.
You forget that the war between Russia and Ukraine is hybrid, both counrties trade with each other (though on a constantly decreasing scale), our president owns business in Russia (and allegedly in the Crimea).
The only thing I don't understand in your post is reference to pro-Russian Ukrainians living in western Ukraine. This part of the country is known for its anti-Russian sentiment (Sarmatian calls all of them nazis), so I can't imagine any serious number of such people desiring to be aligned to Russia, as you put it.
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?
There are different motivations behind those two. Disregarding the warning not to travel to a war zone will harm those who choose to visit it, disregarding the proposed ban will harm others.
If it's a once only journey, they can apply for special dispensation for a once in a lifetime journey, and tick it off their list, and make it the only point in their itinerary.
What if they want to make another Haj? In this case piety will look a crime. :dizzy2:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-10-2015, 16:08
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.
"If I had family in East Germany..."
Greyblades
12-10-2015, 16:10
Then it is a selective quarantine. You forbid access only to one group of people but allow others a free hand in taking journeys everywhere.
Pretty much, not all muslims are islamic terrorists but all islamic terrorists are muslim.
The medical analogy falls apart a bit as in medicine even those who are immune to a disease are still capable of being carriers.
"If I had family in East Germany..."
Go on - if you had a family in East Germany... what?
I don't think those word mean what you think they mean.
Those word? Whose word?
Gilrandir
12-10-2015, 17:36
Those word? Whose word?
Theirs word.
Kralizec
12-10-2015, 17:41
If it's a once only journey, they can apply for special dispensation for a once in a lifetime journey, and tick it off their list, and make it the only point in their itinerary. Pakistan's religious schools were the destination of choice for would be British Islamists in the past, while Syria is the more current training ground from which the Paris attackers got their schooling. Saudi Arabia is, of course, the most active promoter of the worst of Islam. When people complain about the US funding unsavoury activities, they should ask themselves why they're excusing Saudi Arabia in all this, since they're the biggest funders of them.
Also, note that I never said anything about barring anyone travelling from Britain. They can travel to wherever they like. But if they go into these hotspots, Britain should have nothing more to do with them. They can go there, and Britain can't stop them (even though there is established liberal-founded precedent for stopping minors from doing so), but they can't return. Whom Britain lets is is our own business.
I don't have any fundamental objection, I just question wether it's proportional or even necessary.
For Syria in particular: I would support making it a crime to travel there right now, unless the person can demonstrate some legitimate purpose, i.e. he/she is a professional journalist or an aid worker.
Our Prime Minister got some flak a couple of months ago when he said that personally he'd rather have Dutch ISIS combatants die in Syria than having them return here. Most of the noise came from the usual assholes in the opposition, though.
Some uplifting news http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-85270297/
nice gesture from the muslim community
For Syria in particular: I would support making it a crime to travel there right now, unless the person can demonstrate some legitimate purpose, i.e. he/she is a professional journalist or an aid worker.
Queue salafi journalists and aid workers in 3..2..
Point also being that I assume they usually go there with the goal to radicalize, wouldn't it be better to fight the cause rather than the symptoms? It is more complicated to find out why all young British muslims hate Britain so much, but maybe measures that begin to fight these root causes would be more effective in the long term than ruining the job creators like British Airways by letting the state tell them where they can do business and where they can't. The market will know what is best.
Papewaio
12-10-2015, 20:48
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.
My guess is that this has a much higher cause and correlation with social media and local hangouts then the Hajj and Mecca.
The ones chasing Lesser Jihad are the standard drop out punks found around the world whilst the ones chansing the Greater Jihad are on the whole older, maybe wiser and a lot more likely to be scholars not martyrs.
Pannonian
12-10-2015, 21:21
Queue salafi journalists and aid workers in 3..2..
Point also being that I assume they usually go there with the goal to radicalize, wouldn't it be better to fight the cause rather than the symptoms? It is more complicated to find out why all young British muslims hate Britain so much, but maybe measures that begin to fight these root causes would be more effective in the long term than ruining the job creators like British Airways by letting the state tell them where they can do business and where they can't. The market will know what is best.
There is a sliding scale on the route to radicalisation. No doubt the security services are already trying their best to monitor social media. However, the internet is the internet, and blowhards are standard. However, once they actually summon up the effort to physically go to these places, it's fairly certain that they're pretty far down the road to radicalisation. Just as internet petitions are normally ignored, but physical letters are not, since the former requires no effort but the latter does, so social media isn't as clear a correlation with substantial radicalisation as physically going to these schools/training grounds in Pakistan, Syria, etc.
Of course, if you disagree, then I'd like to see your definition of what profile constitutes a potential threat, along with a way of defining it in practice. Saying that you should treat the root cause rather than the symptoms sounds good and dandy, until you notice that there is no counter proposal of how to treat or even recognise said root cause. Unless you want to do a Frag and say that Muslims full stop are the root cause.
Pannonian
12-10-2015, 21:35
My guess is that this has a much higher cause and correlation with social media and local hangouts then the Hajj and Mecca.
The ones chasing Lesser Jihad are the standard drop out punks found around the world whilst the ones chansing the Greater Jihad are on the whole older, maybe wiser and a lot more likely to be scholars not martyrs.
Among British Muslims, the main vectors of radicalisation are imported clerics, and youngsters wanting to learn more about their Muslim identity by going to religious schools in the Pashtun areas of Pakistan/Afghanistan. The first can be dealt with by blocking their entry here and deporting those who are preaching hate (Hookie has since been jailed for life in the US). How to you deal with the latter? Imprison them? Charge them? Blocking their re-entry is probably the mildest way of sanitising the threat, by allowing them to live how they want to live, and allowing us to live how we want to live.
Among British Muslims, the main radicalisation hotspot, at least in the past, has been Pakistan. Among the Paris attackers, it was Syria (and there seems to be evidence that ISIS are deliberately infiltrating troublemakers back into Europe after their radicalisation process in Syria). For the San Bernardino attackers, it was Saudi Arabia (and while you want to excuse Hajj and Mecca, note that the Saudi state is the biggest sponsor of Islamisation in the world, as well as of its worst aspects).
How would you define a profile of potential threats, and how would you practically profile them? What would you do with the profile?
Kralizec
12-10-2015, 23:04
Queue salafi journalists and aid workers in 3..2..
Point also being that I assume they usually go there with the goal to radicalize, wouldn't it be better to fight the cause rather than the symptoms? It is more complicated to find out why all young British muslims hate Britain so much, but maybe measures that begin to fight these root causes would be more effective in the long term than ruining the job creators like British Airways by letting the state tell them where they can do business and where they can't. The market will know what is best.
Shouldn't be hard. The employees of the Telegraph and Spiegel you let through. A company that some bloke registered two weeks ago with his parent's house as an adress? Pass.
It's mostly against the ones who return, though. You can't really stop them from going in the first place. More than a few have come crawling back here, admitted they were in Iraq or Syria but insisted they were just there to do good works. Some of them are stupid enough to pose with an AK-47 on facebook, but for others there might not be any proof.
Pannonian has said he wants to block them from coming back, but I don't believe that will work for legal and diplomatic reasons. Having some legal framework to toss them in jail, put them under house arrest or long term surveilance would be great.
Incidentally, I remember an article from a few months ago about ISIS deserters who returned to the countries where they grew up. The two most common reasons why they became dissatisfied were the all pervasive squalor in the caliphate, and secondly, that they saw ISIS commit atrocities against sunni muslims. I have a very low opinion of returnees for more than one reason.
AE Bravo
12-10-2015, 23:30
No good banning one of the positive forces of Islam, which is pilgrimage. Pilgrimage is the spiritual antithesis to jihad, if anything it serves to eradicate radical sentiment. You can't kill a fly in Makkah. You're solution is trying to replace what's actually positive about the religion with "British values" instead of seeking to reconcile them.
Makes no sense.
For the San Bernardino attackers, it was Saudi Arabia (and while you want to excuse Hajj and Mecca, note that the Saudi state is the biggest sponsor of Islamisation in the world, as well as of its worst aspects).
Shia Muslims, Indonesians, and Turkish go to Hajj. It's not really a center of Islamism, that's why IS wants to destroy the Kaaba. Their belief is that it's polytheism.
Pannonian
12-10-2015, 23:43
No good banning one of the positive forces of Islam, which is pilgrimage. Pilgrimage is the spiritual antithesis to jihad, if anything it serves to eradicate radical sentiment. You can't kill a fly in Makkah. You're solution is trying to replace what's actually positive about the religion with "British values" instead of seeking to reconcile them.
Makes no sense.
Shia Muslims, Indonesians, and Turkish go to Hajj. It's not really a center of Islamism, that's why IS wants to destroy the Kaaba. Their belief is that it's polytheism.
I never said anything about stopping them from going on pilgrimage. Let them go as they wish. But let them stay and find a home in their preferred world afterwards rather than return to find things to hate over here.
AE Bravo
12-11-2015, 03:10
So the point is that you don't want them to come back to their countries after a once in a lifetime nod to their beliefs.
Doesn't sound like "British values" to me. I doubt Brits share that sentiment anyway.
Of course, if you disagree, then I'd like to see your definition of what profile constitutes a potential threat, along with a way of defining it in practice. Saying that you should treat the root cause rather than the symptoms sounds good and dandy, until you notice that there is no counter proposal of how to treat or even recognise said root cause. Unless you want to do a Frag and say that Muslims full stop are the root cause.
I'm not doing social studies, this kind of work needs to be done by others.
I would assume however that the police and several other organizations already have a pretty good idea.
Your idea sounds more like "we can't be bothered as a society, so let's make a sweeping change to do anything at all...."
Shouldn't be hard. The employees of the Telegraph and Spiegel you let through. A company that some bloke registered two weeks ago with his parent's house as an adress? Pass.
It's mostly against the ones who return, though. You can't really stop them from going in the first place. More than a few have come crawling back here, admitted they were in Iraq or Syria but insisted they were just there to do good works. Some of them are stupid enough to pose with an AK-47 on facebook, but for others there might not be any proof.
Pannonian has said he wants to block them from coming back, but I don't believe that will work for legal and diplomatic reasons. Having some legal framework to toss them in jail, put them under house arrest or long term surveilance would be great.
Incidentally, I remember an article from a few months ago about ISIS deserters who returned to the countries where they grew up. The two most common reasons why they became dissatisfied were the all pervasive squalor in the caliphate, and secondly, that they saw ISIS commit atrocities against sunni muslims. I have a very low opinion of returnees for more than one reason.
I am not going to say that I sympathize a lot with them, but why not let the police/experts sort them out? Why do we need sweeping new laws to treat everybody of a certain group the same based on one single characteristic? What's next? A pre-crime unit?
It is interesting how people are always "defiant" and "won't change their way of life because of a terrorist attack" shortly after it happened, an then two weeks later everybody has a new anti-terror legislation in mind that we totally need to end terrorism once and for all by altering something....
Well, in France, 2 years ago (around), it was fashion to go in war against Assad. I (vaguely) remember newspaper comparing the same poeple we now scorn to the Internatianal Brigadists, ignoring de afcto they were suporting a Nazi-like ideology. Remember, it was the time of "moderate" Al-Nusra.
Pannonian
12-11-2015, 10:54
I'm not doing social studies, this kind of work needs to be done by others.
I would assume however that the police and several other organizations already have a pretty good idea.
Your idea sounds more like "we can't be bothered as a society, so let's make a sweeping change to do anything at all...."
I am not going to say that I sympathize a lot with them, but why not let the police/experts sort them out? Why do we need sweeping new laws to treat everybody of a certain group the same based on one single characteristic? What's next? A pre-crime unit?
It is interesting how people are always "defiant" and "won't change their way of life because of a terrorist attack" shortly after it happened, an then two weeks later everybody has a new anti-terror legislation in mind that we totally need to end terrorism once and for all by altering something....
I'd prefer it if those who are telling us off and telling us we need to accept these behaviours volunteer to take in the troublemakers instead. Practice what you preach. Petition your government to take in all the foreign students of the madrassas in Pakistan, who've travelled there from western countries to learn about their faith. Petition your government to take in (and not fob off on other countries) all the westerners who've travelled to Syria to learn about their faith. And so on. Oh, and cancel the Schengen area so you don't get to pass them on in the name of free movement. You take them in, and you keep them.
Pannonian
12-11-2015, 11:08
Shouldn't be hard. The employees of the Telegraph and Spiegel you let through. A company that some bloke registered two weeks ago with his parent's house as an adress? Pass.
It's mostly against the ones who return, though. You can't really stop them from going in the first place. More than a few have come crawling back here, admitted they were in Iraq or Syria but insisted they were just there to do good works. Some of them are stupid enough to pose with an AK-47 on facebook, but for others there might not be any proof.
Pannonian has said he wants to block them from coming back, but I don't believe that will work for legal and diplomatic reasons. Having some legal framework to toss them in jail, put them under house arrest or long term surveilance would be great.
Incidentally, I remember an article from a few months ago about ISIS deserters who returned to the countries where they grew up. The two most common reasons why they became dissatisfied were the all pervasive squalor in the caliphate, and secondly, that they saw ISIS commit atrocities against sunni muslims. I have a very low opinion of returnees for more than one reason.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-happens-to-former-isis-fighters
An article in the New Yorker from September this year. Of course, this paragraph is inaccurate now.
Most European jihadis returning from Syria and Iraq have no further violent aspirations, even if they continue to believe ISIS has accomplished their dream of a caliphate. To date, there has been only one major attack by a European returnee, at the Jewish Museum in Brussels, though a number of violent plots have been thwarted across the continent. Many young people who left Europe in 2012 and 2013 to fight against oppression—but not necessarily for freedom—in Syria, grew disenchanted as rifts between Sunni rebel groups caused them to begin killing one another. “I recognize that I have made bad decisions,” one returned Sharia4Belgium member told police. “I want to take my life back and provide for my family. I want to go back to study and look for work. This is the only thing that interests me now.”
This bit was charming too.
“I was a little bit angry that he touched the book,” Delefortrie told me, “because I know it’s a sacred book,” and now it was sullied by his father’s touch.
They've made their bed. They should lie in it.
So we should have shot all the Germans after WW2 (well most of them, minus the anti-nazi who survived the Death Camps, of course) as they voted for Hitler so "They,ve made their bed etc"...?
And even in the ones who survived the Camp, I am sure we would have find some who were Nazi at the start...
Then, we would have to congratulate the Communists and the SA who were Hitler's opponents, of course, and put them on power... Err, not...
Pannonian
12-11-2015, 19:44
So we should have shot all the Germans after WW2 (well most of them, minus the anti-nazi who survived the Death Camps, of course) as they voted for Hitler so "They,ve made their bed etc"...?
And even in the ones who survived the Camp, I am sure we would have find some who were Nazi at the start...
Then, we would have to congratulate the Communists and the SA who were Hitler's opponents, of course, and put them on power... Err, not...
The British who'd gone over to the Germans didn't fare too badly, but then there weren't many of them (fewer than 50 in total in a 6 year war, compared with some 700+ who've joined ISIS in the last year or two). IIRC they didn't face much more than short imprisonment. I can't imagine the French being too kind on their quislings though. Perhaps you can give me more details on what happened to Frenchmen who collaborated with the Germans. I know that Laval, for one, was executed, and Petain only escaped because he was old. Not that I'm advocating such harsh punishment as the French were wont to mete out to their traitors. The equivalent of what I advocate would be for British traitors to be permanently exiled from Britain. If that's too harsh, perhaps France could take them in in our stead. That would give you the high horse that you seem to want.
Greyblades
12-11-2015, 19:45
So we should have shot all the Germans after WW2 (well most of them, minus the anti-nazi who survived the Death Camps, of course) as they voted for Hitler so "They,ve made their bed etc"...?
And even in the ones who survived the Camp, I am sure we would have find some who were Nazi at the start...
Then, we would have to congratulate the Communists and the SA who were Hitler's opponents, of course, and put them on power... Err, not...
I dont get how that relates to the previous post.
"I dont get how that relates to the previous post." Really? Too bad...
"The equivalent of what I advocate would be for British traitors to be permanently exiled from Britain.":laugh4: I think it is a good and brilliant idea... So, a guy or a girl, guilty of terrorism or simply being stupid, should be brought back to the country from where he/she come from... To finish the sentence? So an Englo-Syrian who became a terrorst in Syria should be returned to Syria...Really a brilliant idea!!!! She/he will finish the training I suppose...
"That would give you the high horse that you seem to want" :laugh4: I was just saying it is one of the most illarious proposal I ever read in this kind of thing. Let the terrorist (or aprentice) free to roam, and if they want to come back, stop them to do so, so they won't have to face justice...
And yes, as well, to underline that no one is guilty untill proven to be, and even when guilty, there are degrees in the guilt...
And about the French who fought for the Nazi, the ones guilty of war-crimes and active collaboration with the ennemy were indeed JUDGED, then sentence, some with death penalty, some with prison. Here, we speak of a State, not what is called the Epuration wich was more or less a civil war with all the ugly sides of it.
And as you notice, none was sent in exile or deported, but when kept alive, were kept warm inside jails. It is what is justice is. Not perfect, but it did worked.
This was of course because the problem of the "malgrès-nous", always possible even if really and highly impossible in the case we are debating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malgr%C3%A9-nous
Some even wrote books about their experience (even if this one was not relly one of them if you read the book):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Soldier
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-12-2015, 03:05
So the point is that you don't want them to come back to their countries after a once in a lifetime nod to their beliefs.
Doesn't sound like "British values" to me. I doubt Brits share that sentiment anyway.
Taking one's religion seriously is rather the antithesis of British values.
Aside from that, it has been noted that some young Muslim men begin to radicalise after the Hajj. The issue seems to be that they get jolted into taking their religion and then they suddenly feel the need to wear desert robes and stop drinking or looking at lads' mags, then they get upset when their friends think they've gone off.
Anyway, you yourself have said that Saudi Arabia is the source of Salafism, it follows that we should limit exposure to these Salafists in Saudi Arabia.
Which is not to say that I'm in favour banning people who go on pilgrimage from returning to Britain but you yourself have provided some of the ammunition for this argument.
Pannonian
12-12-2015, 11:49
"I dont get how that relates to the previous post." Really? Too bad...
"The equivalent of what I advocate would be for British traitors to be permanently exiled from Britain.":laugh4: I think it is a good and brilliant idea... So, a guy or a girl, guilty of terrorism or simply being stupid, should be brought back to the country from where he/she come from... To finish the sentence? So an Englo-Syrian who became a terrorst in Syria should be returned to Syria...Really a brilliant idea!!!! She/he will finish the training I suppose...
"That would give you the high horse that you seem to want" :laugh4: I was just saying it is one of the most illarious proposal I ever read in this kind of thing. Let the terrorist (or aprentice) free to roam, and if they want to come back, stop them to do so, so they won't have to face justice...
And yes, as well, to underline that no one is guilty untill proven to be, and even when guilty, there are degrees in the guilt...
And about the French who fought for the Nazi, the ones guilty of war-crimes and active collaboration with the ennemy were indeed JUDGED, then sentence, some with death penalty, some with prison. Here, we speak of a State, not what is called the Epuration wich was more or less a civil war with all the ugly sides of it.
And as you notice, none was sent in exile or deported, but when kept alive, were kept warm inside jails. It is what is justice is. Not perfect, but it did worked.
This was of course because the problem of the "malgrès-nous", always possible even if really and highly impossible in the case we are debating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malgr%C3%A9-nous
Some even wrote books about their experience (even if this one was not relly one of them if you read the book):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Soldier
Goodness knows why you're talking about justice, as I'm not the one talking about them being hanged, drawn and quartererd, or any other kind of justice. I just don't want them here. I'm assuming that we have the right to control whom we admit into our borders. Unless you want that taken away from our national government as well.
Pannonian
12-12-2015, 11:57
Taking one's religion seriously is rather the antithesis of British values.
Aside from that, it has been noted that some young Muslim men begin to radicalise after the Hajj. The issue seems to be that they get jolted into taking their religion and then they suddenly feel the need to wear desert robes and stop drinking or looking at lads' mags, then they get upset when their friends think they've gone off.
Anyway, you yourself have said that Saudi Arabia is the source of Salafism, it follows that we should limit exposure to these Salafists in Saudi Arabia.
Which is not to say that I'm in favour banning people who go on pilgrimage from returning to Britain but you yourself have provided some of the ammunition for this argument.
One of the distinguishing signs is when the ostentatiously take the attitude that they're holier and more pious than thou, either through dress and action, or, as in the article I quoted above, when they think their parents aren't good enough for them. I couldn't believe my eyes at this.
“I was a little bit angry that he touched the book,” Delefortrie told me, “because I know it’s a sacred book,” and now it was sullied by his father’s touch.
For me, that's enough to confirm that the convert is an irredeemable scumbag. I don't care what your religion says. Short of some seriously inhuman actions (murder and such), one's parents are above any religion. If your religion says otherwise, you should be looking for another religion.
Pannonian
12-12-2015, 12:27
Such nonsense! And bizzare coming from you. This has been a very devout christian country, and a radical and revolutionary religious country.
The move to secular humanism has been dramatic in the last 100 years - but that's something that you have always been against.
I suppose, as a religious man, you shouldn't be expected to be rational.
Just because Britain has been devout in the past doesn't mean it is so now. There are cultural values that exist now that didn't exist 100 years ago. Football was a working class pastime 100 years ago, but now it's practically the national religion. The NHS is probably the most agreed on political issue in the UK, but it didn't exist 100 years ago.
The religious values that Britain adhered to in the past have been gradually taken over by secular humanist values, having begot most of them in the first place. What used to be called Christian values are now secular British values, divorced from their religious roots. In a way, ye olde England has replaced the Garden of Eden as the paradise that believers fix their sights on.
"I just don't want them here. I'm assuming that we have the right to control whom we admit into our borders. Unless you want that taken away from our national government as well." What you want is not always what you get... I understand your wish, and somewhere, hope it would be as simple as this. The problem in the ones who want to come-back, is in the "back" part. They are British. So, in order to stop them to come "back", if they have a double-nationality (so you immediately introduce a discrimination), you have to take the British one off them. Lot and lot of legal troubles if their parents are English, or their children.
I want nothing. UK signed international treaties, and if UK doesn't want retribution, UK has to honours them. In signing this treaties, this control had been taken away, long time ago, but it why you and I can travel all around the world...
AE Bravo
12-12-2015, 21:10
Aside from that, it has been noted that some young Muslim men begin to radicalise after the Hajj.
Noted only by you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erol-yayboke/does-the-hajj-radicalize-_b_4323216.html
Anyway, you yourself have said that Saudi Arabia is the source of Salafism, it follows that we should limit exposure to these Salafists in Saudi Arabia.
These are holy sites, they aren't Salafi. This is an Islamic neutral ground. There's no politicized sermons or sectarianism. I've never provided "ammunition" because it's well-known that these sites are the eye of the hurricane.
Kralizec
12-15-2015, 01:30
I am not going to say that I sympathize a lot with them, but why not let the police/experts sort them out? Why do we need sweeping new laws to treat everybody of a certain group the same based on one single characteristic? What's next? A pre-crime unit?
It is interesting how people are always "defiant" and "won't change their way of life because of a terrorist attack" shortly after it happened, an then two weeks later everybody has a new anti-terror legislation in mind that we totally need to end terrorism once and for all by altering something....
I'm happy to let the experts handle it, even if they think a soft approach is best. I'm not advocating sweeping new legislation, either.
I just don't have any respect for the returnees as a group. I despise their motives for going there in the first place and think that most come back for reasons that aren’t worth an applause, either.
So as I’ve said: if they return here, I’ll let the experts handle it the way they think is best. Maybe it would be beneficial to use the returnees for demotivational speeches, preventing others from going to Syria or Iraq.
But I perfectly understand why others want to prevent them from coming back. Part of me thinks it´s for the best that they stay true to their cause until they get incinerated by an F-16 or a MiG. Regardless of the security risk that returnees present.
(edit)
At first I referred to this report (http://icsr.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ICSR-Report-Victims-Perpertrators-Assets-The-Narratives-of-Islamic-State-Defectors.pdf). I had read about it before, and skimmed it before making this post. I thought that it was about ISIS defectors returning to Europe but actually the majority of the people interviewed seem to be from Syria and neighbouring countries.
Difficult, a lot of returnees went to Syria to topple Assad and came back when IS came into existance. These should get a second chance I think. Who goes now absolutily shouldn't.
Gilrandir
01-08-2016, 11:42
How to battle terrorism: the Italian way:
http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20151217-ASEAN-ECONOMIC-COMMUNITY-REALITY-CHECK/Viewpoints/Edward-N.-Luttwak-Italy-has-lessons-to-teach-in-counterterrorism
Shaka_Khan
01-14-2016, 05:37
Now we can see the Indonesian police at work.
Abaaoud told her he was proud of what he had done and claimed that some 90 others had travelled from Syria and were still in the Paris area.
[...]
Chillingly, Sonia says more attacks were to come, at a shopping centre, a police station and a nursery in La Defense business district in Paris.
Abaooud's exact words, she says were: "Some of the attacks were botched and I'm here to make sure there won't be any more that are botched."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35491902
Ominous.
Well, either he's right and the raids targeted all the wrong people (police have no clue) or he's boasting a bit to get more anti-terror laws passed.
Of course more are comming we willl just have to get used to that. Everybody sane understood that.
Whatever people may have understood, it would not be quite that specific.
"Paris terror attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam arrested in Brussels" Good. He should considered himself lucky he was in Belgium when they found him.
Quite funny: He wanted to blow himself up, but, errr, didn't... Was he afraid of a lost in translation about the virgins?
Gilrandir
03-20-2016, 10:25
"Paris terror attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam arrested in Brussels" Good. He should considered himself lucky he was in Belgium when they found him.
Quite funny: He wanted to blow himself up, but, errr, didn't... Was he afraid of a lost in translation about the virgins?
Even funnier: all this while he was living in Brussels.
"Paris terror attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam arrested in Brussels" Good. He should considered himself lucky he was in Belgium when they found him.
Quite funny: He wanted to blow himself up, but, errr, didn't... Was he afraid of a lost in translation about the virgins?
Never thought about having to eternally change diapers. Hey I didn't lie they are virgins.
But he probably changed his mind because it was better to postpone it
"Even funnier: all this while he was living in Brussels." Yeap. Apparently, his target was the Stade de France in Paris... Well, he probably go his map wrong... Didn't went to fight in IS either... Choices, choices...
"But he probably changed his mind because it was better to postpone it" Probably find out finally that virgins are over-rated?
Gilrandir
03-20-2016, 15:24
"Even funnier: all this while he was living in Brussels." Yeap.
I mean after his attack the most wanted man in Europe continued to live in the capital of Belgium and the capital of the EU and the police couldn't get at him.
Police couldn't find him, but just about everybody in Molenbeek, famous for it's enrichment of culture, knew he was there, and knew where.
"I mean after his attack the most wanted man in Europe continued to live in the capital of Belgium and the capital of the EU and the police couldn't get at him." Yeap, but this not really something someone can do about it. You can't have a cop in every house. And even so, some would be corrupted any way...
Can't have a cop in every house but it wasn't exactly a secret that just about the whole muslim community knew he was there. Most were just scared probably but there is little to be happy about.
Snowhobbit
03-21-2016, 14:10
Can't have a cop in every house but it wasn't exactly a secret that just about the whole muslim community knew he was there. Most were just scared probably but there is little to be happy about.
But if every Muslim knows then presumably the police will know also? What is the problem then? Every Muslim had access to a GPS tracker of the guy but refused to leave an anonymous tip?
"it wasn't exactly a secret that just about the whole muslim community knew he was there." Don't know this. What I know is it took years to dismantle the Action Direct (extreme left) movement when as fanatic Muslim criminals are caught in weeks... So, the inside job is much better in the case of Muslim criminals. I know it is not what you want the hear, but the "Muslim community", if one exists, is much more keen in cooperation with law enforcement than the native extremely radicalised left (or right, and not speaking of the ETA and others nationalists movements).
Police couldn't find him, but just about everybody in Molenbeek, famous for it's enrichment of culture, knew he was there, and knew where.
Molenbeek must be a really charming place. (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/653818/Molenbeek-terror-raid-Paris-attacks-Salah-Abdeslam-Belgium-riot-police)
Jesus, even our Dendropotamos looks more friendly to outsiders.
Molenbeek must be a really charming place. (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/653818/Molenbeek-terror-raid-Paris-attacks-Salah-Abdeslam-Belgium-riot-police)
Jesus, even our Dendropotamos looks more friendly to outsiders.
Nice ain't it, it's what happens when the politically-correct refuse to acknowledge an obvious problem. None of all this shit had to happen if it weren't for apoligists.
Brenus, muslim community is terrified of these guys, rightfully so
"muslim community is terrified of these guys, rightfully so" Oh, I don't doubt of it. The problem is the "Muslim Community" is as well responsible for it, when the "communities leaders" refused to condemned the various fatwas by extremists, when endorsing hidjab, when refusing to adopt the host countries laws, etc. The term itself of community favoured the emergence of such movement(s).
Let face it: all religions, if should apply to association status law, would be refused on the grounds of their Holly Book(s) as none of them recognise equality in gender, advocate discrimination (by nature, followers/none followers) and violence (even at low level).
You know, the sentence like "they push too far but they have a point", all is in the but. We have/had it in the forum. They shouldn't but... Victims shouldn't tell what they think because it offends, and to offend fanatic criminals is dangerous, and dangerous fanatics have a point as in their view, every one else is offending just by the fact they think and breath.
So, after all these years of soft acceptance of criminal and outlawed concepts and idea, the "Muslim Community" is now paying the price. They can be terrified, their children (some of them) became ISIL, but during years, they though it was all right to oppress and kill (or not condemning) minorities, apostates, females etc. The danger they saw was not religious extremism but laicism, atheism, feminism, freedom of though and choices.
And we let them thinking this. Even now, some think that what we need is more religion, not less religion, as religions allegedly give moral compass(es). Right, it is morally acceptable to push gays from high building, to crucify apostate, to burn alive others because, well, the BOOK allowed it.
I am not saying that we have to let the "Muslim Community" down because they are partially responsible for this. But we have to stop to be blinded to what is written in Holly Books (in general) and start to see the reality of religions, and how it can be interpreted. So we can put preachers advocating against universal Human right in a Court, they can be convicted and sentence for not respecting Constitutions and Laws. And Religions shouldn't be exempted of following the law...
Oh I don't disagree, two booms in Brussels a few minutes ago
Papewaio
03-22-2016, 10:57
To paraphrase "The love of religion is the root of all evil"
Gilrandir
03-23-2016, 13:38
Let face it: all religions, if should apply to association status law, would be refused on the grounds of their Holly Book(s) as none of them recognise equality in gender, advocate discrimination (by nature, followers/none followers) and violence (even at low level).
I don't have a deep knowledge of buddism, but it seems to differ in all those points mentioned from other major religions.
And we let them thinking this. Even now, some think that what we need is more religion, not less religion, as religions allegedly give moral compass(es). Right, it is morally acceptable to push gays from high building, to crucify apostate, to burn alive others because, well, the BOOK allowed it.
To paraphrase "The love of religion is the root of all evil"
Once again: everyone chooses in any holy book/religion what chimes with his inner soul.
Pannonian
03-23-2016, 13:49
I don't have a deep knowledge of buddism, but it seems to differ in all those points mentioned from other major religions.
Once again: everyone chooses in any holy book/religion what chimes with his inner soul.
According to ISIS, paying tax to them is also an important part of their religion, even for countries far away from traditional Muslim heartlands such as Belgium.
Strike For The South
03-23-2016, 15:23
To paraphrase "The love of religion is the root of all evil"
This is a false equivalence.
Let me rephrase, your implication is a false equivalence.
Shaka_Khan
03-23-2016, 16:34
"Paris terror attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam arrested in Brussels" Good. He should considered himself lucky he was in Belgium when they found him.
Quite funny: He wanted to blow himself up, but, errr, didn't... Was he afraid of a lost in translation about the virgins?
I noticed that the terrorist leaders don't do the suicide bombings. Osama is one example.
"I don't have a deep knowledge of buddism, but it seems to differ in all those points mentioned from other major religions." Yeah, except not. Technically Buddhism isn't a religion in stricto sensus, then http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306, unfortunately, no human ideology is free of violence.
Gilrandir
03-26-2016, 14:39
Technically Buddhism isn't a religion in stricto sensus
Evidently, your "sensus" is at variance with the mainstream opinion.
http://www.everystudent.com/features/connecting.html
Buddhism and its beliefs
Buddhists do not worship any gods or God. People outside of Buddhism often think that Buddhists worship the Buddha. However, the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) never claimed to be divine, but rather he is viewed by Buddhists as having attained what they are also striving to attain, which is spiritual enlightenment and, with it, freedom from the continuous cycle of life and death. Most Buddhists believe a person has countless rebirths, which inevitably include suffering. A Buddhist seeks to end these rebirths. Buddhists believe it is a person's cravings, aversion and delusion that cause these rebirths. Therefore, the goal of a Buddhist is to purify one's heart and to let go of all yearnings toward sensual desires and the attachment to oneself.
Buddhists follow a list of religious principles and very dedicated meditation. When a Buddhist meditates it is not the same as praying or focusing on a god, it is more of a self-discipline. Through practiced meditation a person may reach Nirvana -- "the blowing out" of the flame of desire.
Buddhism provides something that is true of most major religions: disciplines, values and directives that a person may want to live by.
And what was not mentioned in the article - Buddhists have temples.
Thus, all prerequisites to be considered a religion.
unfortunately, no human ideology is free of violence.
As far as Buddhism is concerned, you confuse ideology with practical application of it. The violence described in the article has no bearing on the ideology itself. Or can you quote some tenet of buddhism that encourahes violence?
"Evidently, your "sensus" is at variance with the mainstream opinion" Often happened, but I am often right. Religion is not a link with the divine with the extended version of divine provided by your link, but the link between God and it/his/her/their creatures. Buddha never claim to be a prophet or representing a divinity, so Buddhism is part of a bigger religion as Wahhabi, Sufism (having their own temples as well) are part of Islam. Same for Christianity were Catholicism, Eastern Christians and other various Protestant Sects are part of it, have their own rites and temples, but are part of the maim stream.
I suggest you read the subtitle of your provided link, that will explain their version (A Safe Place to Explore Questions About Life and God:laugh4:).
"Buddhists have temples. Thus, all prerequisites to be considered a religion." Nope. The prerequistes to be considered a religion is to worship a divinity/ies. Some Sects would tell that nature is a Temple. Remember: Link with the Divinity/ies.
"According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s." in http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion
"As far as Buddhism is concerned, you confuse ideology with practical application of it." :laugh4: That is because I consider only the practical application... That is the only way to judge. Communism in theory was perfect, however the application in China, and USSR was far from the tenets of it and rightly put to sleep. And Buddha did not refuse killing if it is the right action to do, and some of Buddhists advocate that killing communist was a necessary violence. I could provide more samples, but you have access like me to internet.
Gilrandir
03-27-2016, 11:01
"Evidently, your "sensus" is at variance with the mainstream opinion" Often happened, but I am often right. Religion is not a link with the divine with the extended version of divine provided by your link, but the link between God and it/his/her/their creatures. Buddha never claim to be a prophet or representing a divinity, so Buddhism is part of a bigger religion as Wahhabi, Sufism (having their own temples as well) are part of Islam. Same for Christianity were Catholicism, Eastern Christians and other various Protestant Sects are part of it, have their own rites and temples, but are part of the maim stream.
Buddha was not a divinity nor prophet, yet some temples are proud to exhibit his body parts (namely teeth). Which kinda transforms him into a figure to be worshipped. Thus, whatever the differences between Buddhism and "hard core" religions maybe, it is still a religion/confession.
"Buddhists have temples. Thus, all prerequisites to be considered a religion." Nope. The prerequistes to be considered a religion is to worship a divinity/ies. Some Sects would tell that nature is a Temple. Remember: Link with the Divinity/ies.
Most religions have places to perform a service/worship at and/or places were adherents stay indefinitely to spend their life in prayers. Buddhism has both - temples and monasteries. Ergo: Buddhism is a religion.
"According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s." in http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion
Etymology can't always explain the current meaning of the word. Some words preserve their meaning thus etymology is helpful, other don't (girl in Old English meant a child of any sex, husband meant the master of the house). So involving etymology is of doubtful value as an argument.
"Buddha was not a divinity nor prophet," So not a religion.
"yet some temples are proud to exhibit his body parts" So do some Churches and Cathedrals (Holy Relics in various Countries) which doesn't make them a religion.
"So involving etymology is of doubtful value as an argument" :laugh4: That is the ONLY way. A religion is something fulfilling the definition of religion... And Buddhism isn't, no more than Janseism, Sufism, or atheism.:laugh4:
Gilrandir
03-27-2016, 14:52
"yet some temples are proud to exhibit his body parts" So do some Churches and Cathedrals (Holy Relics in various Countries) which doesn't make them a religion.
So those are not religious buildings?
"So involving etymology is of doubtful value as an argument" :laugh4: That is the ONLY way. A religion is something fulfilling the definition of religion...
You again confuse - this time etymology and definition. The etymology of the word geometry is the science about the measuring of land. Yet modern definition of it has nothing to do with land measuring.
And Buddhism isn't, no more than Janseism, Sufism, or atheism.:laugh4:
Jansenism and Sufism stemmed from mainstream religions and are teachings within the framework of the corresponding confessions.
Jansenism is a kind of Catholicism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenism)
Jansenism was a Catholic theological movement, primarily in France, that emphasized original sin, human depravity, the necessity of divine grace, and predestination.
Sufism is a kind of Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism)
Sufism or Tasawwuf (Arabic: تصوف), is defined as the inner mystical dimension of Islam. Practitioners of Sufism (Tasawwuf), referred to as Sufis (ṣūfī) (/ˈsuːfi/; صُوفِيّ), often belong to different ṭuruq or "orders"—congregations formed around a grand master referred to as a Mawla who maintains a direct chain of teachers back to the Prophet Muhammad. These orders meet for spiritual sessions (majalis) in meeting places known as zawiyahs, khanqahs, or tekke. Sufis strive for ihsan (perfection of worship) as detailed in a hadith: "Ihsan is to worship Allah as if you see Him; if you can't see Him, surely He sees you."
And do atheists have temples like Buddhists?
"Jansenism and Sufism stemmed from mainstream religions and are teachings within the framework of the corresponding confessions." Err, yeah, that is my point. Your point is Buddhism isn't a stream of a main Religion, but a religion.
"So those are not religious buildings?" Yes they are, but they are not part of a separate religion.
So what are your points? Buddhism is a separation of Hinduism (both are pantheist), as Protestantism is a separation of Catholicism (both are Christian). You mix Churches and Religions, I think.
"And do atheists have temples like Buddhists?" Nope, as atheism is not a religion. Buddhists being part of a religion as Shia and Sunnites are, and no one pretend these last two are from a different religion.
Gilrandir
03-28-2016, 11:23
"Jansenism and Sufism stemmed from mainstream religions and are teachings within the framework of the corresponding confessions." Err, yeah, that is my point. Your point is Buddhism isn't a stream of a main Religion, but a religion.
All traditional classifications acknowledge Buddhism and Hinduism as separate religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Largest_religions
So what are your points? Buddhism is a separation of Hinduism (both are pantheist), as Protestantism is a separation of Catholicism (both are Christian).
Buddhists being part of a religion as Shia and Sunnites are, and no one pretend these last two are from a different religion.
You again go for origin instead of the current status. Originally some religions may have had common roots (like Judaism and Christianity, or, in our case, Hinduism and Buddhism) yet at present they are different religions. If they stay within the same framework, there is a holonym which includes some partonyms. For example, Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox are Christians, Shias and Sunnis are both Muslims. Hinduists and Buddhists don't have such an umbrella name which would include both. Including both into the category of pantheists is wrong.
Pantheism is not a religion. It is a belief that God is everywhere and everything is/has God. This belief is opposed to monotheism and polytheism. Within each there are distinct religions (monotheistic are Christianity, Islam and Judaism, polytheistic are Scandinavian, Greek and Roman (pagan) religions), and some religions contain a mix of those three (Hinduism combines pantheism and polytheism). Now Buddhism denies the existence of the Deity, which in this respect makes it closer to atheism. Yet it has its temples, priests, monasteries, monks, rites and practices which are distinct from others (including Hinduism), thus making it a separate religion.
"Pantheism is not a religion. It is a belief that God is everywhere and everything is/has God." True. So is Buddhism. You finally agree with me.
Gilrandir
03-29-2016, 20:22
"Pantheism is not a religion. It is a belief that God is everywhere and everything is/has God." True. So is Buddhism. You finally agree with me.
I'm not going to react to your trolling and repeat once again arguments about temples, rites, priests and so on. I have referred to the mainstream classification(s) of religions which ALWAYS include Buddhism. If you don't agree to what the world thinks, well, it's your choice.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-30-2016, 14:22
"Pantheism is not a religion. It is a belief that God is everywhere and everything is/has God." True. So is Buddhism. You finally agree with me.
Actually Buddhism, strictly speaking, is a metaphysical system (not a religion) that excludes the existence of "God" as generally understood. In pure Buddhist thought Brahman is not God, he is simply the most enlightened being. In fact, according to Buddhist Metaphysics Brahman is actually the first being to fall from Nirvana, he thereby achieves self awareness and when other being fall and rejoin him on the lower run of existence he believes he created them. When other being fall still further they look up to the more enlightened Brahman and call him "God".
To be sure, there are people who hold beliefs similar to Buddhist metaphysics who DO believe in God as we in the West understand Him but they are a later splinter sect who re-incorporated elements of Hinduism into the religion. There are also "Buddhist Christians", which is really bizarre.
Gilrandir
03-30-2016, 16:18
Actually Buddhism, strictly speaking, is a metaphysical system (not a religion) that excludes the existence of "God" as generally understood.
Yet other metaphysical systems don't have such apanages of a religion which Buddhism has: palces of worship, priests, monks, rites and flock. I agree, though, that Buddhism is not a TYPICAL religion, yet a religion it stays.
Yet again a truth by repetition from Gilrandir...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-30-2016, 21:44
Yet again a truth by repetition from Gilrandir...
You would sound pithier if you hadn't just demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the belief system under discussion, and Gilrandir does have a point - even purist Buddhism has temples and monks.
"even purist Buddhism has temples and monks." Yeap. It is a system of belief. Still doesn't qualify as a religion, which definition is the link between the creator and the created.
A lot of systems of belief have (had) the equivalent of temples and monks, that doesn't make them religions.
Note that I used his definition.
You just demonstrated your lack of understanding of the definition of a system of belief and a religion.
http://takimag.com/article/surrendering_to_death_gavin_mcinnes/print#axzz48htV9Ztd
Interview with the lead singer of the band, read some things I didn't read before. A lot of people must have known about it.
Yeah this is shocking and 2 months before the massacre the venue was sold by aristocratic israeli jews to someone else maybe mossad knew about this operation and told them. The bataclan had been attacked by muslims before for holding pro-israel. The army of Islam said this venue was attacked because the owners are jews?
They were in the venue early. That implies some staff were in on it.
I got in a lot of trouble for saying that. I know for sure that they were in there early. I remember them staring at my buddy. I just chalked it up to Arab envy. You know what I mean? When a Muslim sees a cocky American dude with tattoos, he stares at him. I realized later it was Abdeslam and he was staring at my buddy because they thought he was a threat. There’s no denying the terrorists were already inside, and they had to get in somehow. During the shooting I went outside and the backstage door was propped open. How did that happen?
Not going to get into eveythring, but it kinda baffles me that islamism isn't seen as the creeping poisen that it is. Western eyes aren't equiped to understand it. It baffles friends of mine who are from there, andd the total inanability to acknwoledege an uncomortatable truth amazes me as well, again and again and again. Islam is not peace. Those who think it is are screwing over people who were just not born there, congratulation with your satisfaction. Things are going great here as well no. It's only a matter of time before the sleepers are activated, and it's going to hurt.
Not going to get into eveythring, but it kinda baffles me that islamism isn't seen as the creeping poisen that it is.
Your terrible typing skills aside, did you find 3 pot-smoking hippies who told you islamists are people too and then assumed that the mainstream loves islamists? What are all the secret services doing with their islamist watchlists? What do you want? Concentration camps? Islamist burnings? Did you know that about 30000 people die every year in Germany from bad air, so if you own a car with a combustion engine and use it often, you're a murderer. I also heard that peanut oil is carcinogenic. Why is it acceptable to kill people with car exhausts and peanut oil? Because they're useful? So who are islamists useful to? Nationalists? Why are nationalists poor and unemployed then? Follow the money? Who makes most money with peanut oil? The gun lobby?
Your terrible typing skills aside, did you find 3 pot-smoking hippies who told you islamists are people too and then assumed that the mainstream loves islamists? What are all the secret services doing with their islamist watchlists? What do you want? Concentration camps? Islamist burnings? Did you know that about 30000 people die every year in Germany from bad air, so if you own a car with a combustion engine and use it often, you're a murderer. I also heard that peanut oil is carcinogenic. Why is it acceptable to kill people with car exhausts and peanut oil? Because they're useful? So who are islamists useful to? Nationalists? Why are nationalists poor and unemployed then? Follow the money? Who makes most money with peanut oil? The gun lobby?
You know nothing Hussie, a good Marrocan friend of mine had two nightclubs in Utrecht and a few coffeeshops in Amsterdam, his little brother orders whores from Miami, he can do that because he is the captain of Maracco's national team and also plays for Russian clubs, he makes 15 million a year. My mate isn't getting any of that because he is an outcast in his family because he REALY dislikes islam. Feel free to ask him why he is only 2.20 meters high.
edit 2.10
You know nothing Hussie, a good Marrocan friend of mine had two nightclubs in Utrecht and a few coffeeshops in Amsterdam, his little brother orders whores from Miami, he can do that because he is the captain of Maracco's national team and also plays for Russian clubs, he makes 15 million a year. My mate isn't getting any of that because he is an outcast in his family because he REALY dislikes islam. Feel free to ask him why he is only 2.20 meters high.
edit 2.10
Obviously because the EU has taken away his high with the war on drugs.
Obviously because the EU has taken away his high with the war on drugs.
lol war on real-estsate you must mean, there isn't really anything you can do against it, what is your's isn't your's when they want it
lol war on real-estsate you must mean, there isn't really anything you can do against it, what is your's isn't your's when they want it
You can always have a company in Panama.
You can always have a company in Panama.
Why settle for that when you can be in royal company on the Kaaiman-isles, if you have to evade taxes at least do it good. There aren't going to be any Kaaiman-Isles papers.
Papewaio
05-17-2016, 04:40
"even purist Buddhism has temples and monks." Yeap. It is a system of belief. Still doesn't qualify as a religion, which definition is the link between the creator and the created.
A lot of systems of belief have (had) the equivalent of temples and monks, that doesn't make them religions.
Note that I used his definition.
You just demonstrated your lack of understanding of the definition of a system of belief and a religion.
Actually you just demonstrated a lack of understanding based on an Abrahamic worldview. A religion doesn't need to have a creator, it is a set of beliefs on the relationship of the worshipper and the world and has metaphysical aspects. Wiki it don't just take my anti religion view on it...
Buddhism is listed as one of the major religions so I don't see how your plank in eye outweighs 500 million adherents?
HopAlongBunny
05-17-2016, 12:51
You could add that it is a faith based system.
The two main strains: devotional and mystical; each having a definite element of faith.
In the first, that the Buddha did exist and continues to exist. Sworn to continue in connection with this reality until all sentient beings escape; thus the Buddha can be prayed to, and may aid a devotee.
In the second, that enlightenment (whatever it is) is possible and that one may possibly achieve it.
Best to put it here I guess. Really nasty attack in Baghdad over 200 confirmed dead already and many wounded My condoleances what a nightmare.
Greyblades
07-15-2016, 23:53
What the fuck is this.
France ‘Suppressed Reports of Gruesome Torture’ at Bataclan Massacre (http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/)
– A French government committee has heard testimony, suppressed by the French government at the time and not published online until this week, that the killers in the Bataclan appear to have tortured their victims on the second floor of the club.
The chief police witness in Parliament testified that on the night of the attacks, an investigating officer, tears streaming down his face, rushed out of the Bataclan and vomited in front of him just after seeing the disfigured bodies.
The 14-hour testimony about the November attacks took place March 21st.[..]
[...]and the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.[...]
[...]The news follows reports that German police sat on the huge number of sexual assaults committed by Islamist migrants in Cologne, which a secret report estimated at thousands, not hundreds.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-16-2016, 05:13
What the fuck is this.
France ‘Suppressed Reports of Gruesome Torture’ at Bataclan Massacre (http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/)
Come now, are you really that surprised?
"Cruelty is the tantrum of frustrated power." -- R.G.H. Siu
What the fuck is this.
France ‘Suppressed Reports of Gruesome Torture’ at Bataclan Massacre (http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/)
In France's case it's for the best that they didn't tell about the torture, things are hard enough as it is, it's best that families don't know. You don't always have to tell what really happened. What Germany did and still does s really ugly though, they are messing with numbers. The childles mutti's little children's crimes are ignored when they can. That's not what I say but what the frustrated German police says themselve, they are not allowed to do their job if it involves the childless Mutti's little children.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.