...you do know the troubles have been over for about 20-30 years right?
Printable View
...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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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
Angry much?
Did the vatican teach people how to create bombs? Or for that matter encourage violence against protestants?Quote:
2. We didn't ban Catholic's going to the Vatican even at the height of the Troubles.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
We have multiple examples of middle east visits radicalizing western muslims. Its a bit late to start trying to declare the concept absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
They follow the same logics that vaccinators offer. Why call it false?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
The maths of vaccination is quite different - and depends on which disease is being vaccinated against.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It's not a proven disease carrier. It's just a correlation.
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.Quote:
It's not a proven disease carrier. It's just a correlation.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.
That would make you ignorant of international human rights, so I believe you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I don't think those word mean what you think they mean.Quote:
It's unworkable, counter-productive and nonsensical.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What if they want to make another Haj? In this case piety will look a crime. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
"If I had family in East Germany..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Pretty much, not all muslims are islamic terrorists but all islamic terrorists are muslim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The medical analogy falls apart a bit as in medicine even those who are immune to a disease are still capable of being carriers.
Go on - if you had a family in East Germany... what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Those word? Whose word?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Theirs word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I don't have any fundamental objection, I just question wether it's proportional or even necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.../p2p-85270297/
nice gesture from the muslim community
Queue salafi journalists and aid workers in 3..2..Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
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.
My guess is that this has a much higher cause and correlation with social media and local hangouts then the Hajj and Mecca.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
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.
I'm not doing social studies, this kind of work needs to be done by others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...-isis-fightersQuote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
An article in the New Yorker from September this year. Of course, this paragraph is inaccurate now.
This bit was charming too.Quote:
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.”
They've made their bed. They should lie in it.Quote:
“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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I dont get how that relates to the previous post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
"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
Taking one's religion seriously is rather the antithesis of British values.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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.Quote:
“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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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...
Noted only by you.Quote:
Originally Posted by PFH
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erol-y...b_4323216.html
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.
.Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
How to battle terrorism: the Italian way:
http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/2015...unterterrorism
Now we can see the Indonesian police at work.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35491902Quote:
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."
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?
Even funnier: all this while he was living in Brussels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Never thought about having to eternally change diapers. Hey I didn't lie they are virgins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
"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).
Molenbeek must be a really charming place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
@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
To paraphrase "The love of religion is the root of all evil"
I don't have a deep knowledge of buddism, but it seems to differ in all those points mentioned from other major religions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Once again: everyone chooses in any holy book/religion what chimes with his inner soul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
This is a false equivalence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Let me rephrase, your implication is a false equivalence.
I noticed that the terrorist leaders don't do the suicide bombings. Osama is one example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
"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.