Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

Nodin

Saipanne wrote: »

This probably makes sense in your mind, I'm sure.

The Daily Mail/Express and other papers used to say something very along the lines of

'Could they not work with the authorities to identify extremists in their community?

Is that asking too much? I don't think it is, considering that they clearly condemn such people.

Moderate Irish people should be ostracising these people, since they dislike them so much?'

Why was that simplistic nonsense? Why did it not work?

bodice ripper

BoatMad wrote: »

only if you hold dual nationalities, a practice that is only tolerated by a few countries ( one being ireland )

You can claim to be sympathetically attached to a " mother land ", but that is all it is, an attachment.

Your nationality is defined by a set of rules.

So one's perception of national identity is dependent on recognition from the government? Sure, that doesn't sound like simplistic drivel.


Have you such an attachment? You know, so you could speak about how deep that attachment does or doesn't run? Are your parents from the same country you were born in?

Paramite Pie

Nodin wrote: »

I doubt you've any interest in seeing it.

I think he may have a point. Think of Northern Ireland and how many communities that silently supported the various bombings. So a rephrase;

"If extreme Republicanism is a snake, moderate Republicanism is the grass that protects it."

That statement would be accepted by a lot of people as being true. Muslims are no different than any other people who what is true for many Irish especially in NI, or what's true for many Basques regarding ETA is likely to be through for many muslims.

Since Muslims obviously aren't any different than us they'll have the same issues with terrorist sympathies that we had on this island. The number of people who may turn a blind eye to ISIS in they're own community is a matter of genuine concern regardless how the Far-Right will use that doubt for their own ends.

Many people are playing down these concerns not for the benefit of Muslims but because they don't want to concede ground to the Right.

stefanovich

Bosnian Muslims break minutes silence for France at Aviva today.
http://www.joe.ie/sport/video-fan-footage-of-bosnian-fans-shouting-during-minutes-silence-for-paris-victims/519740

Foxtrol

Nodin wrote: »

The Daily Mail/Express and other papers used to say something very along the lines of

'Could they not work with the authorities to identify extremists in their community?

Is that asking too much? I don't think it is, considering that they clearly condemn such people.

Moderate Irish people should be ostracising these people, since they dislike them so much?'

Why was that simplistic nonsense? Why did it not work?

Because whether it’s to do with fear, intimidation, agreeing with the terrorists, not wanting to report their own there wasn’t as much work with the police as there could and should have been.

Sure it’s still the case in some parts, there was a man killed in a crowded pub a few years ago and miraculously not one person saw a thing.

If they (or those up north in their case) are so outraged by what is happening it is up to them to step forward or else their words are hollow.

My name is URL

stefanovich wrote: »

Bosnian Muslims break minutes silence for France at Aviva today.
http://www.joe.ie/sport/video-fan-footage-of-bosnian-fans-shouting-during-minutes-silence-for-paris-victims/519740

How do you know he was muslim? Doesn't mention anything of the sort in the article

Did you also conclude that the Irish fans booing back were all popish catholics?

BoatMad

So one's perception of national identity is dependent on recognition from the government? Sure, that doesn't sound like simplistic drivel.

a perception of national identity is completely different to the facts of ones actual national identity.

to return to the issue you raised. Its entirely appropriate for say a News organisation to describe the terrorists as French or Belgian, They are certainly not Syrian nationals or from other countries

The tendency for people like you to argue otherwise , is a process of de-humanisation, the creation of a narrative that says they are from " outside" or foreign . The same took place in the US when Hussein was referred to as " Sod-om" an obvious attempted reference

This dehumanisation is a crutch , to allow us to overlook the fact that these people came from our midst and acted against us.

Saipanne

Nodin wrote: »

The Daily Mail/Express and other papers used to say something very along the lines of

'Could they not work with the authorities to identify extremists in their community?

Is that asking too much? I don't think it is, considering that they clearly condemn such people.

Moderate Irish people should be ostracising these people, since they dislike them so much?'

Why was that simplistic nonsense? Why did it not work?

That's an interesting point. I'd imagine the Irish didn't do it, to protect their own kind. They probably saw the British as enemies and the equivalent of infidels. Perhaps Muslims think the same way. If that is true, then it means Muslims don't give a shït about IS, and probably see them as heroes. If that is true, the next ten years will certainly be interesting in Europe...

BoatMad

Saipanne wrote: »

That's an interesting point. I'd imagine the Irish didn't do it, to protect their own kind. They probably saw the British as enemies and the equivalent of infidels. Perhaps Muslims think the same way. If that is true, then it means Muslims don't give a shït about IS, and probably see them as heroes. If that is true, the next ten years will certainly be interesting in Europe...

Its a little more complex. Collective groups that have a common identity tend to be very reluctant to inform on each other. Its not that they have a common enemy , its that they feel a sense of betrayal of that identify in informing . Its why Guards don't out wrong doers in their ranks , for example, even though there is no obvious " enemy ". There is a collegiate bond between such individuals.

it requires quite a significant breakdown in society to generate a feeling that informing is acceptable, East Germany managed it for a time

So just because they dont choose to inform, does not mean they support IS

Saipanne

BoatMad wrote: »

Its a little more complex. Collective groups that have a common identity tend to be very reluctant to inform on each other. Its not that they have a common enemy , its that they feel a sense of betrayal of that identify in informing . Its why Guards don't out wrong doers in their ranks , for example, even though there is no obvious " enemy "

it requires quite a significant breakdown in society to generate a feeling that informing is acceptable, East Germany managed it for a time

Yeah, you're probably right. The next decade could be very grim indeed.

R P McMurphy

Saipanne wrote: »

That's an interesting point. I'd imagine the Irish didn't do it, to protect their own kind. They probably saw the British as enemies and the equivalent of infidels. Perhaps Muslims think the same way. If that is true, then it means Muslims don't give a shït about IS, and probably see them as heroes. If that is true, the next ten years will certainly be interesting in Europe...

Or perhaps the authorities were colluding with paramilarities to kill them

wendell borton

One of the victims was a descendent of Robert Emmets brother.

"A young lawyer who was among the first to be identified as a victim of last Friday night’s atrocities in Paris had strong Irish republican connections.
Valentin Ribet (26), an anti-corruption lawyer, had been at the Bataclan concert when he was killed. He had been working for the firm Hogan Lovells, specialising in white-collar crime."
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/victim-of-paris-attack-was-descended-from-irish-patriot-1.2432478

BoatMad

Saipanne wrote: »

Yeah, you're probably right. The next decade could be very grim indeed.

yes , the West will be faced with with very unpalatable choices. Primarily to put aside this recently acquired layer of tolerance and liberalism and return to decisions that are based on self preservation.

Decisions to prosecute the various wars in the middle east to their logical conclusion will have far reaching effects in minority communities in Europe. Victimhood is a powerful emotion.

We will see further atrocities and a partial militarisation of European society to a level not seen since the 1930s I suspect

Nodin

Saipanne wrote: »

That's an interesting point. I'd imagine the Irish didn't do it, to protect their own kind. They probably saw the British as enemies and the equivalent of infidels. Perhaps Muslims think the same way. If that is true, then it means Muslims don't give a shït about IS, and probably see them as heroes. If that is true, the next ten years will certainly be interesting in Europe...

Or because they were busy getting on with their lives, did not not have the names of everybody in the RA because they were a covert subversive organisation that had its own agenda and wasn't waiting on poll results to see what they should do next. Like various similar situations around the world. You see now?

Saipanne

BoatMad wrote: »

yes , the West will be faced with with very unpalatable choices. Primarily to put aside this recently acquired layer of tolerance and liberalism and return to decisions that are based on self preservation.

Decisions to prosecute the various wars in the middle east to their logical conclusion will have far reaching effects in minority communities in Europe. Victimhood is a powerful emotion.

We will see further atrocities and a partial militarisation of European society to a level not seen since the 1930s I suspect

Yep, I see a swing to the far right, if the current situation continues. People are barred from asking important questions for fear of being intolerant, which means this will simply continue on and on, getting worse and worse.

Bannasidhe

Saipanne wrote: »

Yep, I see a swing to the far right, if the current situation continues. People are barred from asking important questions for fear of being intolerant, which means this will simply continue on and on, getting worse and worse.

Who is barring people from asking important questions?
Can you give an example of what you mean by 'important'?

BoatMad

Nodin wrote: »

Or because they were busy getting on with their lives, did not not have the names of everybody in the RA because they were a covert subversive organisation that had its own agenda and wasn't waiting on poll results to see what they should do next. Like various similar situations around the world. You see now?

I was more referring to the period 1916-1922. Though its clear my comments would apply to Nothern ireland

Orangebrigade

It will carry on because behind closed doors a hell of a lot of Muslims just turn a blind eye to the issues within Islam and the violence of groups like ISIS. A lot of Muslims might not like it but they sure as hell don't go out of their way to make that clear.

Compared to street protests against Israel but I think we can guess why that is.

Peist2007

stefanovich wrote: »

Someone in the Bosnian end break minutes silence for France at Aviva today.
http://www.joe.ie/sport/video-fan-footage-of-bosnian-fans-shouting-during-minutes-silence-for-paris-victims/519740

FYP there to remove obvious prejudice

BoatMad

Saipanne wrote: »

Yep, I see a swing to the far right, if the current situation continues. People are barred from asking important questions for fear of being intolerant, which means this will simply continue on and on, getting worse and worse.

I dont think that there will be a swing to the left or right as a result of the actions in the middle east,

More I think you see a militarisation of society, increased police presence, removals of certain liberties, greater scrutiny of the general public. This is as likely to be carried out by left wing as much as right wing governments . Europe will need a drastic increase in its military budget as well

The immigrant/ refugee issue is already decided, Europe is closing its doors already

BoatMad

Orangebrigade wrote: »

It will carry on because behind closed doors a hell of a lot of Muslims just turn a blind eye to the issues within Islam and the violence of groups like ISIS. A lot of Muslims might not like it but they sure as hell don't go out of their way to make that clear.

Compared to street protests against Israel but I think we can guess why that is.

NO, why ?

Orangebrigade

BoatMad wrote: »

NO, why ?

Historic reasons, mainly Israel is for Jews or represents what they see as Jewish.

Baggy Trousers

Hachiko wrote: »

Islam is taking over the world, they enter different countries and expect the host country to adopt their own traditions and customs, that or they get all iffy and start blowing themselves (and others) up. If they don't like the countries they are in they are more than welcome to go back to where they came from.

Well they have been trying for 1400 years and haven't managed it.

My hope is that most of the world will be atheist in another 100 years.

Saipanne

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who is barring people from asking important questions?
Can you give an example of what you mean by 'important'?

Is Islam part of the reason why this is happening? No way I could say that in public without being jumped on by the morality police. But it should be discussed. Instead people just focus on the Wests intervention in the ME, which is clearly a problem too. But perhaps not the only causative factor.

No, not all Muslims are terrorists obviously, because most Muslims ignore the warmongering bits. But there seems to be something about that religion that inspires religious conquest in LOTS of people. I say its the religion's founder, Mohammed, who dictated flowery lovey things to those who wrote his books, but he clearly put NONE of that into practice. This is the real problem, I think. It requires Muslims to reject Mohammeds, emm, diplomatic style of spreading Islam. You know, the one that IS are currently emulating.

BoatMad

Orangebrigade wrote: »

Historic reasons, mainly Israel is for Jews or represents what they see as Jewish.

I think the protest against Israel comes from a misplaced Irish sense that the palestinians are us, and the Israelis are the Brits ( leaving aside the historical fact that the Zionists fought the britsh in a nasty guerrilla war). The issues are much more complex then that.

The palestinians have done a good job of presenting themselves as victims and painting the Israelis as aggressors. Given how little most irish people know of the situation, it is presented in such simple terms and people react

Its also mixed in with IRA/Sinn fein/irish nationalisms flirtation with the Palestinians and a perceived common cause ( which of course there isn't as its entirely different )

anyway thats another story entirely

Nodin

Saipanne wrote: »

Is Islam part of the reason why this is happening? No way I could say that in public without being jumped on by the morality police. But it should be discussed. Instead people just focus on the Wests intervention in the ME, which is clearly a problem too. But perhaps not the only causative factor.

No, not all Muslims are terrorists obviously, because most Muslims ignore the warmongering bits. But there seems to be something about that religion that inspires religious conquest in LOTS of people. I say its the religion's founder, Mohammed, who dictated flowery lovey things to those who wrote his books, but he clearly put NONE of that into practice. This is the real problem, I think. It requires Muslims to reject Mohammeds, emm, diplomatic style of spreading Islam. You know, the one that IS are currently emulating.

Funny enough, you never really heard this kind of thing singling out Islam pre-2001. Considering the age of the Koran that's rather interesting.

Care to respond
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97760095&postcount=4762

BoatMad

Saipanne wrote: »

Is Islam part of the reason why this is happening? No way I could say that in public without being jumped on by the morality police. But it should be discussed. Instead people just focus on the Wests intervention in the ME, which is clearly a problem too. But perhaps not the only causative factor.

No, not all Muslims are terrorists obviously, because most Muslims ignore the warmongering bits. But there seems to be something about that religion that inspires religious conquest in LOTS of people. I say its the religion's founder, Mohammed, who dictated flowery lovey things to those who wrote his books, but he clearly put NONE of that into practice. This is the real problem, I think. It requires Muslims to reject Mohammeds, emm, diplomatic style of spreading Islam. You know, the one that IS are currently emulating.

could I say that this is " your " perception.

The conflict in the middle east is most certainly mixed up with Islam, only a fool would suggest otherwise and informed debate in Europe has constantly pointed that out and nobody will jump down your throat.

However it is only one constituent of the problem , it is not the defining issue of the problem.

But there seems to be something about that religion that inspires religious conquest in LOTS of people.

not so , what you are seeing is a radicalisation of issue because of the brutality of what is happening all over parts of the middle east. On the back of that are Islamists exploiting Islam for their own ends.

its been the same throughout history

Chris_Bradley

How come Syria got attacked by France & not Belgium?

Nodin

Chris_Bradley wrote: »

How come Syria got attacked by France & not Belgium?

Chocalate.

Gaygooner

What was Belgium going to do? Send in a blonde lad and his dog?