Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

MadsL

BenedrylPete wrote: »

Donald Trump has taken the time out of his day to twist the knife with a comment relating the tragedy to gun control.

No good opportunity wasted. Money seemingly cant buy class.

A tweet from January in response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks, not this one.

Billy86

meepins wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

You should check out why the Ayatollah came into power in Iran, and where an awful lot of the money that went into the spreading of Wahhabism came from. It's pretty interesting stuff.

BoatMad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Breathe deeply, mourn the dead, realise that there are multitudes of the people who died tragically in Paris tonight, dying every week in the countries these people are from and try and, first, stop that and then try to allow them to live without the jackboot of American and European interest dictating how they do that.
Negotiation, diplomacy, persuasion etc, what our developed world is supposedly all about.

Naw, let's just bomb the sh1te out of them and send in the marines

Fleawuss

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Its wide appeal and membership do not. The Muslim world is angry, particularly young people who are seeing, through the mainstream media, a narrative which shows the West milking the Muslim world for everything it's got and giving nothing in return except bombs and fire. Those young people are those which IS is then able to easily prey upon and radicalise, and ultimately turn into the kind of barbaric monsters we saw tonight.

I have already pointed out the roots of the movement going back to the Mongols. It's appeal is the appeal of the absolutist and the idealist to the young. These people are never monsters because there are no monsters. They are probably devout and idealistic young men who believe they have advanced the will of Allah by killing the kuffir who are holding Moslem lands. They mean Syria and Iraq sure. They mean Andalusia too.

firemansam4

Peist2007 wrote: »

I disagree but i do see your point. My opinion is that the top of ISIS doesnt care about religion. This is about power, revenge, land, money, oil. Suicide bombers need a cause and islam is clearly working.

OK so if what you are saying is true and many of the ISIS fighters are just pawns believing they are fighting a religious war, and the top of ISIS don't really care about religion. Then who really are the top of ISIS? and how will these attacks help them gain power, land, money and oil?
Surely downing a Russian plane (If it turns out that ISIS are responsible for that) and these attacks in Paris are only going to draw more attention on them and there current operations in Syria and Iraq?

Happyman42

BoatMad wrote: »

Naw, let's just bomb the sh1te out of them and send in the marines

Did you ring Bruce Willis?

BoatMad

end of the road wrote: »

well clearly war hasn't stopped islamic extremists. if something doesn't work the first time, only a dimwit tries it again

No, we just need to wage war properly , not a dressed up " intervention "

We need to reestablish western control, of the whole region , since it will not control itself. You forget Islam is at war with itself.

Samaris

BenedrylPete wrote: »

Donald Trump has taken the time out of his day to twist the knife with a comment relating the tragedy to gun control.

No good opportunity wasted. Money seemingly cant buy class.

That was in regards to the January attacks (Charlie Hebdo)

He's still a disgusting, cheap-shotting, low-minded, toupeed doucheweasel though.

MadsL

BoatMad wrote: »

Naw, let's just bomb the sh1te out of them and send in the marines

Respond to a couple of hundred civilians dead by bombing the **** of civilians.

Good plan.

Bongalongherb

Dick phelan wrote: »

Well that's the Syrian refugees fcuked, after tonight no country is going to want to take in any of them.

The first thing that will happen and of which is happening right now I'd say in the Euro circles is border controls, and what is the best way forward to do this. This is going to change everything. And maybe at last/finally, this Irish government will take strict control of immigration and it's biometric laws and use them fully as to block any-one coming into this Island that is non genuine.

But in saying this, when will this dumb government ever realise this and implement it fully ?.

BoatMad

Samaris wrote: »

That was in regards to the January attacks (Charlie Hebdo)

He's still a disgusting, cheap-shotting, low-minded, toupeed doucheweasel though.

That could be " disgusting, cheap-shotting, low-minded, toupeed doucheweasel " , sir , Mr president

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

Those countries are on the fringes of Europe, if you want to be pedantic, I am referring to countries like France UK Germany and the remainder of Europe.

Now you are telling me that Greece - the fount of European civilization - isn't really really in Europe?

Shall we say that the 50,000 Moriscos who fled from Spain to France in the 17th century weren't really really Muslim or that France wasn't really really European then?
Must have been some Muslims in France since a great big mosque was built in Paris in 1922....

What about the UK? Is that proper Europe? I ask because there was quite a few Muslims there - first mosque was built in Woking in 1889...same year one was built in Liverpool but before the mosques came the Indian restaurants - first one was opened by a chap named Sheikh Din Muhammad in London in 1810 - that would be 205 years ago.

Now in the interests of accuracy I should make it clear that Muhammad was technically no longer Muslim when he open the Hindoostani Coffee House as he had converted to Anglicanism while living Cork so he could marry a respectable Irish Protestant lady named Jane Daly - it being illegal for an Anglican to marry a non-Anglican at the time. The couple eloped in 1786.

BoatMad

MadsL wrote: »

Respond to a couple of hundred civilians dead by bombing the **** of civilians.

Good plan.

Always worked for Europeans before. We dominated the whole planet

castletownman

Fleawuss wrote: »

No. Just no. What are you going to nuke: the Moslem suburbs of Paris?

I just don't know why there can't be an International intervention (ie UN involvement), to deal with it. Yes a nuclear bomb would be the most extreme reaction (and frankly the most logical), but surely a UN embargo and shunning would effect them too. Narrow down who is supplying them

Dick phelan

When will people learn invasion of these places won't work, in fact it makes it worse, How did the invasion of Iraq work out? What about Afghanistan, The West needs to leave these countries alone, don't be a recruitment tool for these animals.

Sir Osis of Liver.

crazygeryy wrote: »

Whishst rte have woken up.

Funniest post all day.

BuilderPlumber

Al Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban, etc. are all organised crime syndicates dealing in drugs and hiding behind voodooism much like the storyline of that Live and Let Die Bond film. The guys behind these criminal organisations are in the modern world no doubt but keep their people down with terrorism (I won't call it religion). The cold war created all the power these organisations have. As long as they were against Russia, then any old drug dealer crime syndicate got all the guns and cash they needed. A blind eye was turned to their expansion for decades and now these people have laundered money into every Mosque and religious centre and every major Arab drug dealer makes sure he gets a relative to act as a Mullah or other Islamic priest. The old adage 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' proved once again to be a toxic conclusion.

People mention many Middle Eastern countries as totally different in the 1960s and 1970s. Yes, that includes Afghanistan, one of the safest countries in the world. The cold war and the tolerance of organised crime has ruined that country and now is threatening to ruin the whole world. Was the breakup of the USSR really worth it?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BoatMad

Dick phelan wrote: »

When will people learn invasion of these places won't work, in fact it makes it worse, How did the invasion of Iraq work out? What about Afghanistan, The West needs to leave these countries alone, don't be a recruitment tool for these animals.

The issue is going in and then leaving the mess behind. We must return to imperialism, occupation, followed by governance. Europeans are quite good at it.

EireGun

Peist2007 wrote: »

You're grasping at straws. The US explicit invasion of the Middle East in 2003 and the resultant carnage in London, Madrid, Paris and Paris is coincidental because of things that happened in the 1600s. Face the facts, Muslims were not attacking us on our streets and in our entertainment venues prior to "shock and awe". We have created the conditions for this with our own greed. And saying that is not supporting terrorists, ffs

1. Austria August 29, 1981 – 1981 Vienna synagogue attack. 2 dead 30 injured.
2. Italy October 2, 1982 – 1982 Great Synagogue of Rome attack. 1 dead 37 injured.
3. Italy December 27, 1985 – Rome and Vienna airport attacks. 23 dead 139 injured.
4. Greece June 14, 1985 – TWA Flight 847 hijacking. 1 dead.
5. Greece April 2, 1986 – TWA Flight 840 bombing (1986). 4 dead. 7 injured.
6. Turkey September 6, 1986 – Neve Shalom Synagogue Attack. 22 dead.
7. United Kingdom December 21, 1988 - 1988 Lockerbie bombing 270 dead, also includes 11 on the ground
8. United States January 25, 1993 - 1993 shootings at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia. 2 killed, 3 injured.
9. United States February 26, 1993 – World Trade Center bombing, in New York City. 6 killed, 1,042 injured
10. Turkey July 2, 1993 – Sivas Massacre, Arson attack at a gathering in Sivas killing 35 intellectuals from Turkey, most of whom were Alevis.
11. United Kingdom July 26, 1994 – The 1994 London Israeli Embassy attack. 20 injured.
12. France July 25-October 17, 1995 – The 1995 Paris Métro and RER bombings were a series of attacks by the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria in
13. France. 8 killed 100+ wounded.
14. Croatia October 20, 1995 – In the 1995 Rijeka bombing a suicide bomber attempted to destroy a police station by driving a car with a bomb into the wall of the building. killing 1 (assailant) injured 29.
15. Bosnia and Herzegovina September 18, 1997 – The 1997 Mostar car bombings. 29 people injured.
16. United States September 11, 2001 – 4 planes hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda members: two planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, New York; one into The Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia; and one into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. 2,977 victims killed.

It was about time we took them on in their own turf, like they had been doing for decades to us.

Bongalongherb

BoatMad wrote: »

Always worked for Europeans before. We dominated the whole planet

Try to dominate a country and they will come back and most probably dominate your home country of origin. It never works.

Filmer Paradise

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes that's all we need, another war, except this time engaged in by Europe as a whole - turning much of the ME into a vassal.
That's sure as hell not going to lead to more people trying to commit murder and do bombings in Europe...

If the UK had invaded Ireland due to the IRA bombings in the UK - much in the way you describe regarding the EU and ME - do you think that would have sorted out the terrorist problem, or just lead to a shítstorm of bombings due to massively increased IRA recruitment?


People don't seem to get that many EU countries have been at war with the countries these terrorists are from - what the fúck do people think happens, when you go to war with someone? That they just don't fight back? That they fight back in a 'gentlemanly' way and follow the rules of war (rather than resorting to attacks like today)?

They're reprehensible/horrible attacks - but if you want to have a chance of stopping them at their root, people need to be slightly less myopic in their vision, and see where the motivation came for them in the first place.

If you want to respond to this with more war, then that's not just something that's going to happen to 'other people', far off over there in the ME, where so few people here seem give a toss about people in that region, that the Lebanese bombings today barely even made the news...

No, if you think 'more war' is a good response to this, then you are 100% guaranteed to motivate more people, to bring that war back to Europe as well - that's why we're seeing this today.

Total waffle & served up with a fried egg to boot.

Find out who the ringleader is, vaporise him. Job done.

Life's not as complicated as you like to make it out it to be.

Take out the ringleader/s & it's game over.

Isaiah

Facekicking 2 The Future wrote: »

To add:

After the Ottoman Empire fell apart in the 1800's, new artificial borders were drawn for many of the Middle East nations and were divided up among where the oilfields were, tribes of people that ordinarily would have never had contact or had anything to do with each other were suddenly thrown together.

Bad things could only happen, but things can get better.
In the mid 20th century, though there were great success to amazingly western like democracies because they did it from the ground and dealt with building of cities and infastructure with help from the USA bidding for clients to build roads and the like. But it was very much of themselves, self directed

Look at pictures of Afghanistan from the 60's and you'll sean upcoming western-like paradise on the road to somewhere and zero burqa enforcement. Its surreal. I can't post a link because my post count is too low

It absolutely haunting to see what was lost

Syria was modern and liberal by Muslim standards, as was Libya. As is Iran.

Yet the west sides with the head hacking Saudis.

meepins

Happyman42 wrote: »

allow them to live without the jackboot of American and European interest dictating how they do that.
Negotiation, diplomacy, persuasion etc, what our developed world is supposedly all about.

Is it really the interests of America and Europe being served by the chaos in that region?
Are we in there stealing oil? Wouldn't it just be cheaper to buy it than sacrificing lives and incomprehensible amounts of money on a war machine. Ya know the way it was set up before when there were strong men keeping this madness in line and keeping the barrels coming.
*It's almost like there is something else going on there. Like there is an interest being served regardless of it being extremely detrimental to the US and Europe.


I fully agree that violence is the worst way to try and solve this. There is a far far easier option on the table. Keep these people far away from us. Keep them in their nuthouse in the Middle East.

BoatMad

castletownman wrote: »

I just don't know why there can't be an International intervention (ie UN involvement), to deal with it. Yes a nuclear bomb would be the most extreme reaction (and frankly the most logical), but surely a UN embargo and shunning would effect them too. Narrow down who is supplying them

The U.S. Nuked Japan, because it realised it faced a fanatical enemy , that even when defeat was obvious was prepared to fight to the last kamikaze.

Two cities in rubble foscused their minds however.

Just saying

Dick phelan

Seen as ISIS aims to introduce Sharia Law into Europe i don't see how you can say they are only attacking the West in response to the invasion of Iraq, While the West has done bad things in the region let's not pretend if the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq didn't happen they would leave us alone.

Subcomandante Marcos

firemansam4 wrote: »

Then who really are the top of ISIS?

Well it's a well accepted fact that most of ISIS's main military commanders are former leaders of the Ba'ath party in Iraq, which was a secularist movement.

Their involvement in ISIS one of the most glaring flaws of the US and UK's policies in Iraq where they disbanded the military and banned former members of the Ba'ath party from joining the military, essentially making them into mercenaries for hire for the various militias which formed in the power vacuum which ensued.

ISIS isn't run by religious extremists, it's run by former Ba'athists with an axe to grind and near limitless resources.

Jelle1880

Peist2007 wrote: »

And what has happened since then? Has the Muslim world reacted in a way we didnt see prior to Afghanistan and Iraq? I am going to tease this out of you eventually.

That's not my point, I'm just pointing out that through several posts you have been mixing up wars and timelines, 2003 invasion of Kabul and stuff like that.

How long do you want to go back ? Does it only count within the last century ? Can we go back further ?

Maybe we can throw in the attacks on Jews in Arab countries in the late 1800's ? Do we include atrocities carried out by the Ottomans ? Can we mention centuries of attacks and persecution of Hindus by Muslims in what is now known as India and Pakistan ? Or do we just focus on a small portion of time that suits your narrative ?

I already said that no doubt the West has messed up a lot of stuff in the Middle East (and other places), but that doesn't mean they are solely responsible for this. You seem to think they are, which is preposterous.

edit: That list above, can't believe I didn't even think of several of those incidents.
You say we brought this on ourselves by our greed ? I distinctly remember millions marching across Europe against the war in Iraq. If they really think the West is to blame, why not go after the politicians that made the decisions ? No, they decide to slaughter innocent bystanders. And that's the West's fault according to you.

Subcomandante Marcos

BoatMad wrote: »

The U.S. Nuked Japan, because it realised it faced a fanatical enemy , that even when defeat was obvious was prepared to fight to the last kamikaze.

Two cities in rubble foscused their minds however.

Just saying

Well that's not true, because the US knew that the Empire was preparing to surrender within days and wanted to test their new toy anyway to send a message.

BoatMad

meepins wrote: »

Is it really the interests of America and Europe being served by the chaos in that region?
Are we in there stealing oil? Wouldn't it just be cheaper to buy it than sacrificing lives and incomprehensible amounts of money on a war machine. Ya know the way it was set up before when there were strong men keeping this madness in line and keeping the barrels coming.

I fully agree that violence is the worst way to try and solve this. There is a far far easier option on the table. Keep these people far away from us. Keep them in their nuthouse in the Middle East.

The U.S. Will be independent of Middle East oil within three years. Oil is no longer the issue it once was. The planet is awash with the stuff.

You can't survive by locking yourself in your house while outside the place burns down . Ultimately you ha e to grasp your gun and sort the problem

Only the strong live in peace , the weak are preyed on,

BoatMad

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Well that's not true, because the US knew that the Empire was preparing to surrender within days and wanted to test their new toy anyway to send a message.

Tosh.

Truman was facing a long war in the Pacific and a brutal costly invasion of mainland Japan , that's why he agreed. The military would have deposed the emperor had he attempted surrender before the bomb