Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Knife Attack London

Options
1…567911

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,486 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    Answer the question. Who were we bombing when that happened. You sympathise with these attacks don't you?

    Who is we?

    Who attacked the twin towers?

    No I don't sympathise with these attackers I just don't swallow the rhetoric that is being fed to guillabe fools by main stream media that our way of life is about to disappear and there are terrorists on every corner waiting to behead us all.


  • Options
    #243
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Widdershins wrote: »
    No . Re-read the page you are uncertain about .

    Your whole argument lacks a solid point.
    conorhal wrote: »
    By not importing cultures that integrate so poorly that even after decades to adapt to Western norms they still view their fellow citizens as a kuffar other to be murdered for no reason? Something like that?

    How do you identify those cultures. I know plenty of Muslims who have integrated fine into Ireland.
    LuckyRoche wrote: »
    Three of the four attacks were carried out by 'refugees'. They all boil down to immigration. It's how the attackers got into the country. The fourth attacker was a second generation immigrant.

    All of this is due to Europe's crazy immigration policies of the past few decades.

    Two of them were by refugees, one who should have been deported long before the attack.


  • Options
    #244
    Fabb
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Fabb


    Why should we bring in a large majority of immigrants because of something Bush, Rumsfield etc started?

    Speaking logically and valuing your life is seen as racist to the unaware.


  • Options
    #245
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    Who says it isn't right? You? I say it is right. Over 1 million migrants and year and your solution is to interview them? What question would we ask? What if they lied and fooled the interviewer.

    You seem to think anyone has a right to come to a country unless they can be proven to be radicalised. That's your point of view. I say we have a right to deny entry to our countries without proof, for the safety and stability of Europe. We're not a charity and we're not shelter.

    Without proof of what?


  • Options
    #246
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    Who says it isn't right? You? I say it is right. Over 1 million migrants and year and your solution is to interview them? What question would we ask? What if they lied and fooled the interviewer.

    As they are explicitly advised to do when the situation suits , even up to denying their religion . Taqiyya.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Without proof of what?

    Seriously? Can you not follow your own argument. Without proof of radicalisation. I say we don't need to prove an individual is dangerous to deny them entry. I say we can deny them entry based on the risk that they might be. It's our country and our borders.

    Seriously, interview them?

    "Are you radical"
    "No no"
    "Will you randomly attack innocent people because they're westerners?"
    "Eh......no, of course not"
    "Ok you're clear to come live here. Have some free money you're victims taxes pay for. "


  • Options
    #248
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Your whole argument lacks a solid point.


    Your capacity for reading comprehension is your own problem . You entirely misconstrued a basic point. Very simple . The issue was the level of religious islamic influence in islamic terrorism.

    Don't expect another reply to unnecessary digs at my post .


  • Options
    #249
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,486 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    Seriously? Can you not follow your own argument. Without proof of radicalisation. I say we don't need to prove an individual is dangerous to deny them entry. I say we can deny them entry based on the risk that they might be. It's our country and our borders.

    Seriously, interview them?

    "Are you radical"
    "No no"
    "Will you randomly attack innocent people because they're westerners?"
    "Eh......no, of course not"
    "Ok you're clear to come live here. Have some free money you're victims taxes pay for. "

    So a 5 year old turns up at the border with his mother and you would interview him and if he didn't answer your questions you would send him back to a war zone?


  • Options
    #250
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,991 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »

    How do you identify those cultures. I know plenty of Muslims who have integrated fine into Ireland.

    They have identified themselves, repeatedly, so it's not that hard to see which ones the compatability problems come with. Common sense dictates that if you see a problem, you don't exacerbate it.
    Your personal experience wiht 'plenty of Muslims' has no relevence to the basic fact that not one country Europe has succesfully integrated significant Muslim populations so we shouldn't import a problem we don't have, yet. I've already posted the Prime Time special on the Clonskeagh mosque, the problem if segregation and extremisim may be in it's infancy here but that's no excuse to ignore it and repeat the same mistakes that other European countries have made.


  • Options
    #251
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    Seriously? Can you not follow your own argument. Without proof of radicalisation. I say we don't need to prove an individual is dangerous to deny them entry. I say we can deny them entry based on the risk that they might be. It's our country and our borders.

    Seriously, interview them?

    "Are you radical"
    "No no"
    "Will you randomly attack innocent people because they're westerners?"
    "Eh......no, of course not"
    "Ok you're clear to come live here. Have some free money you're victims taxes pay for. "

    Sorry, misread your post. I don't disagree we have a right to deny entry. But I also think we have an obligation to provide shelter to those that need it, as so many have done to the Irish in the past.
    Widdershins wrote: »
    Your capacity for reading comprehension is your own problem . You entirely misconstrued a basic point. Very simple . The issue was the level of religious islamic influence in islamic terrorism.

    Don't expect another reply to unnecessary digs at my post .

    I'm simply asking why you think religious terrorism is somehow different to nationalist terrorism. You haven't provided an answer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Who is we?

    Who attacked the twin towers?

    No I don't sympathise with these attackers I just don't swallow the rhetoric that is being fed to guillabe fools by main stream media that our way of life is about to disappear and there are terrorists on every corner waiting to behead us all.

    We as in the people they are attacking. Anyone western. Anyone not Muslim.
    Muslims attacked the twin towers.

    You are suggesting these attacks are a reaction to drone strikes 'by the west'. Essentially legitimising them and sympathising with them. I say this all started long before that. Again who was the west bombing before 9/11 or Lockerby?


  • Options
    #253
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    conorhal wrote: »
    They have identified themselves, repeatedly, so it's not that hard to see which ones the compatability problems come with. Common sense dictates that if you see a problem, you don't exacerbate it.
    Your personal experience wiht 'plenty of Muslims' has no relevence to the basic fact that not one country Europe has succesfully integrated significant Muslim populations so we shouldn't import a problem we don't have, yet. I've already posted the Prime Time special on the Clonskeagh mosque, the problem if segregation and extremisim may be in it's infancy here but that's no excuse to ignore it and repeat the same mistakes that other European countries have made.

    How many other mosques and schools are there in Ireland that have no issues and want to help tackle radicalisation?

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/irish-muslim-groups-wants-talks-with-the-government-34908943.html


  • Options
    #254
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Do you even know what a refugee is? German born with far right inspiration. The Munich shooter was following a man who had your kind of ideology.
    The knife attack had nothing to do with immigration. The suicide bomber should have been deported but wasn't. The only one you can blame on open immigration is the axe attack.
    Even the guy in Nice was in the country over a decade.
    Attacks carried out by migrants and their children have everything to do with our migration and integration policies.
    If it can be show that these policies contributed to the attacks.
    Nobody is suggesting allowing uncontrolled immigration.
    Pretty sure Angela Merkel did just that.
    How do you identify those cultures.
    By studying how existing cultures integrate.


  • Options
    #255
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Sorry, misread your post. I don't disagree we have a right to deny entry. But I also think we have an obligation to provide shelter to those that need it, as so many have done to the Irish in the past.



    I'm simply asking why you think religious terrorism is somehow different to nationalist terrorism. You haven't provided an answer.

    I don't think we have an obligation of any sort. If you want to help them that's what we have foreign aid for. Donate you're own money. Instead you want to take your money and my money and give it to immigrants so they can live here.


  • Options
    #256
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »


    I'm simply asking why you think religious terrorism is somehow different to nationalist terrorism. You haven't provided an answer.

    Please re read the posts in question because you have gone astray somewhere .


  • Options
    #257
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    How many other mosques and schools are there in Ireland that have no issues and want to help tackle radicalisation?

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/irish-muslim-groups-wants-talks-with-the-government-34908943.html

    Are we supposed to be grateful for that? That would be the minimum to expect from any religion. You think they're some sort of heroes for saying 'don't kill people'?


  • Options
    #258
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    How many other mosques and schools are there in Ireland that have no issues and want to help tackle radicalisation?

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/irish-muslim-groups-wants-talks-with-the-government-34908943.html

    We dont need ANY radical mosques in Ireland. Saying 'sure let them come, most of them wont kill us' is unbelievable.


  • Options
    #259
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So a 5 year old turns up at the border with his mother and you would interview him and if he didn't answer your questions you would send him back to a war zone?

    Good god follow the post. I'm saying interviewing is pointless. It won't screen anyone dangerous. I wouldn't even interview them.

    And what war torn country, besides the Ukraine, does the EU border?


  • Options
    #260
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,991 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    How many other mosques and schools are there in Ireland that have no issues and want to help tackle radicalisation?

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/irish-muslim-groups-wants-talks-with-the-government-34908943.html

    Let me ask you this, how many are there that do have issues and promote radicalisation? Is that number higher and does it represent an issue that must be addressed? (I expect no answer of course)

    Dr Al-Qadri is the leader of a small mosque representing a minor sect.
    You whataboutery reminds me of this article that desperately attempted to virtue signal how 'not all muslims have a problem with homosexuality':
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20547335
    The article was widely reported on but fails badly to convince when you consider this gay friendly mosque is hosted in a small jewish prayer room who's location, for obvious reasons, is secret and the spokesman for the Grand Mosque of Paris condemned it's opening.

    You don't seem to get the hypocracy of pointing at a minority and suggesting it's and example of a broader truth and then lambasting other for doing the same simply because when they do so it runs counter to your argument.

    We are already selective about who we let into this country.
    If you are from Australia, Bolivia or Trinidad and Tobago for example you don't need a visa to enter Ireland? The reason is obvious, you aren't likely to cause Ireland a problem. There is a list of nations however that you do require a visa for. Becaue you might. This is what you call a sensible precaution. The same common sense should be applied more broadly.


  • Options
    #261
    Alive1
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭Alive1


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    We as in the people they are attacking. Anyone western. Anyone not Muslim.


    More Islamaphobic lies spread by those whosee hatred blinds them to facts.
    The greatest losses of life suffered from ISIS has been against Muslims.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    Alive1 wrote: »
    More Islamaphobic lies spread by those whosee hatred blinds them to facts.
    The greatest losses of life suffered from ISIS has been against Muslims.

    Because of a civil war. Is your point that because they are also killing Muslims, we should accept them killing us?

    Also I'm referring to the attacks in Europe, In which they are specifically targeting westerners. Which you seem to seem to sympathise with.


  • Options
    #263
    Alive1
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭Alive1


    Isnt it amazing how those with an agenda of scaremongering have managed to turn a thread about a random act of violence , tragic though it is, into an opportunity to spread anti Islam fear and hatred.
    If it rained on the Sunday of the All Ireland Final some people would find a way to blame Muslims for the weather!


  • Options
    #264
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,730 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    MOD
    Stop turning this into a thread on immigration.


  • Options
    #265
    Alive1
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭Alive1


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    Which you seem to seem to sympathise with.

    Please supply a single shread of evidence for that slur, or withdraw it.


  • Options
    #266
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Alive1 wrote: »
    Please supply a single shread of evidence for that slur, or withdraw it.

    Unfortunately, a lot of people consider you to be a terrorist sympathizer if you don't condemn an entire religion and people from religious areas, be they religious or not, following an act of violence. This only applies to Muslims of course. When someone like Anders Breivik, a far right, Christian, european man commits an act of mass murder, it's nothing to do with his religion, nationality or political leaning.

    Mental illness is behind many of these lone wolf attacks, as it was for Anders and the offender in London. People are so determined to ring fence terrorists as being from a defined group because it is less scary if you can define the enemy. Unfortunately this defined group keeps getting bigger and bigger until half the world is the enemy.

    As long as people keep the focus on the Muslim faith as the bad guy, the real dangers will continue to be ignored and we will see no lull in these attacks.


  • Options
    #267
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Might I ask why Muslims and/or the Islam religion is still being discussed here when, by all we know, it is completely off topic?


  • Options
    #268
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Might I ask why Muslims and/or the Islam religion is still being discussed here when, by all we know, it is completely off topic?

    People think governments and police forces are conspiring to cover up muslim links to these attacks.


  • Options
    #269
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    What's your point exactly? Bad stuff happens already so we just just accept even more? Why is it every time something like this happens people try to distract from it with weird crap like this. It's excusing it. It's belittling it and anyone who does that condones it. Innocent people are getting attacked and you're doing everything you can to talk it down and act like its something we should just accept. You're a disgrace.
    Butters1979 wrote: »
    Also I'm referring to the attacks in Europe, In which they are specifically targeting westerners. Which you seem to seem to sympathise with.

    Butters1979 wrote: »
    Answer the question. Who were we bombing when that happened. You sympathise with these attacks don't you?

    Unsure how to make this any more clear. Disagreeing with -your- points does not equal sympathising with Islamic terrorism. No-one here (that I have seen) supports Islamic terrorism. They seek to -understand- it, but that is not the same thing as wanting it to happen or sympathising with it.


  • Options
    #270
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    There is still doubt in my mind that this was not a terrorist attack. If so the truth will out.
    He was a Norwegian of Somali origin. Who they are now saying was just ''mentally ill''because they don't want to alarm the public. The majority of Somalis are Muslim, he was wielding a knife in part of the most popular and populous tourist destinations in London with intent to cause maximum harm. And all terrorists are ''mentally ill'' anyway. It's peak tourist season, it doesn't serve the country's best interests to scare the nation so they have put a blanket ban on the media, by saying he was just a madman.

    Just as the media didn't disclose until a couple of weeks later that the French priest who ''had his throat slit'', was, infact beheaded. Just as the media didn't disclose until MONTHS after that out of all those French people who died in that concert hall, many of them had been beheaded, disembowelled and had had their genitalia cut off and stuffed in their mouths.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    People think governments and police forces are conspiring to cover up muslim links to these attacks.

    Why wouldn't they . I heard a journalist admit on Newstalk that she thought it acceptable to contain ''inflammatory '' facts to try to prevent a backlash .

    As well as at least one police whistleblower telling us the police werecovering up deficiencies in the response to attacks (Nice) .


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement