Hostage situation in French church

foggy_lad · 27-07-2016 01:47AM

end of the road wrote: »

Tiny percentage fact. supporting Sharia law is simply supporting Sharia law. i don't like it either but supporting it doesn't make 1 a terrorist. try again

What it does do is to make normal non murderous, non terrorist Muslims incompatible for living within western society!

jimbobaloobob · 27-07-2016 01:49AM

I think its very sad that this mans life is the butt of some people having a go at comedy here.
Link it back, hes somebody's brother, somebody's son.
Imagine you knew him, or someone that knows him. Tell them your punchline and see how you get on.

fed up sick and tired · 27-07-2016 02:20AM

K.Flyer wrote: »

After all his years living here he either couldn't be bothered to learn or use the language (I believe its the latter), because in a D.C.U. Talking Heads discussion it would appear that he understands English perfectly well by how he at times reacts and interjects as Ali Selim is translating to English for him.

Delighted you brought this clip up, as I have done in another thread previously.

At 14.32 you can see that he starts to speak English 'And...' but catches himself just in time.

Dodgy geezer.

fed up sick and tired · 27-07-2016 02:25AM

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

I am a European atheist and consider organised religion to be a toxic influence on society.

I believe though that radical Muslims have a special hatred for atheists.

You remind me of Brendan Behan's observation about the Civil War - 'I wouldn't like to see an uncivil one.'

Considering what they do to 84-year-old believers in the same God as themselves, (as monotheists must), I wouldn't like to see their 'special hatred' for atheists.

KingBrian2 · 27-07-2016 02:57AM

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

You remind me of Brendan Behan's observation about the Civil War - 'I wouldn't like to see an uncivil one.'

Considering what they do to 84-year-old believers in the same God as themselves, (as monotheists must), I wouldn't like to see their 'special hatred' for atheists.

Just look at Syria and Iraq to find out that.

AlekSmart · 27-07-2016 06:27AM

unseenfootage wrote: »

In all honesty you are making zero common sense.
They're are screaming, at the top of their lungs, that they will kill us if we intervene in their countries and bomb them.
Then when we do intervene and bomb and they act on their treats and fight us, according to your way of thinking they are only killing us because they don't like things like gay marriages and pre-marital sex. Despite them explicitly telling us that they are killing us for fighting them.
Now, you might convince some people about your philosophy, but I don't buy it. They don't like our way of life but they hate us intervening in their countries far more and that is the reason why they fight us.

Herein may lie the issue....I'm not asking you to buy anything.

You currently have the absolute freedom to buy whatever you like...something which this faction of Islam will remove from you poste-haste.

"They" are killling "us" because we are unbelievers...full stop...being an unbeliever and continuing to be so in the face of their warnings,removes all traces of mercy in the eyes of radicailzed Islam..."They are indeed killing us for fighting them,however that battle is not on any Syrian,Libyan,Iraqui or French battlefield....It is in YOUR Christian head and thus will be fought to the death.....That's what is happening

IvyTheTerrible · 27-07-2016 06:37AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I was watching France 24. The priest was in that village all his life so everyone knew him, performed the marriages for most of the people in the village, baptised their children and everyone loved him saying he was a good person.
In France as well as the attack being seen as an attack on Catholics, it is also being viewed as an attack on rural France.

The French Catholic church are having a day of mourning and have asked French Catholics to pray and fast today Wednesday.

People are shocked when major cities are hit by terrorist attacks, but the attack yesterday happened in a location no one would have thought would be a target, against a target that shocked Catholics and non Catholics alike. Attacking an elderly man who would have been defenseless and made kneel before the altar he served his parishioners for decades and then martyred.

One member of the French government said the terrorists want to start a religious war.
Wars are for national governments, the French church won't be starting any religious wars, praying and fasting is the best response responding to violence with non violence means.
I just wonder if daily mass in France will need armed security.

TBH I don't think nobody thought churches weren't a target, there was a foiled attack on a church about a year ago.

27-07-2016 06:43AM

AlekSmart wrote: »

"They" are killling "us" because we are unbelievers...full stop...being an unbeliever and continuing to be so in the face of their warnings,removes all traces of mercy in the eyes of radicailzed Islam..."They are indeed killing us for fighting them,however that battle is not on any Syrian,Libyan,Iraqui or French battlefield....It is in YOUR Christian head and thus will be fought to the death.....That's what is happening

If it's a war against Christianity, why are the vast majority of attacks in countries like France and to a lesser extent Germany and Belgium, and countries with more religious societies like Italy and Ireland pretty much ignored?

speedboatchase · 27-07-2016 07:41AM

Deleted User wrote: »

If it's a war against Christianity, why are the vast majority of attacks in countries like France and to a lesser extent Germany and Belgium, and countries with more religious societies like Italy and Ireland pretty much ignored?

Because the terrorists are from or living in France and Germany.

lawlolawl · 27-07-2016 07:43AM

RTE really need to stop saying "so-called Islamic State" when describing ISIS.

speedboatchase · 27-07-2016 07:51AM

lawlolawl wrote: »

RTE really need to stop saying "so-called Islamic State" when describing ISIS.

BBC do the same. I wonder if both refer to Hezbollah ('Party of God') as the so-called Hezbollah? Or the so-called Taliban ('Students')?

27-07-2016 07:55AM

speedboatchase wrote: »

Because the terrorists are from or living in France and Germany.

I suspect Italy has a greater number of Muslims and immigrants from Muslim countries than, say, Belgium.

If it is a war of religion and a war against Christianity, why is Italy getting off so lightly?

Could it be because as well as religion there are social, historical, political and cultural issues at play too? And to reduce it to "us Christians or them Muslims" is simplistic?

stefanovich · 27-07-2016 08:01AM

IvyTheTerrible wrote:

TBH I don't think nobody thought churches weren't a target, there was a foiled attack on a church about a year ago.

That's a brain twisting triple negative.

lawlolawl · 27-07-2016 08:06AM

Did they explain yet why that one guys electronic tag was turned off for a little bit every day?

Were the authorities cool with him doing terrorist stuff for a few hours every day but felt it would be harmful to his rehabilitation if he gave the whole day at it?

NIMAN · 27-07-2016 08:09AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect Italy has a greater number of Muslims and immigrants from Muslim countries than, say, Belgium.

If it is a war of religion and a war against Christianity, why is Italy getting off so lightly?

Could it be because as well as religion there are social, historical, political and cultural issues at play too? And to reduce it to "us Christians or them Muslims" is simplistic?

I think this 'war' against the West is in its very early stages, I wouldn't rule out any country getting attacked, maybe they just haven't got round to Italy yet?

Are France not at the forefront of the Allied air strikes? Might be adding to the reason why they are being hit so much?

speedboatchase · 27-07-2016 08:14AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect Italy has a greater number of Muslims and immigrants from Muslim countries than, say, Belgium.

If it is a war of religion and a war against Christianity, why is Italy getting off so lightly?

Could it be because as well as religion there are social, historical, political and cultural issues at play too? And to reduce it to "us Christians or them Muslims" is simplistic?

Actually no. Italy is 2.6% Muslim, while Belgium is 5%. Brussels is about 25% Muslim. The higher the percentage in a town or city, the more likely it'll attract the wrong kind of recruiters/imams etc. Look at lost places like Moleenbeek, or certain areas of Malmo, or Saville Town in Dewsbury, UK.

I think the factors in Belgium and France are a combination of radicalisation, particularly in second and third generation males, combined with ghettos that are a breeding ground for extremist recruiters. It's always going to be a combination of many factors, but unhappy, out-of-work, violent men can do some terrible things, especially if motivated to believe they're doing so for their God.

Bob24 · 27-07-2016 08:21AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect Italy has a greater number of Muslims and immigrants from Muslim countries than, say, Belgium.

Nope, Belgium has received a lot Muslim immigration. See map below:

real%2Bv%2Bperceived%2Bpct%2Bof%2BMuslims%2Bin%2BEurope.png

Sadly based on that map I think radical Islam (violent or not) is just a subset of Islam in general and comes with it if you don't know how to keep it at bay (you can clearly see the countries which are being hit the most are the ones with the largest Muslim population in percentage)

speedboatchase · 27-07-2016 08:39AM

Bob24 wrote: »

Nope, Belgium has received a lot Muslim immigration. See map below:

Sadly based on that map I think radical Islam (violent or not) is just a subset of Islam in general and comes with it if you don't know how to keep it at bay (you can clearly see the countries which are being hit the most are the ones with the largest Muslim population in percentage)

The Hungarian answer is amazing

FURET · 27-07-2016 08:43AM

conorhal wrote: »

Primetime did a (very cautious) special on Clonskeagh Mosque and it's links to the Muslim Brotherhood a few weeks ago. It's the first murmering I've ever seen by the Irish luvvies in RTE that all may not be well with 'moderate Islam' here in Ireland. It's was an interesting watch and clearly indicates that we are sleepwalking our way into the same problems that the continent suffers through sheer cowardice. Mr Halawa shoud be given the boot frankly.

That video shows the reason why we should not accept immigrants from Islamic areas. The very fact of their presence means you have to worry about Wahabi-Salafist-segregationist ideologies and Islamists walking in and radicalizing a significant number of Muslims in your country, balkanizing your towns and cities and setting us up for civil unrest in the future.

We know this in advance, yet we still accept immigration from Islamic territories. Think about that. We know for a fact, in advance, that Islamic immigration carries with it very specific and all-too-real dangers, and we do it anyway. Why? We do not need to accept this risk, yet we do. It's bizarre and absurd and masochistic. No other community in the world causes this level of trouble and anxiety when they arrive in significant numbers.

Based on the European experience, should Japan - a country unscathed by the Muslim Problem so far - aim, from tomorrow, to gradually grow its Muslim population by 10 million over the next 20 years, as France has done proportionately? Would Japan be a better place for it at the end of those 20 years? If you think Japan would be better for it, and that Europe is better for it, you're in serious denial and you enable the gradual destabilization of our country, our continent, and our shared western civilization.

There is no added value to Islamic immigration. The benefits are not worth the costs.

27-07-2016 08:52AM

weldoninhio wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/mosque-assault-2241857-Jul2015/

Is it so hard for people to look stuff up?? I literally typed attack mosque Dublin into Google and it was the first thing there.

I'm familiar with this story, but that link doesn't substantiate what you've said.

You said, "a member of his mosque was battered in Clonskeagh Mosque for handing out flyers".

That link simply makes reference to a Dublin mosque. There are about five other mosques in Dublin, so I am asking for a link which substantiates your point.

Or more specifically, which substantiates your point in relation to Clonskeagh Mosque.

I'm very concerned about the outlook of that mosque, I think we should all be concerned. But not because there's any known jihadi link, or known anti-peace mentality there.

speedboatchase · 27-07-2016 08:54AM

FURET wrote: »

That video shows the reason why we should not accept immigrants from Islamic areas. The very fact of their presence means you have to worry about Wahabi-Salafist-segregationist ideologies and Islamists walking in and radicalizing a significant number of Muslims in your country, balkanizing your towns and cities and setting us up for civil unrest in the future.

We know this in advance, yet we still accept immigration from Islamic territories. Think about that. We know for a fact, in advance, that Islamic immigration carries with it very specific and all-too-real dangers, and we do it anyway. Why? We do not need to accept this risk, yet we do. It's bizarre and absurd and masochistic. No other community in the world causes this level of trouble and anxiety when they arrive in significant numbers.

Based on the European experience, should Japan - a country unscathed by the Muslim Problem so far - aim, from tomorrow, to gradually grow its Muslim population by 10 million over the next 20 years, as France has done proportionately? Would Japan be a better place for it at the end of those 20 years? If you think Japan would be better for it, and that Europe is better for it, you're in serious denial and you enable the gradual destabilization of our country, our continent, and our shared western civilization.

There is no added value to Islamic immigration. The benefits are not worth the costs.

You don't have to, but you can. For whatever reason - colonial guilt? - European societies are very open to non-European immigration and becoming more 'diverse'. It's going to be impossible to completely stop Islamic immigration, and I don't think that should be an aim. You can limit or stop immigration from certain countries, but prejudice on faith alone would not be allowed and even if it were, people could pretend to be another religion.

With that in mind, the best you can do is ensure you have a smart, measured intake of immigration from any religion. Take Canada's policy of only accept Syrian families, rather than single males. With measured immigration, you can ensure assimilation.

conorhal · 27-07-2016 08:55AM

speedboatchase wrote: »

Actually no. Italy is 2.6% Muslim, while Belgium is 5%. Brussels is about 25% Muslim. The higher the percentage in a town or city, the more likely it'll attract the wrong kind of recruiters/imams etc. Look at lost places like Moleenbeek, or certain areas of Malmo, or Saville Town in Dewsbury, UK.

I think the factors in Belgium and France are a combination of radicalisation, particularly in second and third generation males, combined with ghettos that are a breeding ground for extremist recruiters. It's always going to be a combination of many factors, but unhappy, out-of-work, violent men can do some terrible things, especially if motivated to believe they're doing so for their God.

Not to mention the fact that it's not in their interests, a major attack in Rome on the Vatican for example (something I have no doubt they would dearly love) might result in the Itallians withdrawing the migrant ferry service and slamming the door shut. The islamists will no more attack Italy then they would Greece. Why would you risk pissing off the morons holding the door open for you?
Germany didn't sufferer any substantive terrorism until the welcome mat was pulled back in.

27-07-2016 09:05AM

NIMAN wrote: »

Are France not at the forefront of the Allied air strikes? Might be adding to the reason why they are being hit so much?

Of course that's part of the reason. But given that Italy has the fourth-largest Muslim population in Europe and hasn't suffered from Islamic terrorism since the 16th century, it somewhat undermines the concept of Islam as a fundamentally violent doctrine.

The fact is there is appears to be a positive correlation between poor social policies & aggressive foreign policy, and violent Islamic extremism.

Islam is certainly a handy vector for that aggression, because of the violence of its texts, but it isn't the root cause.

HardenendMan · 27-07-2016 09:09AM

I said it before in another thread and got a wrist slap but I'll say it again:

We should not let practicing Muslims into Europe. They are regressive for our society.

Same goes for any other practicing religious person, but the Muslims are the topic of the hour.

Zxclnic · 27-07-2016 09:21AM

HardenendMan wrote: »

I said it before in another thread and got a wrist slap but I'll say it again:

We should not let practicing Muslims into Europe. They are regressive for our society.

Same goes for any other practicing religious person, but the Muslims are the topic of the hour.

What about non-practising Muslims...and how we will we know which is which, maybe by asking them when they apply for asylum.
Are you now or have you ever been a practising Muslim?

BuilderPlumber · 27-07-2016 09:28AM

lawlolawl wrote: »

RTE really need to stop saying "so-called Islamic State" when describing ISIS.

They should be called nothing other than an opportunistic, savage, fascist death cult. Fanatic criminals in Iraq and Syria are able to communicate with hardened criminals angry against their countries in Europe.

Calling them Islamic State or even so-called Islamic State gives them a smug sense of importance. Calling them ISIS or ISIL means we are acknowledging them as the government of Iraq and Syria which thank god they are not. They are an alternative possible government of these 2 countries but are not likely to ever be. Al Qaeda in Iraq is their original name.

What they are are a violent international criminal terrorist entity that inspires suicidal, depressive youngsters to kill themselves and others in their desire for world domination. While they do this in the name of 'Islam', the idea is copied by other fascist savages (extremism of all persuasions can take note) like Breivik, Timothy McVeigh, etc. and the warped reasoning is the same.

People in the West have real problems. Everything from the cost of living to crime to job insecurity and unemployment to austerity to softness on crime to waging unnecessary wars especially in Iraq are all wrong, all potentially leading to the rise of fascist forces and when ALL present themselves together at once, some extremist is bound to show up and speak on behalf of all the victims of all these wrongs. Western governments call themselves 'democratic', 'liberal' and other fancy terms. Mere soundbites. Wars, inequality, austerity and softness on crime are things that the people have had no say in. Politicians go ahead anyway and somehow think that by committing themselves to what is wrong, that there would be no implications.

ISIS if there in the 1960s or 1970s would be a mere village cult. ISIS today has an audience and ISIS-imitating far right extremists do too. Christian extremists do as well and all the anger that is out there among disillusioned people is exploited by all of these fascists. Islam was never a major part of any modern conflicts until now, until the attention focused on regime change in places like Iraq. Islam was hardly an issue in the wars involving Napoleon or WW1 or WW2 or Vietnam. Yet other forms of extremism thrived then. The poor treatment of post-WW1 Germany lead to the rise of Hitler and secular fascism. Islamic fascism and European discontent have dovetailed at present due to recent warmongering and poor/unfair economic policies.

dav3 · 27-07-2016 09:28AM

FURET wrote: »

There is no added value to Islamic immigration. The benefits are not worth the costs.

Presumably refugees are alright. How exactly do you enforce banning "islamic immigration" though?
It sounds more like far right populism than an actual solution.

Bob24 · 27-07-2016 09:30AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course that's part of the reason. But given that Italy has the fourth-largest Muslim population in Europe and hasn't suffered from Islamic terrorism since the 16th century, it somewhat undermines the concept of Islam as a fundamentally violent doctrine.

Not in percentage of the population though ... and sadly there is a very strong correlation between the percentage of Muslim population in European countries and the number of attacks/incidents the have endured.

Also discussing the social treatment and integration of immigrants is valid, but then people also have to look at other immigration flows. For example when large scale immigration from Muslim countries started in France, the country also received a huge wave of immigration from Vietnam (the fact that it was a former colony and many of them knew the language made it a "good" destination for boat people and further generations). France didn't treat these 2 immigration groups differently, and yet one has bread people capable of these attacks and the other one is resulting in a group of fully integrated citizens, who on average are doing better at school and have lower criminality rates than the "indigenous" population. So the cultural difference between immigration groups definitely plays a large part in how things turn-out after a few generations.

Saying all Muslims are bad individually would obviously be wrong. But I do think at a macro-level it is not wrong to say immigration from countries with Muslim culture has brought more issues to Western countries than immigration from countries with other Western cultures, Hindu culture, Chinese/Asian culture, an a few others.

ebbsy · 27-07-2016 09:32AM

Well refugees from certain countries ain't alright, as France and Germany are finding out.

Killing a priest in a church. Mowing down kids in a truck. Really ?

Sooner Trump gets in the better. He will bury those bastards.

Lackey · 27-07-2016 09:33AM

unseenfootage wrote: »

wtf?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson_(bishop)

I see he's an arch bishop of the Church of Ireland

Apologies ....But I still don't understand what your point was?

Why name an Archbishop of the COI and suggest he should lead all Catholics and Christians as a reply to the poster who suggested that the Iman they were speaking about should be the spokesperson for Islam?

Hostage situation in French church

Comments