Hostage situation in French church

shedweller · 27-07-2016 09:37AM

The law needs to change so that we CAN deport immigrants that cause dangerous trouble like yer man with the ankle bracelet. Just turf the fùcker out and to hell with his human rights. Our collective human rights weigh more than a few nutters hellbent on widespread murder and chaos.
Left whingers, i mean wingers, won't get this of course. They'll have open borders, hugs and free everything for all and sundry until the country either breaks down financially from the burden or we eventually end up in the caliphate.

speedboatchase · 27-07-2016 09:37AM

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.

Completely unenforceable, and way too extreme. The goal should always be measured immigration with the goal of assimilation in a secular society, and that goes for any religion.

27-07-2016 09:38AM

Bob24 wrote: »

Not in percentage of the population.

Why should that matter?

If there are 2 million Muslims in Italy, then if Islam is inherently violent, we should be seeing Islamic violence. As things stand, I'm not aware of a religiously-informed Islamic attack on Italy in over 500 years.

It just doesn't add up.

Britain has for decades had an even higher Islamic population, both in nominal terms and per head of population, yet it never experienced Islamic terrorism, as far as I can think, until 2005, which had a major geopolitical component.

I'm not an apologist for Islam, I think it's a religion that belongs buried in the middle-ages. But the notion that it is dangerous in itself, without requiring other salient factors, does not stand up to scrutiny.

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 09:40AM

No papers , no admission ? Most people have some form of I.D they could bring with them . It takes a second to put it in your pocket before you depart. Refuse to be fingerprinted, no admission . No good reason for refusal . Much closer monitoring of the 11,000+ terror suspects in France , and immediate detention when they put a foot wrong and cause any suspicion . You don't get put on that list for nothing .

dissed doc · 27-07-2016 09:42AM

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.

Fundamental to Islam is Jihad - the killing of non-Muslims. My source for this is the Quran. Islam includes violence to non-Muslims as much as it does Taqiyya - lying to non-Muslims.

I.e., you are wrong and misrepresenting the word of Allah by suggesting that violence to non-Muslims is not fundamental to Islam.

Jihad and Taqiyya are to Islam what the ten commandments are to Christianity.

A statement by a Muslim to a non-Muslim (for example, a television interview by an Imam), that an Islamic terrorist killer is not a real Muslim or that it is not representative of Islam, is an example of Taqiyya.

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

Islam without Jihad and violence to non-Muslims, is not Islam at all however Again, my source is the Quran. The elderly and disabled are exempted from Jihad holy war according to Quran, which is IMO a reason why the 2 million mostly single men in there 20s in Europe,and not elderly "fleeing persecution".

Please do not misinterpret the word of Allah or misrepresent Islam by claiming that Jihad or Taqiyya are not part of it. You can read all about it in the Quran.

lawlolawl · 27-07-2016 09:42AM

ebbsy wrote: »

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.

When Trump gets in he will probably just turn the US into a fortress rather than starting more foreign wars.

He is a very domestic-facing guy.

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 09:42AM

conorhal wrote: »

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.

This makes a lot of sense and seems to answer a few questions

SILVAMAN · 27-07-2016 09:45AM

Hitchens had Islam figured out

Bob24 · 27-07-2016 09:46AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why should that matter?

If the percentage of the population is higher, influence on society is stronger.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Britain has for decades had an even higher Islamic population, both in nominal terms and per head of population, yet it never experienced Islamic terrorism, as far as I can think, until 2005, which had a major geopolitical component.

Which country are you comparing to? To my knowledge the Muslim population in Britain (in proportion) has consistently been below the one in France for the past 2 or 3 decades at least (I am not really sure before that, but it was pretty low in both countries).

SILVAMAN · 27-07-2016 09:54AM

NIMAN wrote: »

I think he would also have said the same for Christianity, Judaism etc, as he was an atheist.

Watch the video-he does say that;)

27-07-2016 09:57AM

Bob24 wrote: »

If the percentage of the population is higher, influence on society is stronger.

I know that, but the relevant question is the inherent danger of Islam.

If Islam is inherently dangerous, then the nominal population is a relevant metric, and not the proportional figure.

That is to say, the inherent danger of Islam can be measured by counting the number of violent attacks with reference to the local Muslim population. That's a pretty elementary observation.

The fact that you're introducing the proportional size of the population as a factor (and it is a factor, you're correct) demonstrates that it isn't Islam in itself which is dangerous. Islamic violence is correlated with a number of other variables.

I recently mentioned in another thread that Oslo has a Muslim population of about 10%. Walking around downtown Oslo feel like being in France. They have a noticeable presence, yet nobody is blowing themselves up.

How, then, can we reasonably claim that Islam is inherently dangerous? We cannot. It is a flawed argument.

Zxclnic · 27-07-2016 09:58AM

dissed doc wrote: »

Fundamental to Islam is Jihad - the killing of non-Muslims. My source for this is the Quran. Islam includes violence to non-Muslims as much as it does Taqiyya - lying to non-Muslims.

I.e., you are wrong and misrepresenting the word of Allah by suggesting that violence to non-Muslims is not fundamental to Islam.

Jihad and Taqiyya are to Islam what the ten commandments are to Christianity.

A statement by a Muslim to a non-Muslim (for example, a television interview by an Imam), that an Islamic terrorist killer is not a real Muslim or that it is not representative of Islam, is an example of Taqiyya.

Islam without Jihad and violence to non-Muslims, is not Islam at all however Again, my source is the Quran. The elderly and disabled are exempted from Jihad holy war according to Quran, which is IMO a reason why the 2 million mostly single men in there 20s in Europe,and not elderly "fleeing persecution".

Please do not misinterpret the word of Allah or misrepresent Islam by claiming that Jihad or Taqiyya are not part of it. You can read all about it in the Quran.

Let's not put religious beliefs themselves under a microscope, as none of them would stand up to scrutiny given even a passing glance.

What next (Catholic) Cannon Law v Civil Law and how priests might tell a porky or two in the... ahem...higher interests of the church.

Lackey · 27-07-2016 09:59AM

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,

Lots and lots of rapes though
There's more if you want to look:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/610376/woman-gang-raped-refugee-camp-activists-Italy-border-France-Ventimiglia

Coffee Fulled Runner · 27-07-2016 10:05AM

Since the beginning of the "war on terror" nearly 15 years ago the amount of people killed from acts of terrorism has increased by almost 4500% world wide. Clearly this strategy has failed and a new approach is needed.

Bob24 · 27-07-2016 10:12AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I know that, but the relevant question is the inherent danger of Islam.

If Islam is inherently dangerous, then the nominal population is a relevant metric, and not the proportional figure.

That is to say, the inherent danger of Islam can be measured by counting the number of violent attacks with reference to the local Muslim population. That's a pretty elementary observation.

The fact that you're introducing the proportional size of the population as a factor (and it is a factor, you're correct) demonstrates that it isn't Islam in itself which is dangerous. Islamic violence is correlated with a number of other variables.

I recently mentioned in another thread that Oslo has a Muslim population of about 10%. Walking around downtown Oslo feel like being in France. They have a noticeable presence, yet nobody is blowing themselves up.

How, then, can we reasonably claim that Islam is inherently dangerous? We cannot. It is a flawed argument.

I have quoted a very strong correlation between that percentage and the number of incidents though (clearly visible on the map I posted earlier), as well as the fact that other immigration flows initiated at the same time and treated in he exact same way have not generated the same type of issue (with a clear example when it comes to France).

Your argumentation above doesn't cater for or explain these facts.

Also I am not sure what is meant by "Islam is inherently dangerous" (which is not what I said). I guess any ideology can potentially be dangerous.

What I am saying is that in practical terms, immigration for Muslim culture countries has unfortunately caused more issues to Western countries than many other immigration flows which were treated similarly; and the larger the flow (as a proportion of the population), the more numerous and severe these issues.

There is no hatred against Muslims there (and I wouldn't treat a Muslim person differently becasue of their religion - rather judge them based on their individual actions). It is just a sad observation at a macro-level.

Wanderer78 · 27-07-2016 10:13AM

Coffee Fulled Runner wrote:

Since the beginning of the "war on terror" nearly 15 years ago the amount of people killed from acts of terrorism has increased by almost 4500% world wide. Clearly this strategy has failed and a new approach is needed.

Good point, they can start by not invading countries for pure exploitative reasons

Zxclnic · 27-07-2016 10:18AM

Lackey wrote: »

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,

Lots and lots of rapes though
There's more if you want to look:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/610376/woman-gang-raped-refugee-camp-activists-Italy-border-France-Ventimiglia

'Health warning' as to the accuracy of these 'lists', but apparently the two countries with the highest rape figures are the USA and South Africa.
So can we stop associating rape with Muslims.

Bubbaclaus · 27-07-2016 10:24AM

ebbsy wrote: »

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.

The person identified was not a refugee, he was French. He actually was on his way to the Middle East and got deported back to France, so the people crying for the deportation of everyone got their wish in this instance.

boat_builder · 27-07-2016 10:25AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why should that matter?

If there are 2 million Muslims in Italy, then if Islam is inherently violent, we should be seeing Islamic violence. As things stand, I'm not aware of a religiously-informed Islamic attack on Italy in over 500 years.

It just doesn't add up.

Britain has for decades had an even higher Islamic population, both in nominal terms and per head of population, yet it never experienced Islamic terrorism, as far as I can think, until 2005, which had a major geopolitical component.

I'm not an apologist for Islam, I think it's a religion that belongs buried in the middle-ages. But the notion that it is dangerous in itself, without requiring other salient factors, does not stand up to scrutiny.

the quoran as a text is full of savage violence , of course the majority of muslims are not violent people , no more than christians , you dont need to be violent however to view things and life very differently

there are no predominantly muslim nations in the world which are comparable to the likes of canada , spain , australia or even argentina , muslims ( in the main ) have a much less liberal outlook than most westerners , increasing the population of muslims in europe will change europes charechter even IS are wiped out as well as islamic terror

beach_walker · 27-07-2016 10:30AM

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

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

It doesn't matter what the topic is about, get in there and make it all about you. You can do it.

Moo Moo Land · 27-07-2016 10:33AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It's a great insight . They seem like really nice people.
It hammers home the fact that it's only a tiny percent of Muslims that are radicalized terrorists.

ISIS have killed and continue to kill way more Muslims than Christians.

Moo Moo Land · 27-07-2016 10:34AM

beach_walker wrote: »

It doesn't matter what the topic is about, get in there and make it all about you. You can do it.

Sticks and stones buddy. Did I expose you in the past?

beach_walker · 27-07-2016 10:38AM

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

Sticks and stones buddy.

I don't believe I was calling you any names. I think hand-waving the persecution and killing of Christians, in a thread on an attack on Christians, to big-up your sense of who's really under threat speaks volumes.

I was speaking to a French girl at Mass yesterday, she was familiar with the church in question and it was very illuminating hearing her thoughts on the matter I must say. No anger, just sadness at the way things are and hope that love will outweigh hate in the wake of all this.

Moo Moo Land · 27-07-2016 10:41AM

I am sorry that I like balance and cant join the Christians v Islam mob fight.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslims-are-the-victims-of-between-82-and-97-of-terrorism-related-fatalities-us-government/5516565

In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97 percent of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years.

I love that phrase "speaks volumes" - it always shows you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Please outline the lines in my posts that you disagree with and we'll dance. I am off to the Galway Races now, catch you later.

Bubbaclaus · 27-07-2016 10:42AM

Was it during mass? Thankfully church attendance is pretty much non-existent these days meaning only 5 people got caught up in it.

valoren · 27-07-2016 10:49AM

Stupid question but what happens to the bodies of the terrorists?
Assuming they are not suicide bombers and are in this case shot by police?

beach_walker · 27-07-2016 10:50AM

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslims...rnment/5516565

Quote:
In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97 percent of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years.

Did I say any different...? You're the one trying to shoe-horn in how oppressed atheists are, I'm not sure what number of Muslims killed has to do with. Unless you're claiming them?

Good luck at the races, first off not til 3 p.m.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Was it during mass? Thankfully church attendance is pretty much non-existent these days meaning only 5 people got caught up in it.

Why do you ask a question if you presumably know the answer? To get a few "thanks"?

beach_walker · 27-07-2016 10:52AM

valoren wrote: »

Stupid question but what happens to the bodies of the terrorists?
Assuming they are not suicide bombers and are in this case shot by police?

Same as most bodies, buried or cremated according to custom/family wishes. Interestingly people have the notion that suicide bombers are vaporised, this is totally wrong. They still leave remains.

Calahonda52 · 27-07-2016 11:00AM

beach_walker wrote: »

Same as most bodies, buried or cremated according to custom/family wishes. Interestingly people have the notion that suicide bombers are vaporised, this is totally wrong. They still leave remains.

Yes but there are now pay by weight bake and shake places.

Re your
I was speaking to a French girl at Mass yesterday,

during Mass, no respect then.

valoren · 27-07-2016 11:02AM

beach_walker wrote: »

Same as most bodies, buried or cremated according to custom/family wishes. Interestingly people have the notion that suicide bombers are vaporised, this is totally wrong. They still leave remains.

A possible angle would be that should a terrorist be killed then they lose their 'rights' to this customary burial based on their religion. A law could state that a family automatically loses the right to burial of the body. That their bodies become the property of the state they have committed atrocities on. What should happen to their bodies is not divulged. It could possibly be a deterrent to younger people who are intending to become radicalised i.e. if you commit a terrorist act then what happens to your body may well be contrary to your beliefs etc. That if you are not 'buried' correctly then it impacts your soul, put the fear of 'God' into them so to speak.

Hostage situation in French church

Comments