Hostage situation in French church

beach_walker wrote: »

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

I don't know the answer. It's why I asked it.

delly wrote: »

I've read a few of these threads at this stage, and the sad realisation is that there is no solution, NONE. You can be as left wing as you want, respect religions, personal rights, or you can be right wing, lock them all up, deport them, etc., but the reality is that the horse has bolted and there is no solution. You can change things around and try to increase security, but the creation and impact of this type of incident will remain. It's actually really sad to dwell on that at this stage. Sure there has always been evil in the world, but it is the impact of it edging closer that is really worrying.

That is defeatist.

There are solutions, but no leader bar the likes of Orban are willing to take them.
They fear the reaction from the liberal left and the media commentators and the do gooders like the actors who visit the Calais jungle.

For a start stop the ferry service in the Med.
Pick them up and drop them back on coast of Libya, do deal with Libyan government/warlord.
They will soon cop on they aren't going to be dropped in Italy and start giving up.
Use force if necessary.

Likewise in Greece turn an island in holding camp (ala Australia) if Turkey won't take them back.
And instead of paying off Erdogan put the pressure on him.
This has to come from the yanks who bend over backwards due to his NATO membership.
Of course he gives the two fingers to them and won't let them use his country to launch attacks on ISIS.
Better still make sure the next coup works.

Start using the funds wasted on picking up, ferrying and looking after all the migrants coming to Europe to actually help those in camps in Lebanon and Jordan.
BTW if you turn up in Europe with no identification then feck off.

Stop backing rebels in Syria and allow Assad take over.
The devil you know is better than a hundred you don't.
Back the Kurds fully.
Again this means taking on Turkey.

Internally within Europe.
Close down any mosque, cultural centre, muslim centre that is linked to terrorists or has been found spouting any religious hatred.
Deport the likes of Abu Hamza al-Masri immediately once he appears on the radar and tell the European court of human rights go fook themselves.
Likewise with the fooker down in Waterford.

Stop the creation of any new muslim centres or mosques that are funded by Wahhabists.
Ban the travel of Wahhabist, Salafist preachers in Europe and ban the travel of members of muslim brotherhood.

Once someone, like Adel K in France, is found to be trying to get to ISIS or has been linked to ISIS they are immediately interned, no ifs or buts about it.

If a non national of the EU is found guilty of a violent crime, they are immediately deported upon completion of sentence.
It doesn't matter if they are going to be shot or tortured upon return to country of origin, they should have thought of that before they committed a crime.

Now a lot of people are going to say this is infringing on people rights, is heavy handed and is a dangerous precedent.
But what are the alternatives, complete death of our secular way of life and death by a thousand throat slitings.

And the sooner the West finds a way to remove the influence of the Gulf States and Arabia the better for all.
The Americans and others for years have been telling us about the dangerous of Iran, whilst at the same time helping the Saudis, the Qataris, etc spread their tentacles across the world.
They may be providing capital and investing in Western companies, but they are also investing in networks of hatred at the same time.

How many of the 911 attackers were Iranian or for that matter Iraqi ?
And how many were Saudi ?

valoren wrote: »

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.

so states should now adopt the practice of desecrating bodies as a form of retribution? What an absolutely disgusting idea.

jmayo wrote: »

For a start stop the ferry service in the Med.
Pick them up and drop them back on coast of Libya, do deal with Libyan government/warlord.
They will soon cop on they aren't going to be dropped in Italy and start giving up.
Use force if necessary.

Likewise in Greece turn an island in holding camp (ala Australia) if Turkey won't take them back.

Very extreme solution you have there but I want to know.

Many of the asylum seekers are Christians, fleeing the M.E or places like Eritrea.

We ship them back too right, or just the Muslims?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so states should now adopt the practice of desecrating bodies as a form of retribution? What an absolutely disgusting idea.

No more disgusting than slitting an innocent priests throat or driving a truck into crowded areas etc etc etc etc etc?

unseenfootage wrote: »

Sounds like a very catholic solution to bury the evil ones in a separate cemetery.
Do they still practice this nowadays?

My dad told us that when he was a child his gran warned him not to go into the local cemetary where protestants were buried. Why? He would be engulfed in flames if he did. :pac:

foggy_lad wrote: »

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

just like far right/far left extremists, anti-muslim/other groups bigots, and racists then?
if all other religions and their followers are compatible for living in western society, then so are muslims and islam. i have no time for organised religion but either all have a right to exist here or none.

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.

honestly, listen to yourself. "jay don't agree with me so jay in denial rabel rabel"
you no more care about western society then islamic or other extremists.

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 a load of old nonsense. are we deporting all of those currently in europe who are of a practicing religion as well? grow up

Zxclnic wrote: »

What about non-practising Muslims...and how we will we know which is which, maybe by asking them when they apply for asylum.

it will be the usual method they like. colour of skin will determine who is and isn't a muslim. these people are as predictible as it gets.

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.

The answer to the question of the absence of islamic extremist terror in Italy : Italy has an examplary anti terror system . '' Romanian born political scientist and military analyst Edward N. Luttwak lays out a persuasive theory explaining how Italy has been so successful in thwarting Islamic terror attempts. In a word: Italy is not afraid to deport those it considers to be a threat to national security.

In his essay titled “Doing Counterterrorism Right,” Luttwak contrasts Italy with France and Belgium, noting that although Italy is much more vulnerable than they are, it has been far more effective at stopping would-be terrorists before they strike.''

valoren wrote: »

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.

Would interring their remains in a pit of pigs crubeens cause them to pause for reflection?

end of the road wrote: »

irrelevant nonsense. if they are at risk of being shot then they can't be deported. in fact, if they are a violent criminal then keeping them locked up in europe is doing a service to the rest of the world.

How does someone prove they are at risk ? Does strife in the potential destination country suffice as proof? Would that apply when someone had no I.D when they arrived in a host country ? I'm in agreement with incarcerating violent criminals but also those under reasonable suspicion of having been radicalised , especially in a country that is under a state of emergency . As for freedoms , I've never met anyone who doesn't have something to hide , objecting to data surveillance in times of crisis .I have no issue with it.