Truck driven into crowd in Stockholm - No Speculation

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Radicalising Muslims can be, in part, sorted out by cutting off funding coming in from Saudi Arabia to build and fund new Mosques, fund existing Mosques, and funding terror schools.

Closing down and demolishing mosques that openly allow terror preachers preach, shows that there is a consequence to lack of action and tolerance by the wider Muslim community to allowing this preaching to happen.

Your continuing belief that Islam has always been a peaceful religion and following the "West is to blame" (TM) approach favoured by Regressive liberals ignores the aggression shown by Islamic leaders and rulers over the centuries.

Muhammads aggressive conquest of Arabia
The Umayyad conquest of Spain & Portugal
Ottoman incursions into Europe throughout the centuries.
The Pakistani invasion of Bangladesh.
The continued persecution of Christians throughout the Islamic world.

To name a few.


But yes. It is a Religion of Peace. Didn't George Bush say the same thing?

sure demolishing mosques is the way to put moderate muslims in the ascendancy

good thinking, up there with executing 1916 leaders, really would dampen passions etc

good god ,

West is to blame" (TM)

I agree we're at it so much in recent decades that its needs a trademark

Widdershins wrote: »

Younger generations are more radical and devout than the older generations who were the first of their families to settle. It's pretty weird, from the point of view of the Irish whose own national religion has steeply declined over the years, and whose main religious adherents are the older generation. In Ireland religion is waning along with the elderly who keep it.. You don't really hear young Irish people debating the correct way to live life according to religious principles, in the way young Muslims often do (in my experience).

The next generation of settled Irish in the UK formed bands giving us some of the greatest music we have ever heard

We created we did not destroy

conorhal wrote: »

Proportionality relates to utility. No, we don't ban cars, we need the bloody things so we accept the risk. How many Islamists do we need?

None, but it's not question of taking in Islamists but people.

We have values pertaining to altruism, openness and freedom and they are the utility gained from allowing immigrants into our countries.

There are also more prosaic benefits pertaining to the good elements of culture (anyone fancy a curry?), economic benefits with migrants fulfulling a huge number of roles across society and sustaining the younger age profile we need to keep the social welfare pyramid scheme lurching along a while longer.

Much as you must accept the risk that some drivers can't be trusted in order to permit driving in general, if you want to uphold Western values, you need cheap labour to sustain economic growth and you need young people cranking out babies to feed the social welfare machine, you need to decide whether the miniscule risk of terrorism (and it literally is a miniscule risk) is worth it.

And, all the while, you can take proportional action to reduce the risk, both in terms of aggressive and passive, at home and abroad.

That doesn't constitute banning all Muslims, and to conflate them and Islamist terrorists is bald-faced racism.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I take it the people here advocating restrictions on Muslim immigration would have had no problem with severe restrictions on Irish immigration to the UK when the halfwits in the IRA were planting bombs?

While they were trying to deal with it, yes, I'd have accepted it (I think. I wasn't around at the time. I'm imagining a situation where I had a job in the UK to get to, or someother situation where an immigration ban would really disrupt life.)
I'm sure I wouldn't have been happy about it, but still.

Nody wrote: »

Is a dead person due a drunk driver less dead compared to one killed by a Islamist terrorist?

No, but one is usually accidental and one is deliberate, or doesn't context rate a mention? Is a dead Jew in a gas chamber less dead then a victim of a road accident?
That's a stupid equivalence and you know it.

Nody wrote: »

And which is more likely to happen and would cost less to prevent to happen in the first place?

The answer is simple answer, it's less costly to not import Syrian refugees and Middle eastern migrants, 'no thanks' costs nothing and is preventative in this case which is a cost saving. We're importing migrants from Calais and spending 250,000 pa on each of them per year. How cost effective is that if cost concerns you that much?

Nody wrote: »

Also which of the two would require you to give up less of your liberty to make it happen?

Again, dumb question. Look at France and the UK (or the North Quays and the new promenade opposite the convention center with it's concrete barrier to prevent exactly such attacks). The cost to my freedom of road death prevention is not drinking and driving and accepting penalty points if I speed. It's not a huge imposition, and it's a logical one.
The cost Islamic immigration in terms of civil liberties it seems, is living in a fortress police state under constant surveillance. We have had to surrender a lot more liberty to make a place in Europe for Islam then we have for cars, yay multiculturalism!

Nody wrote: »

As to quoting my post; the reply was to a user complaining about his opinions without facts were being torn apart and decided to change to the chance of dying to a Muslim vs. non Muslim instead; the answer is bloody long odds by comparison still. However if you are still that afraid of Muslim terrorists I'm willing to sell you an insurance; you get paid back 10.000 EUR on the euro in case of you being the victim of a random Islamic insipired terrorist attack in Europe. Should I sign you up for 100 EUR a year? Because that's going to be an insane cash cow.

And as I pointed out. Do you think those odd will shorten or lengthen in the coming years?

BoatMad wrote: »

thats has largely been confined to countries ruled by Sharia law, ( and that country was not invaded , because its our " friend " )

Im not an apologist for the radical elements of Islam, there are many muslim countries where such practices do not occur. Iraq under Sadam, was no picnic, but women attended university and the worst tendencies of Islam were outlawed

The point remains, " we" are being attacked because " we " are seen as active combatants in the ME.

Once again,since when was Sweden an active combatants in the ME? The perpetrators of the attack were resident in Sweden, so it's not as if this was unknown to them.

BoatMad wrote: »

In many countries young people are more conservative then their parents . Equally not all comparisons with Ireland are apt.

there are many in the muslim world that believe western muslims themselves have gone "soft", along with their Catholic and protestant neighbours

remember the vast majority of 2nd generation muslims youths are not radicalised, there just holding down jobs, going to college, entering the professions etc

only a few take it to extremes . ( its always the way )

There is a big gulf between being more conservative than your parents-and I don't think that's common to other religions, it's more individualistic- what other religions are undergoing a revival and 'purification' among their young members, to anything like the same degree as Islam? What other religion has its youth leaving their parents bewildered by their newfound religious devotion. And the fact that this devotion has come about in part from peer pressure and from radical teachings in mosques etc is an important factor. It didn't just ..happen.

Widdershins wrote: »

There is a big gulf between being more conservative than your parents-and I don't think that's common to other religions, it's more individualistic- what other religions are undergoing a revival and 'purification' among their young members, to anything like the same degree as Islam? What other religion has its youth leaving their parents bewildered by their newfound religious devotion. And the fact that this devotion has come about in part from peer pressure and from radical teachings in mosques etc is an important factor. It didn't just ..happen.

radicalisation is happening for a reason , Muslims see their home lands being destroyed by the west, interfering , invading, killing etc and they see the massive upheaval that has resulted from that .

and you wonder why they are radicalised, Im surprised there are so few actually

BoatMad wrote: »

Radical Muslims identify the " West " as the invader etc . Hence the strikes, this is not about targeting Sweden, its about targeting the "West"

This is nonsense look up Isis' stated aims and goals. Their target is the establishment of a global caliphate (world domination under sharia law). To believe leaving them at it and not intervening to combat them will stop them is ludicrous. You ignore them they will only fester and strengthen.

Danzy wrote: »

I think that disengagement from the Middle East will make very little difference.

Those who opposed it, had nothing to do with it are just as open for attack.

Your view reminds me of those who deny climate change, it is had become an ideological totem for their tribe, if that goes then a part of them goes as well.

Countries that were opposed to Middle Eastern intervention have more bodies piling up than the ones for it, so by your interesting logic maybe if they had fought in Iraq etc they might be safer.

You have to understand that radicalised muslims see the " west" as the issue. The call by the jihadists to radicals in Europe was not specific , it just mentioned using ordinary things to cause harm ( and specially mentioned vehicles )

what you are then seeing is those European Muslims who have been radicalised by what they see and experience in the ME, reacting

thats all , its not that thought out, its a form of visceral reaction, its not centrally co-ordinated etc

Somedude9 wrote: »

Yeah it's our fault :rolleyes:

yes a lot of it is , including two ill thought out invasions and the resulting chaos