Breaking: At least 1 man dead after stabbing rampage in Dundalk

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf were on a slippy road....if we start handing out different sentences based on name/nationality/or sex even for that matter


IMO they should irrelevant when it comes to the law

I’m not referring to law. People are saying age is irrelevant. In reporting it’s not irrelevant.
When something is reported in the paper it’s usually something along the lines of Tom McGinty (41) from Bushy Park Galway assaulted the...

I don’t get why people are upset about other people wondering if he lied about his age or not. He’s obviously lying about other things.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

There seems to be a persistent inference in this talk of 'incompatibility of cultures' that people from cultural backgrounds all think the same way. There are 1.3 billion Muslims on the planet -- they are not all hooked up to some Muslim Mainframe where they are all programmed to think and act in the exact same way and to react to Western norms in the same way. I keep having to reiterate that Muslims living in Europe do so peacefully and law abidingly -- the proportion of them engaged in terrorism is microscopic while the ones who partake in general crime has more to do with socio-economic factors than by virtue of what religion they are. The Muslim population has continued to grow in Europe and there has been no correlating slide in Europe's freedoms and intellectual progress.

It's not about Muslims and it never was, it's about people from the geographic region encompassing North Africa and the Middle East, which have a very recent history of cultural hostility towards what we in the West consider basic, non-negotiable human rights in various ways. A non-Muslim from Saudi Arabia is just as likely to have a backwards view of womens' place in society as a Muslim from Saudi Arabia - it's not about religion or race, it's about cultural immersion. Somebody who converted to Islam while living in Ireland is not culturally connected to ultraconservative middle eastern culture, so they're unlikely to adopt such views.

It's not about race or religion, it's about the culture you grew up surrounded by and taught by. Odds are, for example, that if you grew up in a country where women are legally second class citizens and your family enforced this at home, you are more likely to hold such views yourself, which will fundamentally clash with how people live in this country. Now, if you're willing to discard your own social values at the border when you move here, then that's fine. The issue is that "multiculturalism" as an ideology insists that we shouldn't force people to do this - that we should allow people to continue living by the lifestyle they lived in their original country. This is fine in some cases, but absolutely toxic in others. Several obvious examples have been given.

You say it is not racist or evil to say that one person's cultural background simply is not compatible with yours. Fair enough. But in times like this we have to look back at any point in history where people decided that people of one 'culture' should just be seen as undesirable as a collective. The Jews in Europe, the African Americans, Apartheid etc etc. The point is, you may feel that an exercise of generalising people by their cultural background is 'pragmatic' -- but historic precedent has shown us time and time again that it simply never works out well.

I'd argue that historic precedent has actually shown us that this form of multiculturalism simple never works out well. The problems you refer to only arose because people with vastly conflicting cultures were forced to share the same geographic regions without agreeing on a mutually acceptable set of values by which to live. This is what leads to the creation of ghettoes etc. This is where the concept of cultural ethnicities deserving their own homeland in which they can live according to their own cultures - for example, the two state solution of Israel and Palestine - came about. Because it was recognised that throwing people of utterly incompatible cultures into one small geographic region together only ever leads to conflict. History has taught us this repeatedly.

For Muslims living here currently in Ireland, if you think they are so incompatible with us, then you should be consistent in your views, seek them out, and say it to their faces. Tell them directly that they just don't belong with us. If that would make you uncomfortable, then think about why that is.

Again, it's not about religion. Seeking out Muslims to do this would be pointless, since there are many Muslims who do not adopt ultraconservative cultural ideologies imported from repressed nations elsewhere. A far better analogy would be if you meet a teenage girl or young woman whose family doesn't let her out of the house without a male chaperone. Telling her to her face that you find this repulsive is obviously pointless, but how about phoning the Gardai or social services to report a suspected case of psychological / emotional abuse? If it was a case of somebody's partner treating them this way, under the new domestic violence laws introduced very recently this would be a clear cut case of emotional abuse, no question whatsoever. Why should it be different when it comes to familial relationships as opposed to sexual ones?

I'm not going to call you a racist at all -- but you fail to see that the idea you are espousing, however well-meaning you think it is, is the first classic step towards racism/sectarianism etc : generalise based on race/religion and just decide that an entire strata of people should just be viewed as being 'incompatible' with us.

It's different if you generalise based on culture, which unlike religion or race is a tangible measure of the lifestyle one not only lives by, but expects their family to live by as well.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we don't allow such people into this country at all, I am suggesting that the concept of multiculturalism is flawed - that the currently considered un-PC rule of "when in Rome, do as Romans do" makes more sense than the currently popular concept of letting people move to a country without adopting its basic social values as part of their lifestyle and their families' lifestyle.

Great post hatrickpatrick.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Have (has?) ISIS claimed anything about this yet?

No they havent...but they also have done so for a large number of attacks over the last 12 months. The usual procedure is that they find a video or letter where the person in question claims to be an IS supporter/fighter.

p_singh wrote: »

He was from Egypt and not Syria. Attempted asylum in UK, didn't get it.. crossed over illegally to ROI and perhaps just went bat**** crazy. At the end of the day, an illegal immigrant killed a legal one. He should have been dealt with the first time when he was caught without papers by Garda.

I believe he was stopped on New Year's Day. It might possibly explain how he might somehow have slipped through the system : a public holiday and everywhere closed that day. It's possible he came up with some sob story that threw the Gardai off the scent.

Strazdas wrote: »

I believe he was stopped on New Year's Day. It might possibly explain how he might somehow have slipped through the system : a public holiday and everywhere closed that day. It's possible he came up with some sob story that threw the Gardai off the scent.

He didn't need a sob story. All he had to say was he had applied for asylum. Garda doesn't have access to those records so has no real reason to doubt him.