Study of Radicalisation - 26 Irish Jihadis Fought in Syria

WayneMolloy · 04-04-2013 02:32PM

Doublelime wrote: »

You clearly don't know what "Jihadis" are. Go read a book about it. Jihad is when a Muslim fights for Islam. They are not going for Jihad. They are fighting for their rights. And you can also say some Christians are a form of "Jihadis" if they fight for their religion. For example if I were to insole Christianity to a Christian, they would probably say "say that again and I'll knock you out" etc. Thus making them a " Jihadis" in their own way. I actually knew 1 of the men who died. I also know a teen who goes to my school who fought their for some time.

Why was he over there? Why did his parents not stop him? They are Libyans, correct?

biko · 04-04-2013 02:57PM

I'm fairly sure the names of the 26 fighters weren't Paddy or Mick.
It's fairly common for immigrants to EU to go back and fight in homeland wars.

stmol32 · 04-04-2013 03:00PM

crockholm wrote: »

Not a fan of jihadists, hope they all die horribly (though not by self destruction among innocent civilians)

Would have thought that was the preveiling mood.

It didn't come across that way at all, it sounded like you hoped all foreigners living in Ireland would go to Syria and die.

Phoebas · 04-04-2013 03:10PM

crockholm wrote: »

So this modern A-team has a code of ethics does it? Fight against dictators and bring about democracy and equal voting rights? why would an Egyptian and a libyan choose to fight for syrians, unless there is another,bigger motivation behind their casus belli.

Probably for similar reasons why lots of Irish people joined the British army to fight Hitler?

That, or they want to impose Sharia law on our children :eek:

danniemcq · 04-04-2013 03:14PM

crockholm wrote: »

So this modern A-team has a code of ethics does it? Fight against dictators and bring about democracy and equal voting rights? why would an Egyptian and a libyan choose to fight for syrians, unless there is another,bigger motivation behind their casus belli.

again see my earlier post, why did any Irish people join the second world war?

why did American pilots join the RAF before America joined WW2 officially

why did so many join the spanish civil war? there are people who fight against evil because it is the thing to do

(btw people from other countries fought on both sides of these conflicts)

crockholm · 04-04-2013 03:28PM

stmol32 wrote: »

It didn't come across that way at all, it sounded like you hoped all foreigners living in Ireland would go to Syria and die.

No, apologies for my poor communication. Just the ones with the jihadi mentality

Death and Taxes · 04-04-2013 03:36PM

WayneMolloy wrote: »

The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation have released figures claiming that up to 26 Irish Jihadis took part in the Syrian conflict and that there are currently between 15 - 25 of them still involved in the fighting. Two young males, aged 16 and 22, lost their lives in the conflict.

http://icsr.info/2013/04/icsr-insight-european-foreign-fighters-in-syria-2/

Is this cause for concern? Who is recruiting these young men? Have we Jihadis in our midst?

At no point at all does the linked document refer to the alleged 26 Irish as Jihadis, it referers only to them as fighters and indeed goes to some lengths to point out that that rebels in Syria can be classified in three ways , Jihadists are only one group.
Way has purposly therefore misrepresented the report to suit his own particularly xenophobic if not racist agenda.
Read his link and see just how he has twisted it.

Death and Taxes · 04-04-2013 03:40PM

WayneMolloy wrote: »

The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation have released figures claiming that up to 26 Irish Jihadis took part in the Syrian conflict and that there are currently between 15 - 25 of them still involved in the fighting. Two young males, aged 16 and 22, lost their lives in the conflict.

http://icsr.info/2013/04/icsr-insight-european-foreign-fighters-in-syria-2/

Is this cause for concern? Who is recruiting these young men? Have we Jihadis in our midst?

read the report and quote me where it mentions Irish Jihadis

crockholm · 04-04-2013 03:40PM

danniemcq wrote: »

again see my earlier post, why did any Irish people join the second world war?

why did American pilots join the RAF before America joined WW2 officially

why did so many join the spanish civil war? there are people who fight against evil because it is the thing to do

(btw people from other countries fought on both sides of these conflicts)

well aware of it. In my own family I have had, from earlier generations,people join the british army to fight in ww1 and ww2, even had a great-grand uncle fight with the Boers in the Boer war. But what I also have are Syrian Christian neighbours and friends of the wife, who have family in Syria,and the stories of the foreign militiamen are not of the noble warrior type. I have been told that it is largely the anti-government forces and the foreign fighters who are purging the area, through murder and intimidation,of it's Christian populace.Now, all things considered, do I accecpt your point that, from whatever info you have, that the foreigners are a benevolent force for change.Or, do I listen to my Neighbours, and wifeys friends, who regularly communicate with their families back home about the situation on the ground?

WayneMolloy · 04-04-2013 04:02PM

WileyCoyote wrote: »

At no point at all does the linked document refer to the alleged 26 Irish as Jihadis, it referers only to them as fighters and indeed goes to some lengths to point out that that rebels in Syria can be classified in three ways , Jihadists are only one group.
Way has purposly therefore misrepresented the report to suit his own particularly xenophobic if not racist agenda.
Read his link and see just how he has twisted it.

You are more concerned with my posting than 26 Irish based muslims going of to fight in a conflict with a side that is heavily linked with jihadist extremists. That is just nuts, man.

According to prof. Peter Nuemann of Kings University, London - Out of the EU, Ireland is the biggest contributor of combatants in Syria , per capita. Most of the fighters are not Syrian, but Libyan. That would lead us to believe a lot of them were involved in the Libyan conflict, too. Where they returned to a hereos welcome from the goons in rte. I think it is fair to call these veterans jihadis.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/26-fighters-have-left-ireland-to-join-syrian-rebels-29173266.html

I hope the branch are monitoring the situation very closely.

Nodin · 04-04-2013 04:05PM

WayneMolloy wrote: »

The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation have released figures claiming that up to 26 Irish Jihadis took part in the Syrian conflict and that there are currently between 15 - 25 of them still involved in the fighting. Two young males, aged 16 and 22, lost their lives in the conflict.

http://icsr.info/2013/04/icsr-insight-european-foreign-fighters-in-syria-2/

Is this cause for concern? Who is recruiting these young men? Have we Jihadis in our midst?

Jaysus wayne, them 'foriegners' just won't let ye sleep.

Phoebas · 04-04-2013 04:07PM

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Way has purposly therefore misrepresented the report to suit his own particularly xenophobic if not racist agenda.
Read his link and see just how he has twisted it.

This is the third link that that poster had posted in as many days that, on examination, didn't at all say what he represents it as saying (the other two were about immigrents access to social welfare, so i'm seeing a pattern).

Nodin · 04-04-2013 04:08PM

WayneMolloy wrote: »

...............

If you think it xenophobic to ask why a 16 year old lad, who had never before set foot in Syria, decided to go over and fight there after being recruited by jihadists - then that speaks volumes about you and how brainwashed you are with your ideology.

Did you ask the same question about the Irish in the American and Brit armies fighting in Iraq, or is that "different"?

WayneMolloy · 04-04-2013 04:09PM

This is whom our 26 'freedom fighters' are aligning themselves with - http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/3/islamic-cleric-decrees-it-ok-syrian-rebels-rape-wo/

WayneMolloy · 04-04-2013 04:11PM

Nodin wrote: »

Did you ask the same question about the Irish in the American and Brit armies fighting in Iraq, or is that "different"?

Whataboutery at its finest.

Nodin · 04-04-2013 04:17PM

WayneMolloy wrote: »

This is whom our 26 'freedom fighters' are aligning themselves with - http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/3/islamic-cleric-decrees-it-ok-syrian-rebels-rape-wo/

That story was debunked Wayne. Its bollocks.

Salon re-published a story Wednesday from one of our partner sites, AlterNet, with the headline “Saudi religious leader calls for gang rape of Syrian women.” The story reported that cleric Sheikh Mohammad Al-Arifi had urged Syrian fighters to satisfy their sexual urges in “short-term marriages” as a means of boosting morale in their fight against the Assad regime. AlterNet has since retracted the story, saying it was “based on a false report,” and published an explanation for how a story so flawed could be published. Salon has removed the story from our archives, and regrets running the original story.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/cleric_gang_rape_story_debunked/

Why are you re-distributing lies?

How can the 26 people be aligned with something that doesn't exist?

Nodin · 04-04-2013 04:18PM

WayneMolloy wrote: »

Whataboutery at its finest.

No, its a simple question. You've a problem with one group, I want to know if you've a problem with another.

WayneMolloy · 04-04-2013 04:24PM

Nodin wrote: »

That story was debunked Wayne. Its bollocks.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/cleric_gang_rape_story_debunked/

Why are you re-distributing lies?

How can the 26 people be aligned with something that doesn't exist?

Its debunked because salon.net claim it to be so?

Il wait until the Washington Times retract their version of events, if its all the same with you.

Nodin · 04-04-2013 04:31PM

WayneMolloy wrote: »

Its debunked because salon.net claim it to be so?

Il wait until the Washington Times retract their version of events, if its all the same with you.

No, the Washington times got it from either Alternet, or the same source. Its bollocks "wayne", its been refuted, debunked, and it was obvious from the minute it emerged it was crap.

Why are you redistributing lies?

Why aren't you critical of those who joined the American and Brit armies?

crockholm · 04-04-2013 04:36PM

Are things really as clear cut as that nodin? Are we going to substitute assad for hitler and the anti-government militia's as the allies? I respect your point of veiw on many things nodin, but that is,I think, over-simplified.

WayneMolloy · 04-04-2013 04:36PM

Nodin wrote: »

No, the Washington times got it from either Alternet, or the same source. Its bollocks "wayne", its been refuted, debunked, and it was obvious from the minute it emerged it was crap.

Why are you redistributing lies?

Why aren't you critical of those who joined the American and Brit armies?

The author of the Washington Times article claims that she is basing her article on audio footage. Why would a writer, with such a reputable paper, make up lies?

Give me a reputable source debunking the article, or none at all.

Nodin · 04-04-2013 04:47PM

WayneMolloy wrote: »

The author of the Washington Times article claims that she is basing her article on audio footage. Why would a writer, with such a reputable paper, make up lies?

Give me a reputable source debunking the article, or none at all.

They aren't the source of the story, they believed it to be true.

Salon isn't reputable? The site that ran the story from the original source isn't "reputable"?

AlterNet inadvertently picked it up from the overtly anti-Islamic Clarion Fund site. Others pointed to the Iranian regime-backed Press TV as the primary source on Dec. 31, 2012. But the earliest English language reporting comes on December 29 from an obscure YouTube news site called Eretz Zen, tagged as a YouTube channel by a “secular Syrian opposed to having [his] country turned into a Taliban-like state."

http://www.alternet.org/world/exhibit-how-islamophobic-meme-can-spread-wildfire-across-internet

Secondly, there is no such thing as "temporary marriage" within Sunni Islam, only some sects of Shia Islam. The Jihadis are conservative Sunnis. The Shiekh mentioned is a conservative Sunni. It makes no sense to anyone with the faintest clue about the religion, and the only people that would swallow it would be journos desperate for a story, the ignorant, or bigots seeking to justify their prejudice.

mattjack · 04-04-2013 04:58PM

Nodin wrote: »

They aren't the source of the story, they believed it to be true.

Salon isn't reputable? The site that ran the story from the original source isn't "reputable"?

http://www.alternet.org/world/exhibit-how-islamophobic-meme-can-spread-wildfire-across-internet

Secondly, there is no such thing as "temporary marriage" within Sunni Islam, only some sects of Shia Islam. The Jihadis are conservative Sunnis. The Shiekh mentioned is a conservative Sunni. It makes no sense to anyone with the faintest clue about the religion, and the only people that would swallow it would be journos desperate for a story, the ignorant, or bigots seeking to justify their prejudice.

Nodin , you fucker , you keep letting the truth get in the way of shite.

WayneMolloy · 04-04-2013 05:00PM

Nodin wrote: »

They aren't the source of the story, they believed it to be true.

Salon isn't reputable? The site that ran the story from the original source isn't "reputable"?

http://www.alternet.org/world/exhibit-how-islamophobic-meme-can-spread-wildfire-across-internet

Secondly, there is no such thing as "temporary marriage" within Sunni Islam, only some sects of Shia Islam. The Jihadis are conservative Sunnis. The Shiekh mentioned is a conservative Sunni. It makes no sense to anyone with the faintest clue about the religion, and the only people that would swallow it would be journos desperate for a story, the ignorant, or bigots seeking to justify their prejudice.

Salon is a far left tabloid. You wouldnt accept right wing sites as a legitimate source, dont expect me to do likewise. The Washington Times only printed the article yesterday. Until they retract it, or you present credible evidence to the table - I proport it to be legit.

Whats your opinion on the topic at hand btw?

Nodin · 04-04-2013 05:03PM

mattjack wrote: »

Nodin , you fucker , you keep letting the truth get in the way of shite.

I know, I'm just a miserable bollocks. Thats why nobody loves me, and I have to sit here all alone in my y-fronts and assless leather chaps.....

Nodin · 04-04-2013 05:06PM

WayneMolloy wrote: »

Salon is a far left tabloid. You wouldnt accept right wing sites as a legitimate source, dont expect me to do likewise. The Washington Times only printed the article yesterday. Until they retract it, or you present credible evidence to the table - I proport it to be legit.

I've not only provided two sources for the fact its a crock of shite, I've also explained why it can only be a crock of shite with regards to theological positions, sharia etc.

WayneMolloy wrote: »

Whats your opinion on the topic at hand btw?

Hysterical fear mongering cockology I wouldn't line a birds cage with, featuring the classic distortions of news articles by somebody with an agenda.

returnNull · 04-04-2013 05:09PM

first he came for the immigrants,then he came for the muslims....

fuk I could write a poem about this and make a mint!

WayneMolloy · 04-04-2013 05:09PM

Nodin wrote: »

I've not only provided two sources for the fact its a crock of shite, I've also explained why it can only be a crock of shite with regards to theological positions, sharia etc.

Hysterical fear mongering cockology I wouldn't line a birds cage with, featuring the classic distortions of news articles by somebody with an agenda.

Both left wing tabloid magazines with a weekly circulation of 10, 000. You are using them to disprove an article written by a broadsheet that calls itself the paper of record and has a daily circulation of 90-100, 000?

Seems legit.

.jacksparrow. · 04-04-2013 05:13PM

Funny how some people see nothing wrong with these but everything with people in Belfast in the 70s.

Nodin · 04-04-2013 05:14PM

WayneMolloy wrote: »

Both left wing tabloid magazines with a weekly circulation of 10, 000. You are using them to disprove an article written by a broadsheet that calls itself the paper of record and has a daily circulation of 90-100, 000?

Seems legit.

The times story is derivative of that run by alternet. Its a crock. The Sun has a massive circulation - does that mean its automatically reliable too?

Why would the two sites retract it?

How could it be true when it contradicts Sunni beliefs?

Why don't you criticise those who joined the Brit and US armies?

Why do you mantain the Irish are jihadis when theres no proof this is the case?

Study of Radicalisation - 26 Irish Jihadis Fought in Syria

Comments