Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

SpaceSasqwatch · 16-11-2015 01:42AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I was kinda half thinking of putting up a poll to see if people would take the plunge and actually regard being Muslim as a sufficient grounds to bar someone from emigrating here, if for not other reason than my own curiosity at how some of the arguments being played out here are being received by the lurkers - does anyone know if that would be permitted or does it skirt too close to the 'No Racism' portion of the rules (which encompass religion)?

I'd say discriminating against someone on their religion is against the law...even if they werent an irish citizen.

I'd personally would be into getting rid of the scumbags.

Take a refugee in , get rid of an Irish bigot.

Chris_Bradley · 16-11-2015 01:43AM

They were quick to attack a country when the real truth of what happened last night is still yet to come out. Interesting....

I'd say more than 100 odd innocents will die tonight because of that.

Yeah_Right · 16-11-2015 01:45AM

Carnacalla wrote: »

By any chance, are you from the state of texas in america?

No. New Zealand. Why do you ask?

Irish Praetorian · 16-11-2015 01:47AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

"We"? I have never invaded nor voted for anyone who is treating the Middle East like a playground and nor have many people - this is precisely why attacks against civilians for political reasons, like those committed on Friday night, are so unimaginable appalling.

However, we do have the power to stop it from happening in the future.

Again with the "we". It's not "us", it's our corrupt leadership.

Because the West is ok when you're actually living in it. It's how the West's leaders treat the rest of the world that I'm taking issue with.

If people want to say 'the political leadership of X,Y and Z countries then they should by all means do so, I'm sick of being daubed as responsible for acts half a continent away simply by virtue of being a westerner though.

Do you deny that Western governments have asserted that the Middle East is their to direct, usurp, control and coerce? Invading countries to force regime change, toppling democratically elected governments, siding with dictatorships and offering them weapons to help keep civilian uprisings down, doing deals with countries who rightly deserve to be completely isolated and blackballed internationally for their behaviour, etc?

Are you genuinely denying that this happens all the time?

I would probably have a less grim interpretation of it than you - I think you can clearly identify some big disasters smack dab out of the West, Iraq war being the largest. But what I cannot abide is this tendency of blaming just about everything and anything that goes wrong in the Middle East on some kind of 'Western' meddling somewhere, as though the locals have no ability to screw up their own countries.

Ace2007 · 16-11-2015 01:47AM

Chris_Bradley wrote: »

They were quick to attack a country when the real truth of what happened last night is still yet to come out. Interesting....

I'd say more than 100 odd innocents will die tonight because of that.

they use the attack to justify the bombings, and the west will be ok with it because certain elements want to see revenge.

Yeah_Right · 16-11-2015 01:49AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Care to provide proof that any of the people you have named support ISIS?

That is a very serious charge you are making so I assume you can back it up.

Maybe "supporter" is harsh. Maybe "justifier" or "appeaser" would have been more appropriate.

As for backing it up. Well it's simply the impression I got from reading your posts on this thread. Yes. All of them.

kleefarr · 16-11-2015 01:49AM

http://nypost.com/2015/11/15/france-launches-massive-airstrikes-on-isis-in-syria/

ihatemyfish · 16-11-2015 01:54AM

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

Nope he definitely said muslamic rayguns.

Go ahead and defend a simpleton,it provides good reading:)

The fact a muslim rapes a person doesnt make all muslims rapists.Its simple logic.The same way that not all irish people were IRA bombers even though a tiny subset of them did actually carry out bombings.

I have a pain in me hole keeping it simples for simple people but sure thats the nature of the internet.

He said muslamic rape gangs. Hey may be a simpleton, but he was right. What does that make the leftists who scoffed at the idea of Muslim rape gangs targeting young British girls and grooming them?

hatrickpatrick · 16-11-2015 01:55AM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

All I'm saying is their fighting a war lets not get roped into a WW1 scenario Irish soldiers were sent to fight the Ottoman Empire one of the reasons we fell out with Britain was our opposition to war. If your are fighting a war and terror like this is a declaration of war than destroying the enemy is very good.

Killing another human being should never invoke positive feelings. If it does, you're a dangerous psychopath and IMO shouldn't be allowed out in public unsupervised.

VEN · 16-11-2015 01:56AM

acb121 wrote: »

Agree.

The problem with Islam is that you are either with us or you are our enemy. This is what European dhimmis don't get…

arrogant opportunists, getting one over the other, the fairy tale feeding the persona every step of the way no matter how devout, that feature is always there along with the 'fake' smiley face.

ihatemyfish · 16-11-2015 01:57AM

Azalea wrote: »

What I don't get though (and I'm not directing this at you because I don't know your view on it) is people saying refugees from this horror should be barred from entering Europe, or that those fleeing at the moment are highly unlikely to be genuine. It seems a bit hypocritical to be saying in one breath that it's horrific what people are enduring under the fundamentalists but on the other hand not wanting those victims to seek refuge from same.

ISIS have smuggled in their fighters using the migrant routes. It is time to completely close the borders, end the tsunami of immigrants from the region and instead direct funds to maintaining and sustaining the refugee camps in the Middle East.

Bannasidhe · 16-11-2015 02:00AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Maybe "supporter" is harsh. Maybe "justifier" or "appeaser" would have been more appropriate.

As for backing it up. Well it's simply the impression I got from reading your posts on this thread. Yes. All of them.

Not harsh - untrue.

Since you have read all of my posts you should be able to quote the one where I justified anything ISIS has done.
Or where I advocated appeasement.

When you fail to find either of these I will accept your apology.

hatrickpatrick · 16-11-2015 02:03AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

If people want to say 'the political leadership of X,Y and Z countries then they should by all means do so, I'm sick of being daubed as responsible for acts half a continent away simply by virtue of being a westerner though.

In colloquial usage during political debates, "the west" is widely understood to refer to Western foreign policy, not actual Western civilians.

I would probably have a less grim interpretation of it than you - I think you can clearly identify some big disasters smack dab out of the West, Iraq war being the largest. But what I cannot abide is this tendency of blaming just about everything and anything that goes wrong in the Middle East on some kind of 'Western' meddling somewhere, as though the locals have no ability to screw up their own countries.

I'm only blaming the current wave of wars and radicalisation on Western policy. Specifically, the following:

US government replacing a democratic, secular government in Iran with a theocratic, repressive regime
US support for Israeli imperialism, European snivelling and pathetic refusal to stand up to the US and Israel beyond writing angry letters
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq
Torture scandals, rendition, etc - which involved doing deals with hugely unpopular, autocratic regimes such as Egypt and Syria
US and European willingness to support, arm and do business with regimes which terrorise and hurt their own people - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Saddam Huessein, etc - when all of these regimes deserve to be internationally ostracised in the same manner that South Africa once was
Blatant US policy - again unopposed by Europe - to force regime change in countries whose democratically elected governments won't give away national resources for next to nothing

All of the above amounts to treating a large geographic area with populations into the hundreds of millions with utter contempt, viewing and treating those countries as extensions of Western territory to be raped and pillaged at will. Young people of Middle Eastern descent growing up in the West watch this kind of crap on the news and get just as incensed by it as Irish people get when watching films like Michael Collins or Wind That Shakes The Barley (who can honestly say that they didn't feel a surge of internal rage during the scenes of Croke Park being sacked, or the torture of a revel's girlfriend for information?) - except that unlike in our case, these are not historical abuses, these are current policies and events which are happening right now, today.

Trying to suggest that this is not going to dramatically assist recruitment to extremist organisations which promise to fight back against this blatant exploitation is quite simply ridiculous.

BoatMad · 16-11-2015 02:05AM

Any ways , guys and girls, you can debate to your hearts content. But in the meantime the west will begin the process of eradicating IS from the planet.

The time for talking is over , the west needs to stiffen its back. It's time to support massive armed intervention. Until we end this menace or at very least neutralise it, these attroticies will continue.

Only the strong sleep at night

Fleawuss · 16-11-2015 02:07AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In colloquial usage during political debates, "the west" is widely understood to refer to Western foreign policy, not actual Western civilians.

I'm only blaming the current wave of wars and radicalisation on Western policy. Specifically, the following:
US government replacing a democratic, secular government in Iran with a theocratic, repressive regime

US support for Israeli imperialism, European snivelling and pathetic refusal to stand up to the US and Israel beyond writing angry letters

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq

Torture scandals, rendition, etc - which involved doing deals with hugely unpopular, autocratic regimes such as Egypt and Syria

US and European willingness to support, arm and do business with regimes which terrorise and hurt their own people - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Saddam Huessein, etc - when all of these regimes deserve to be internationally ostracised in the same manner that South Africa once was

Blatant US policy - again unopposed by Europe - to force regime change in countries whose democratically elected governments won't give away national resources for next to nothing

All of the above amounts to treating a large geographic area with populations into the hundreds of millions with utter contempt, viewing and treating those countries as extensions of Western territory to be raped and pillaged at will. Young people of Middle Eastern descent growing up in the West watch this kind of crap on the news and get just as incensed by it as Irish people get when watching films like Michael Collins or Wind That Shakes The Barley (who can honestly say that they didn't feel a surge of internal rage during the scenes of Croke Park being sacked, or the torture of a revel's girlfriend for information?) - except that unlike in our case, these are not historical abuses, these are current policies and events which are happening right now, today.

Trying to suggest that this is not going to dramatically assist recruitment to extremist organisations which promise to fight back against this blatant exploitation is quite simply ridiculous.

I commend you sir on your footnote. It precludes any further comment.

KingBrian2 · 16-11-2015 02:11AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Killing another human being should never invoke positive feelings. If it does, you're a dangerous psychopath and IMO shouldn't be allowed out in public unsupervised.

When the person your fighting has killed your family and destroyed your town their is satisfaction. These terrorists are parading around Syria and Iraq in open displays of triumphalism. Ancient sites being destroyed, people fleeing. They are the low of the low and who do we dislike the people that are confronting them on the ground.

BoatMad · 16-11-2015 02:11AM

US government replacing a democratic, secular government in Iran with a theocratic, repressive regime
US support for Israeli imperialism, European snivelling and pathetic refusal to stand up to the US and Israel beyond writing angry letters
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq
Torture scandals, rendition, etc - which involved doing deals with hugely unpopular, autocratic regimes such as Egypt and Syria
US and European willingness to support, arm and do business with regimes which terrorise and hurt their own people - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Saddam Huessein, etc - when all of these regimes deserve to be internationally ostracised in the same manner that South Africa once was
Blatant US policy - again unopposed by Europe - to force regime change in countries whose democratically elected governments won't give away national resources for next to nothing

You've a very simplistic view of history.

To suggest that Iran pre ayottollah was some beacon of democracy , is just laughable and shows you utter lack of knowledge

Israel is surrounded by nations that wish to wipe it of the face with of the earth

Blah blah

Yours is the Homer Simpson version of history. The involvement of western powers in Persia goes back millennia as does the schism in Islam.

Try reading a book or two

hatrickpatrick · 16-11-2015 02:19AM

BoatMad wrote: »

You've a very simplistic view of history.

Coming from someone who denies that Western foreign policy contributes to extremism?

To suggest that Iran pre ayottollah was some beacon of democracy , is just laughable and shows you utter lack of knowledge

I never suggested that it was a beacon of democracy. However, it had a popular and democratically elected government, replaced by force because the West didn't like that government's popular domestic policies.

Israel is surrounded by nations that wish to wipe it of the face with of the earth

Israel is stealing land from its neighbours; it deserves no sympathy whatsoever until it returns what it has taken and commits to permanently ending this policy of displacement.

Blah blah

Very mature.

Yours is the Homer Simpson version of history. The involvement of western powers in Persia goes back millennia as does the schism in Islam.

Try reading a book or two

I'm talking about the recent past which is directly relevant to current events. Furthermore, just because something goes back millennia, doesn't make it ok. It wasn't ok then, it isn't ok now. Taking what does not belong to you by force is, always has, and always will be fundamentally unethical.

BoatMad · 16-11-2015 02:28AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Coming from someone who denies that Western foreign policy contributes to extremism?

I never suggested that it was a beacon of democracy. However, it had a popular and democratically elected government, replaced by force because the West didn't like that government's popular domestic policies.

Israel is stealing land from its neighbours; it deserves no sympathy whatsoever until it returns what it has taken and commits to permanently ending this policy of displacement.

Very mature.

I'm talking about the recent past which is directly relevant to current events. Furthermore, just because something goes back millennia, doesn't make it ok. It wasn't ok then, it isn't ok now. Taking what does not belong to you by force is, always has, and always will be fundamentally unethical.

Sorry , read your history. The shah fell because he clearly was following a western agenda. The muslin hardliners wished to return the country to rule by sharia law and he was deposed.

Israel needed a buffer zone , its military superiority ensured it got it. The creation of Israel is no doubt controversial, but a Jewish homelands simply had to be established

To speak of ethics , is nonsense. Borders , land, rights been been gained by blood far more times then through dialogue.

The Middle East just like the whole world , is a cauldron of competing forces., it will be solved by force of arms , just like all the other contests.

You think the north Vietnamese won by waving rice paper about.

The conquest and colonisation of land has been going on since humans are on the planet and it will continue to do so as long as humans remain on it. It's the consequence of a fixed amount of land and a variable , typically increasing amount of humans.

Irish Praetorian · 16-11-2015 02:31AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In colloquial usage during political debates, "the west" is widely understood to refer to Western foreign policy, not actual Western civilians.

Which I find lazy and unrepresentative, I mean I can't recall France being all that enthusiastic on the Iraq war yet there it stands as an example of 'Western' crimes.

I'm only blaming the current wave of wars and radicalisation on Western policy. Specifically, the following:
US government replacing a democratic, secular government in Iran with a theocratic, repressive regime

US support for Israeli imperialism, European snivelling and pathetic refusal to stand up to the US and Israel beyond writing angry letters

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq

Torture scandals, rendition, etc - which involved doing deals with hugely unpopular, autocratic regimes such as Egypt and Syria

US and European willingness to support, arm and do business with regimes which terrorise and hurt their own people - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Saddam Huessein, etc - when all of these regimes deserve to be internationally ostracised in the same manner that South Africa once was

Blatant US policy - again unopposed by Europe - to force regime change in countries whose democratically elected governments won't give away national resources for next to nothing

All of the above amounts to treating a large geographic area with populations into the hundreds of millions with utter contempt, viewing and treating those countries as extensions of Western territory to be raped and pillaged at will. Young people of Middle Eastern descent growing up in the West watch this kind of crap on the news and get just as incensed by it as Irish people get when watching films like Michael Collins or Wind That Shakes The Barley (who can honestly say that they didn't feel a surge of internal rage during the scenes of Croke Park being sacked, or the torture of a revel's girlfriend for information?) - except that unlike in our case, these are not historical abuses, these are current policies and events which are happening right now, today.

Trying to suggest that this is not going to dramatically assist recruitment to extremist organisations which promise to fight back against this blatant exploitation is quite simply ridiculous.

To tackle your points in sequence

- The replacement of Mossadegh: I always hear this point raised but I never hear the rather pertinent detail that it happened IN 1953! I refuse to consign more than 60 years of Iranian history as being some fawning observance of US will, particularly in light of the 1979 Revolution. This is as absurd as saying Ireland has to have water meters because we were colonized by the British
- Support for Israel: Again, grinds my gears somewhat, not because Israel is doing nothing wrong (quite obviously it is) it's that it recieves such an absurd amount of attention when compared with say, the systematic extermination of 400,000 Fur across the Red Sea, or say the ethnic cleansing of Northern Cyprus by Turkey.
- Afghanistan & Iraq: No argument on the latter, but if the former didn't want to get invaded, hosting and protecting Al Quaeda was probably a bad idea.
- Torture: Not much of an argument, though I would find it strange that so many would be outraged at the US doing in exception what their own countries do routinely
- Deals with the devils: I'm in complete agreement, the only possible reason I can imagine for such deals proceeding is the belief that if the West does not profit from them, then less scrupulous powers will, can't really test that though.
- Overthrowing regimes for resources: You'll have to be more specific here, United Fruit is long gone, meanwhile Chinese companies doing the same in East Africa attract no ire.

I think a lot of people like to spin these half truths with some willpower into a narrative of the region which supplies victim-hood, helplessness and perpetual suffering. The kind of outrage and nationalist baiting that you speak of is exactly what you cultivate when you recount a narrative such as this and surprise surprise, when people perceive themselves to be victims (in addition to the several cases of genuine victim-hood we can agree on) they act as such, which is exactly the kind of narrative ISIS thrives upon. It's also a convenient narrative for the kleptocratic elites which rule at present, because what is more useful than a foreign foe to attract all the ire and anger people would normally turn on incompetent rulers. If we want to progress from this, we have to start conceding that maybe the people in these countries actually have some agency in the state of their own affairs, that they will need to look to themselves to improve things and that they cannot simply wallow in a narrative of being exploited by the West if they want anything. Sadly, it seems like the only groups that really understand that and offer a vision of advancement are the Islamist ones.

Yeah_Right · 16-11-2015 02:33AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not harsh - untrue.

Since you have read all of my posts you should be able to quote the one where I justified anything ISIS has done.
Or where I advocated appeasement.

When you fail to find either of these I will accept your apology.

You'll not get an apology from me because it is the impression I have gotten from reading your posts over the past few hours. Therefore I don't need to quote anything. From reading your posts I believe that you are an appeaser or justifier of Islamic fundamentalism. If that's wrong then your posts haven't been clear enough.

In one of your posts, you mentioned you are a lesbian. Is that correct? Or was it another poster?

BoatMad · 16-11-2015 02:41AM

Which I find lazy and unrepresentative, I mean I can't recall France being all that enthusiastic on the Iraq war yet there it stands as an example of 'Western

France is probably the USs most stalwart ally in the fight against terrorism. That's why it is being targeted. It has far greater independent military capability , then the British

It has been an aggressive US ally in the levant in particular, it is clearly in the " west "

Junkyard Tom · 16-11-2015 02:44AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You'll not get an apology from me because it is the impression I have gotten from reading your posts over the past few hours. Therefore I don't need to quote anything. From reading your posts I believe that you are an appeaser or justifier of Islamic fundamentalism. If that's wrong then your posts haven't been clear enough.

In one of your posts, you mentioned you are a lesbian. Is that correct? Or was it another poster?

Why don't you just be honest and say 'I haven't got the intellectual faculties to debate you so I'm just going to try to attack your character'.

You're out of your depth and you know it. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Chris_Bradley · 16-11-2015 02:47AM

Think it's time to stop even viewing this thread. My god some people are so far up their own a**es it's laughable.

Awaits bs reply.

Goodnight.

hatrickpatrick · 16-11-2015 02:50AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Which I find lazy and unrepresentative, I mean I can't recall France being all that enthusiastic on the Iraq war yet there it stands as an example of 'Western' crimes.

To tackle your points in sequence

- The replacement of Mossadegh: I always hear this point raised but I never hear the rather pertinent detail that it happened IN 1953! I refuse to consign more than 60 years of Iranian history as being some fawning observance of US will, particularly in light of the 1979 Revolution. This is as absurd as saying Ireland has to have water meters because we were colonized by the British

Except that I am not consigning 60 years of history to observance of US will, I am simply pointing out this piece of recent history as an example of a catalyst for anti-West sentiment in the Middle East.

Support for Israel: Again, grinds my gears somewhat, not because Israel is doing nothing wrong (quite obviously it is) it's that it recieves such an absurd amount of attention when compared with say, the systematic extermination of 400,000 Fur across the Red Sea, or say the ethnic cleansing of Northern Cyprus by Turkey.

Again, the point here is that US support for Israel and EU indifference to the aforementioned is contributing to the idea among young Middle Easterners and people of Middle Eastern descent that the West is the enemy.

Afghanistan & Iraq: No argument on the latter, but if the former didn't want to get invaded, hosting and protecting Al Quaeda was probably a bad idea.

Doesn't change the fact that these are more examples of Western governments marking Middle Eastern nations as their enemy, and behaving appallingly in them. Afghanistan probably deserved to get invaded. Hospitals and civilian villages did not deserve to get bombed in the process.

Torture: Not much of an argument, though I would find it strange that so many would be outraged at the US doing in exception what their own countries do routinely

So you don't see how the leak of photos from Abu Ghraib would have inflamed anti-American sentiment in Iraq - a country from which ISIS is drawing large numbers of recruits?

Deals with the devils: I'm in complete agreement, the only possible reason I can imagine for such deals proceeding is the belief that if the West does not profit from them, then less scrupulous powers will, can't really test that though.

I take a more cynical view myself. Those deals were done because Western governments place profit above ethics. Pure and simple. Always have done - both at home and abroad.

- Overthrowing regimes for resources: You'll have to be more specific here, United Fruit is long gone, meanwhile Chinese companies doing the same in East Africa attract no ire.

Well Iran is the earliest example. US support for regimes such as Hosni Mubarack's, and their current support for Egypt's military junta which is killing protesters and banning political parties is another. Refusal to initially support the Arab Spring uprisings (and this was specifically and explicitly cited by Hillary Clinton as done for economic reasons) is another. Iraq is yet another - it's well documented that US companies profited massively in the wake of Saddam's fall.

I think a lot of people like to spin these half truths with some willpower into a narrative of the region which supplies victim-hood, helplessness and perpetual suffering. The kind of outrage and nationalist baiting that you speak of is exactly what you cultivate when you recount a narrative such as this and surprise surprise, when people perceive themselves to be victims (in addition to the several cases of genuine victim-hood we can agree on) they act as such, which is exactly the kind of narrative ISIS thrives upon. It's also a convenient narrative for the kleptocratic elites which rule at present, because what is more useful than a foreign foe to attract all the ire and anger people would normally turn on incompetent rulers. If we want to progress from this, we have to start conceding that maybe the people in these countries actually have some agency in the state of their own affairs, that they will need to look to themselves to improve things and that they cannot simply wallow in a narrative of being exploited by the West if they want anything. Sadly, it seems like the only groups that really understand that and offer a vision of advancement are the Islamist ones.

I agree that movements like IS exploit the narrative, but you're talking as if it isn't true that Western governments have not treated the Middle East with respect and decency over the years. Are you honestly denying that there's a very obvious undertone of "what we want from your country is more important than what you want from your own country" in Western dealings with the Middle Easy?

hatrickpatrick · 16-11-2015 02:54AM

BoatMad wrote: »

Sorry , read your history. The shah fell because he clearly was following a western agenda. The muslin hardliners wished to return the country to rule by sharia law and he was deposed.

ITT: Operation Ajax is a fictional event.

Israel needed a buffer zone , its military superiority ensured it got it.

Neither what your need, nor your ability to take it, justify theft.

The creation of Israel is no doubt controversial, but a Jewish homelands simply had to be established

I am not denying this, it is Israel's subsequent expansion and Western support in some cases and failure to oppose in others which I am taking issue with as a present-day instigator of Middle Eastern hatred of the West.

To speak of ethics , is nonsense. Borders , land, rights been been gained by blood far more times then through dialogue.

That does not make it ok, not does it preclude that being a source of hatred against those who do it, by those whose homelands suffered because of it.

The conquest and colonisation of land has been going on since humans are on the planet and it will continue to do so as long as humans remain on it. It's the consequence of a fixed amount of land and a variable , typically increasing amount of humans.

So have murder, rape, animal cruelty, petty theft, etc. Should we stop opposing and trying to stamp out the aforementioned as well?

Why are crimes a bad thing when practised by individuals on a small scale, but justifiable when practised by nation states on a massive scale?

Yeah_Right · 16-11-2015 02:56AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Why don't you just be honest and say 'I haven't got the intellectual faculties to debate you so I'm just going to try to attack your character'.

You're out of your depth and you know it. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Nice. Calling me stupid.

I've read this thread. All of it. Most of what I would say on this subject has been said. And ignored by you and your supporters.

I have to be careful how I word things otherwise I get accused of hate speech and goading but I will try.

I believe that the West is at war with Islamic extremists. These extremists hate our way of life and our values. They are world wide and not confined to the Middle East. That is what I believe from what I have read, researched and seen. The West must respond with harsh and brutal action. Both overt and covert.

I don't believe all Muslims are bad or support these people but they must do more, in fact they have to do the most, to fight these extremists.

hatrickpatrick · 16-11-2015 02:59AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

These extremists hate our way of life and our values. They are world wide and not confined to the Middle East. That is what I believe from what I have read, researched and seen.

That's where I fundamentally disagree with many in this thread, I think. I've always felt that the "they hate our way of life" argument is a cop out. It was used to explain Bin Laden's desire to attack America in 2001, even after video footage of him discussing the aftermath of the attacks with some people emerged, showing him explicitly tying his campaign of violence to US policy in the Middle East. They hate Western foreign policy far more than our way of life, IMO.

RedemptionZ · 16-11-2015 03:04AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, the point here is that US support for Israel and EU indifference to the aforementioned is contributing to the idea among young Middle Easterners and people of Middle Eastern descent that the West is the enemy.

By that same logic, are Muslims that are aware of people recruiting and radicalising their peers and simply accepting it and doing nothing contributing to the idea that Muslims are the enemy? Obviously I don't think 'Muslims are the enemy' but it draws a lot of parallels to what you are saying. Do you think that there is a certain responsibility on all the good Muslims to isolate and stand up to the extremist minority?

Junkyard Tom · 16-11-2015 03:08AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Most of what I would say on this subject has been said. And ignored by you and your supporters.

What do you mean by 'you and your supporters?

Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

Comments