Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

smash wrote: »

I don't recall any IRA member who was willing to blow themselves up in the hopes they would kill innocent people.

Thats not the point, such fatalism was not a feature of our home grown radicals at the turn of the century

It does not distract from my argument, conflict radicalises certain people, often ordinary people. That is true in Ireland as it is in Iraq

Peist2007 wrote: »

So in order to explicitly discriminate against an entire mass of people based on their religion, you are going to override one of the pillars of European democracy (free movement of people) and prevent Muslims entering countries purely based on their religion and irrespective of whether they have family etc already in those countries. Human rights, family rights, free movement of persons etc all destroyed because someone might bomb us?

If you cannot see that the above, and the resultant divide it will create between Muslims and the West, is not the entire plan of groups like ISIS then you have spent a lot of time in here and not picked much up.

We signed up for free movement within the EU. Not free movement with the Middle East, North and subsaharan Africa. I've no problem with our interior borders being open but our exterior should be like a fortress. If you do not have skills or qualifications needed, are not an entrepreneur or student , then you should not be admitted. We are not running a charitable organisation or global soup kitchen here.

They should blanket bomb Syria with high quality porn mags and DVDs, together with top drawer weed.


Give it about 2 weeks and they will be all "f*** Jihad, let's get a pizza..."

Lord Trollington wrote: »

You cannot compare the 2 scenarios. Not in any shape, make or form. To try and do so would be peddling an obvious agenda.

Im sorry , I was dealing purely with the topic of radicalism

Of course you can draw parallels, and of course the two situations are not identical

Nationalism in this country has a bloody history, thats not right or wrong , its just the nature of these things

You cannot whitewash away the Irish conflict including the civil war , no more then you can the mess in the middle east. Sure we've attempted to " sanitise " it.


in fact just like ireland, Iraq has elements of insurgency and elements of civil war, all of course carried on with greater ferocity and the availability of large amounts of money and weapons

similar and different

everlast75 wrote: »

They should blanket bomb Syria with high quality porn mags and DVDs, together with top drawer weed.


Give it about 2 weeks and they will be all "f*** Jihad, let's get a pizza..."

Taco bell and subway, they'd all be to fat to flight

ihatemyfish wrote: »

Your point is silly. Waging a war of independence against a colonial power is a lot different than waging religious war and slaughtering people of a different religious belief than yourself.

The lengths people will go to in an attempt to excuse Islamic barbarism.

I am not excusing islamic barbarism , no more then I excuse IRA atrocities or any other atrocities

but to simply paint such attacks purely as " slaughtering people of a different religious belief than yourself" is to trivialise the whole conflict.

Such trivialisation is typically done in the west to paint a picture of " hopelessness" and " what can you do " but intervene and " protect themselves from themselves "

In that regard is exactly like certain sections of the media that try and paint the issues in Northern Ireland as religious sectarianism


The only real difference is the scale and money and arms involved, The underlying radicalism is similar ( the belief in an ideal etc ) and that is a function of what happens when a conflict radicalises otherwise neutral observers


The fact is that Radical Islam, has 100s of thousands of followers, hangers on, tacit supporters, the usual mix, You simply cannot dismiss it as a couple of hardline religious extremists hell bent on random physcotic destruction. It has a core belief, goals and popular support


personally I see no need to demonise my enemies before i kill them

BoatMad wrote: »

They are quite legitimately called Belgians and French citizens as that is exactly what they are.

what they believe in does not change their birthplace

Just like all the 'new' Irish with their bits of paper issued to them at ceremonies by Alan Shatter and his pals. The terrorists were no more French or Belgian than I am.

Peist2007 wrote: »

Because Western countries are their homelands as bombing destinations and taking the one substance in their possession which could provide them with wealth similar to western countries , their oil. It's pretty easy to see where the base sense of anger comes from.

way way too simplistic , Most Oil in the middle east has long been nationalised

Yes the west has lots of blood on its hands as do the locals, but its not about money , even though money is involved. The conflicts there have been going on long before oil was ever discovered

Del.Monte wrote: »

Just like all the 'new' Irish with their bits of paper issued to them at ceremonies by Alan Shatter and his pals. The terrorists were no more French or Belgian than I am.

There are citizens, that definition is what officially defines them

No more then Irish Americans are not Irish, but American citizens

The fact that they may wish their country of adoption harm, is not too different from the scores of native citizenry who over the years for one reason or another also wished their own country harm too.

SO yes they are french , they are belgian, it doesnt change anything , except it makes us " uncomfortable " , that these in our midst would wish us harm, so the first thing we do is externalise the problem. They aren't " one of us", they're foreign etc, Its called demonisation and it helps the masses sleep at night

But its a fallacy.

Peist2007 wrote: »

So expel all Muslims then yeah? You use a lot of words when one sentence will outline your plan.

If you really expect people to take you serious it's best if you stop making up stuff.

I never said that, nor is that my intention (although no doubt it's a lot easier to just accuse the people you disagree with of being racists/xenophobes/islamophobes/...)

It's a simple fact that your claim of how they are disenfranchised or poor or downtrodden doesn't hold up for a large portion of them. Plenty of them have educations, come from middle class families,... and are only going out of a sense of adventure/religion/hatred/...

That doesn't mean that some of them don't feel like you say they do, but I sense that you're mainly saying it to paint them out as forgotten and misunderstood kids. Which is blatantly wrong.

Originally Posted by ihatemyfish View Post
We signed up for free movement within the EU. Not free movement with the Middle East, North and subsaharan Africa. I've no problem with our interior borders being open but our exterior should be like a fortress. If you do not have skills or qualifications needed, are not an entrepreneur or student , then you should not be admitted. We are not running a charitable organisation or global soup kitchen here.

by and large the exterior borders of the EU are closed. the issue is of course is what to do with scores and scores of people that, as a result of conflicts , turn up on your doorstep.

I suppose we could just machine gun them ,

This is the fallacy of you argument, it fails in practice

SQLDBA wrote: »

So, Anonymous has declared war on ISIS
ironic that 72 virgins are now attacking the terrorists

scary ,ISIS will capitulate in 24 hours, sure what is a deeply held radical belief in a self governing sharia ruled Caliphate,( currently the size of the UK) in the face of the antics of spotty boys that cant get dates , dont wash and live in dark bed rooms all day with a PS2.

terrifying

Peist2007 wrote: »

So another internet warrior safe at home espousing the expulsion of an entire mass of people based on their religion alone, got ya.

Not religion alone, cultural compatability and education levels too. Take African immigrants to Ireland, 38% unemployment(according to the CSO/ESRI), any moron with half a brain can see we have just created a future problem, but no one says a word about vetting people coming into the country. At a minimum you need to ensure everyone entering Ireland can look after themselves and integrate.
"keyboard warrior", but at least I am thinking about the potential issues. I care about my neighbors, kids and country, you seem to think Ireland is some utopia where we are exempt from the problems every other country in the world experiences with disenfranchised(real or imagined) minority populations, what'll it take, a ghetto riot? A terrorist attack? Ah no, im sure it will be grand, Ireland is somehow immune to reality.
Why should we follow every failed cultural and immigration policy that the likes of Sweden, Britain and France have, Ireland should go its own way. One free from the risks of Islamic terrorism and ethnic/racial disenfranchisement. The Japanese way, deal with our own problems at home and send aid overseas, even if the risk of "homegrown" islamic terrorism is miniscule, who cares, its still a risk, why take it, there are literally no benefits, only costs and risks.