Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

Peist2007 wrote: »

Because i dont think every Muslim hates me and, to do so, frankly, is retarded.

Where exactly did I say all Muslims should be deported? You need to improve your comprehension levels. I said anyone who preaches hate against our country or way of life.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

A Belgian National and Syrian national shoot up a theatre in Paris in the name of a religion, and thats somehow "defending their homeland", LOL, strong reading comprehension. I meant what I said,m If Ireland was invaded and occupied by a foreign power, its citizens have free reign to throw off the imperial yoke, what is objectionable about that? What would you advocate? Surrender? Collaboration?

the people in Betaclan shouted " This is for Syria"

I think we can all accept that was perceived to be the cause of " defending their home land "

The fact is you either accept peaceful methods or you accept violent ones. distinctions are just splitting hairs.


There is no difference between a radical ISIS operative seeking a self governing Calipate, and Devalara!.. ( who successfully engineered a priest run Caliphate and split blood to do so )

The only difference is an argument about the extremes of violence, thats hair splitting.

Our " terrorists/freedom fighters" are not " nicer" then their " terrorists /freedom fighters

I hate when '' big smiley '' faces appear in threads like this. No matter what the context is.

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.

ISIS doesnt care about muslims in the west and our attitude to them, it will merely exploit whatever attitude it can to further its internal Caliphate plan. ISIS needs chaos to force muslims into its arms and thats what it is attempting to engineer.

The anti-west rhetoric is a means to and end , not the end in itself

Del.Monte wrote: »

If you mean by that that a lot of Irish people emigrated - I actually know that but thanks for the reminder. :rolleyes: Of course, the difference is the Irish went to much larger countries and soon became integrated into the host country's societies. Here we are small country with small population and large numbers of immigrants pouring in by the day - or perhaps just the experience of my local town in the south east. We don't know whose coming in or anything about them and while you may approve of that I don't.

Go on now, call me a racist again and as I had the cheek to vote NO in the recent referendum you can call me a homophobic racist if it makes you feel happy.

what " large numbers " we're locked up tighter then a drum here

Mods Alert

Time to close this thread, It is no longer about what happened on Friday night, It has got to the point were both sides of the argument don't a have a clue what they're shyting about

BoatMad wrote: »

the people in Betaclan shouted " This is for Syria"

I think we can all accept that was perceived to be the cause of " defending their home land "

The fact is you either accept peaceful methods or you accept violent ones. distinctions are just splitting hairs.


There is no difference between a radical ISIS operative seeking a self governing Calipate, and Devalara!.. ( who successfully engineered a priest run Caliphate and split blood to do so )

The only difference is an argument about the extremes of violence, thats hair splitting.

Our " terrorists/freedom fighters" are not " nicer" then their " terrorists /freedom fighters

We live in a semi free country because men were brave enough to fight for it. Peaceful methods, you're living in fantasy land.
Freeing yourself and your homeland from oppression is different from waging a religious war of conquest, if you cant see that, you are being willfully blind, Jihadi John and Michael Collins are not the same.

My name is URL wrote: »

Be sure to tell that to the doctors and nurses (over 40% of whom are foreign) treating you or your loved ones the next time they're in hospital

Any why is that - because our health service is a shambles just like our immigration controls and just about everything that the dead hand of the State touches. You'll be glad to know that I'm out of this thread now.

Peist2007 wrote: »

I'll try to help you. The above statement is your argument for the idea that most people would be more shocked by France than Lebanon due to it being closer to home.

I countered by pointing out that, in Seattle yesterday, people were holding up French flags in support. There was no support shown for the Lebanese victims. Seattle is on the other side of the world to France yet the French tragedy mattered more than the Lebanese one. That disproves your above assertion.

So what i am "seeing" is basic English.

OK even though I think if I said the sun was hot you'd try to argue with me.

Seattle is in the USA. Ya got that. There may as well not be an ocean between us culture wise as we are so similar as is Oz and NZ.

Benteke wrote: »

Mods Alert

Time to close this thread, It is no longer about what happened on Friday night, It has got to the point were both sides of the argument don't a have a clue what they're shyting about

So you want to close down free speech.. ok then and on we go.

kupus wrote: »

So you want to close down free speech.. ok then and on we go.

Ah the old free speech line, Still don't change the fact that the thread is turning into the best joke you ever heard thread

So many are so uneducated on the subject been discussed that it is quite laughable and it should not be like that on a thread that is about an awful tragedy

Get educated on the situation then you can use your free speech because then you and others will be in a position to use it properly

BoatMad wrote: »

Well primarily , because crime is a breaking of law and traditionally law is a function of the internal nation state.

So the concept of moral wrongdoing and ethics is completely unknown to you then?
What a miserable world view that must be. Call me naive if you like, but I for one am extremely glad that I don't share it.

Land disputes ( and ultimately the Middle East is just the same as elsewhere ) have always resulted in solutions being imposed by force , way more times then imposed by dialogue.

And again, that doesn't make it ok. Many things have "always" happened, but as much of the world has gradually become more civilised, those things have stopped being viewed as acceptable. Taking land by force from civilians who do not accept your rule is one of those things.

Now, the Israelis can choose not to follow Western ethics if they don't want to - why should they be forced to, indeed? That isn't the issue. The issue is that abiding by our ethical principles should be an absolute, fundamental prerequisite for any support from us.

To put this more bluntly, unless the US and other governments say to Netanyahu "no more land grabbing or we won't veto a single UN resolution against you, or send you any more guns" then those governments are flaming hypocrites and are contributing to justified Arab hatred of the West.

Do you honestly thing that people in those countries negatively affected by Western hypocrisy are too stupid to recognise hypocrisy and double-speak when they see it?

The recent Middle East nation states are by and large arbitrarily creations of the west following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, then exacerbated by the withdrawal and Demise of the great European imperial powers.

That created a vacumn , into which the US has never properly stepped into, resulting in half hearted adventures and then typically going home leaving a mess behind.

Into that mess step the extremists.

So you're actually acknowledging then, that the West is ultimately responsible for putting together the ingredients for the spread of extremism.

I thought this was the point we were disagreeing about in our argument here?

The current situation is directly related to the the confrontation between Iran and Iraq and the turmoil in both countries in the last 30 years. This has brought both tribal and religious conflicts to the surface.

Is the west to blame, no it's merely one of the factors.

I never suggested that it was the only factor. I suggested that it was a major factor, and that the West could remove one of those major factors if it tried to make some amends for the legitimate grievances many in that region hold against us.

There's a reason why certain areas have to be ruled autocratically,

I don't agree with this premise. Nowhere has to be ruled autocratically, some places just are and nobody is willing to do anything about it. Doesn't make it right. Autocratic rule is never right.

Yugoslavia , the ottoman/Persian empire , the Chinese empire etc. Why, because these areas like many many others do not have and will never have a consensus of government from its inhabitants.

Then they should split into smaller regions in which people can agree, and those who continue to try and start disputes should be prevented from doing so and punished.

Take Israel/Palestine as a good example of this. They will never have a consensus of government, hence why a two state solution is the only answer. And once that exists, anybody on either side who tries to instigate more violence should be ruthlessly dealt with.

But in order for that to happen, those who have committed reversible crimes must reverse them. The same applies to Western involvement in the Middle East. Start by sanctioning multinationals who have profited from artificially created conflicts and using the money from that to compensate people who have lost loved ones and property. Start actually prosecuting people who have engaged in the aforementioned (for example, those in the CIA who orchestrated and supervised rendition et al). Stop co-operating with those who refuse to abide by our moral principles (Saudi, Egypt, Israel etc). Stop compromising on the fundamental cornerstone of Western society, which is a universal code of human and civil rights.

This is not about imposing Western rule on the Middle East, it's simply about refusing to co-operate with them diplomatically if they refuse to play nice with their own people. Saudi Arabia for instance should be internationally blackballed like Apartheid South Africa until it reforms its human rights and political freedoms regime.

Double speak and devil-deals are ultimately why so many of these people hate our society. It has nothing at all to do with how we live our lives domestically, save for a tiny minority of extremist nutcases. The ordinary people they recruit and instigate are not driven by the same ideological puritanism but by a sense that the West is an imperialist enemy which is intend on stealing from them.