Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

zeffabelli wrote: »

It's a little bit more complicated than that.

A lot of Isis recruitment comes from disaffected alienated first born Europeans. You bring in migrants, and they are going to breed more disaffected alienated first born Europeans.

Multi culturalism is a hands down failure in Europe.

And for all the people comparing the Irish and the Irish Americans to migrants and Isis and terrorist sympathisers, lets not forget a lot of the money came from back bar rooms in Boston.

And Irish Catholicism was something to be scared of.... it shackled both men and women into an ideological slavery to its own Talibanesque version of Catholicism.

The difference is that the Irish were willing and able to integrate compatibly, but it did also come with weapons and money transferance back into Irish terrorism.

The 'simples' was in response to a question asking why comparisons are being made re: view of Irish during the Troubles and view of Muslims now not because the situation is simple.

zeffabelli wrote: »

Multi culturalism is a hands down failure in Europe.

Except that a lot of European countries have no policy of Multi-cultism, France being one example.

dissed doc wrote: »

When the politicians come around to canvass, give them **** for not getting foreign terrorists out of the country, and papers revoked. We are meant be in charge of our country and who is allowed in.

Scream directly at your councillor to get the ****ing Islamic terrorists out of the country. Why? Because you don't want them allowed in. You want passports cancelled and people deported. Asylum status or visa for non-natives is on the assumption of no law breaking. Break the law by supporting and funding international terrorism is not cool. If he is deported due to law breaking or illegal activities, his child's right to remain is also revoked. We do not owe anybody anything.

Anchor babies are illegal right?

Non-native Irish on temporary visas or acquired citizenship can have those rights revoked if they transgress the law right?

We are allowed decide our own laws and deport those foreigners who try to subvert the authority of the state for their own religious law, right?

Our politicians are refusing to allow Ireland to legally protect itself and are approving the visa of people we do not want who might bring a lot of death here.

Well, I would ask all of those questions of them, unfortunately, apart from popping the occasional political flyer through the door, politicians don't canvas where I live. It probably has something to do with the fact that I live in a city centre apartment with too many foreigners and too few Irish voters for it to be worth their while to bother with a canvas.

seamus wrote: »

I have no interest in Ireland sending over young Irish men and women to be killed and captured so that they can be held up as propaganda for daesh or whatever other radical group comes after.

More troops is literally exactly what they want. You know what they'd love? They'd love France to get super pissed off and drop in a nuke. Nothing like extreme violence to polarise people.

Close the borders, kick out all the Muslims from Europe and bomb the living crap out of the Middle East. Is that your wet dream? Your perfect wishlist? Yeah, that's what ISIS/Daesh wants too. And if they get it, they win and you lose.

So what do you want to do about it? I don't support closing the borders and a nuke is obviously heavy handed. I figure we need precise strikes. Stirkes against Daesh are a publicity win for us, any civilian casualties are a pr win for them. We need to be careful to ensure we don't encourage any more recruits with our actions but we still need to deal with the people they have already recruited.

I don't think Europe will be silly enough to close the borders and give them thousands of new recruits or drop a nuke but they still need some response.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah - it's the liberals fault that our liberal societies are being attacked by extremists because they hate our freedoms and unless we shut the liberals up and curtail our freedoms they will take over and do what exactly?
Silence the liberals and curtails our freedoms perhaps.

How much easier if we just do the heavy lifting for them.

Yes the so called liberal agenda has been to placate people within their societies hoping that their brand of "liberalism" will somehow wash over them and stop them following a distinctly insular form of belief that ultimately wishes death on anyone that doesn't follow it.

Did allowing Abu Hamza have free reign to spout his hate in Finsbury Park mosque work out well.
Let me see now.
Oh yeah one of the Charlie Hebdo killers Cherif Kouachi had been mentored by Djamel Beghal, an al-Qaeda terrorist once based at Finsbury Park Mosque in north London where he learned from Abu Hamza.
And it took the British authorities years do to anything about him even though he was linked to things like Yemen kidnapping of British citizens.

Then we have had all the revelations about rape gangs in British towns and cities that were effectively ignored lest the authorities be seen as racist against a particular religion.

Also the fact that people have not been forced to integrate into the societies in which they now live, the fact they have been allowed found their own schools and religious centres preaching hatred is down to the agenda of a group of so called liberals.

I would bet you would vehemently oppose something like Singapore's enforced ethnic quotas for the housing of immigrants or ethnic groups to prevent the creation of racial and religious enclaves.

That wasn't done in France or Britain and now we have the Bradfords and Gennevilliers.

I detest the fact that you and others of similar beliefs have hijacked the liberal moniker.
Speaking of IRA, etc, it is like how the PIRA/SF hijacked the moniker of Irish Republican.

How do you term someone who believes in freedom of religious expression so long as it doesn't dictate to others, separation of church and state, freedom of sexual preference (except for paedophilia), freedom of marriage non dependent on sex, non discrimination based on sex, race or religion, but doesn't believe you should allow people preach hatred for some of the above and demand for discrimination based on the above.

What if someone doesn't believe our state should allow religious and cultural expression that demands the rest of us should start allowing schools re introduce discrimination based on sex, that women should be treated as second class citizens, that people who are homosexual should be discriminated against ?

It is the very people like you who are going to help the demise of the very ideas that you deem to be liberal society.
Either you will push things so far, right wing conservatives end up taking control or you allow the very conservative mindset being pushed by certain muslims to come to pass.
Either way you will end up reversing a lot of the gains made over last 50 odd years (20 or 30 in Irish terms).

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No - you are living in the Liberal world but don't worry, there are many like you working to see it destroyed. You may not like what they replace it with but hey ho - be careful what you wish for.

And you think accommodating a mindset that wants to forcibly, often through violence, change the laws and liberal cultural is not going to destroy the liberal world.

Chamberlain and his fellow enlightened pacifists thought they could placate the hate filled dreams of the Nazis by offering them some of what they wanted.

What it will come down to it in the end is that your liberal world will not be protected by more liberalism, fancy inclusive speeches and accommodation of the enemy, it will be protected by bullets, bombs and the blood of citizens.

jmayo wrote: »

Yes the so called liberal agenda has been to placate people within their societies hoping that their brand of "liberalism" will somehow wash over them and stop them following a distinctly insular form of belief that ultimately wishes death on anyone that doesn't follow it.

Did allowing Abu Hamza have free reign to spout his hate in Finsbury Park mosque work out well.
Let me see now.
Oh yeah one of the Charlie Hebdo killers Cherif Kouachi had been mentored by Djamel Beghal, an al-Qaeda terrorist once based at Finsbury Park Mosque in north London where he learned from Abu Hamza.
And it took the British authorities years do to anything about him even though he was linked to things like Yemen kidnapping of British citizens.

Then we have had all the revelations about rape gangs in British towns and cities that were effectively ignored lest the authorities be seen as racist against a particular religion.

Also the fact that people have not been forced to integrate into the societies in which they now live, the fact they have been allowed found their own schools and religious centres preaching hatred is down to the agenda of a group of so called liberals.

I would bet you would vehemently oppose something like Singapore's enforced ethnic quotas for the housing of immigrants or ethnic groups to prevent the creation of racial and religious enclaves.

That wasn't done in France or Britain and now we have the Bradfords and Gennevilliers.

I detest the fact that you and others of similar beliefs have hijacked the liberal moniker.
Speaking of IRA, etc, it is like how the PIRA/SF hijacked the moniker of Irish Republican.

How do you term someone who believes in freedom of religious expression so long as it doesn't dictate to others, separation of church and state, freedom of sexual preference (except for paedophilia), freedom of marriage non dependent on sex, non discrimination based on sex, race or religion, but doesn't believe you should allow people preach hatred for some of the above and demand for discrimination based on the above.

What if someone doesn't believe our state should allow religious and cultural expression that demands the rest of us should start allowing schools re introduce discrimination based on sex, that women should be treated as second class citizens, that people who are homosexual should be discriminated against ?

It is the very people like you who are going to help the demise of the very ideas that you deem to be liberal society.
Either you will push things so far, right wing conservatives end up taking control or you allow the very conservative mindset being pushed by certain muslims to come to pass.
Either way you will end up reversing a lot of the gains made over last 50 odd years (20 or 30 in Irish terms).



And you think accommodating a mindset that wants to forcibly, often through violence, change the laws and liberal cultural is not going to destroy the liberal world.

Chamberlain and his fellow enlightened pacifists thought they could placate the hate filled dreams of the Nazis by offering them some of what they wanted.

What it will come down to it in the end is that your liberal world will not be protected by more liberalism, fancy inclusive speeches and accommodation of the enemy, it will be protected by bullets, bombs and the blood of citizens.

What exactly is your alternative?

Do we ban freedom of speech? For everyone or just some people? Who gets to decide who can speak and who can't?
What sanctions will be put in place against those who insist in illegally engaging in free speech? Do we execute them? Imprison them? Will they be tried or do you think internment will do?

Will people be allowed freedom of thought?

Rape is already against the law so what do you suggest. Or is it your contention that rape gangs come from only one particular section of people?

Do you think in your brave new world of censorship you would have a forum like Boards to voice your opinion?

You want what ISIS wants - the end of Liberal Europe. I am sure you and they will be happy when Nazi 2.0 has control of Europe because version 1.0 worked out so well for everyone.

The response really has to be multi-faceted and widespread. Because that's what Daesh are. This isn't a one-on-one conventional war where you can hammer a few cities and the other side will give up. Claims of bombing ISIS "strongholds" are propaganda, so it sounds like Hollande is really taking a hardline and doing some damage.

In reality bombing a single location in order to destroy them is of limited effect because they're a distributed network of people.

There are actions to be taken at home, in all countries. Measures to be taken to avoid ghettoisation and segregation and try to avoid young people becoming susceptible to radicalisation.

And outside of that, we need to stop pretending that this is a war that can be won with bombs and technology. It can't. Even if you turn 75% of the middle east into a nuclear dustbowl, in 30 years time the descendants of those left behind will be back for more. Israel has given us a prime example of what happens when you wage a neverending war against "terrorism" - it never ends.
Northern Ireland has proven that the hands-off diplomacy approach is what works.

How that can be formulated when you're dealing with Daesh is another question. But one thing that has to be done is to kill their supply lines. They're not obtaining arms and money in isolation. The UN should be immediately enforcing harsh economic sanctions against any government known to be directly or indirectly supplying daesh. Where government is fragmented or ineffective (such as in Afghanistan), the UN should be carrying out precision strikes on supply lines rather than populated areas.
Direct conflict is what they want, so we should not be involved in this. Providing assistance to democratically-elected governments to defend their borders, I'm all over that. Unilaterally carrying out strikes, not great, because then they can claim you're invaders. If your country appears lost, like Syria, then maybe it should be let go. Continue providing humanitarian aid and helping refugees, but trying to repel a guerilla force from land they're familiar with is a losing battle.

Does that sound harsh? I guess so. There's the argument that we're going in to try and save people from the brutalities of daesh. But native populations will rarely see it that way. It was claimed that the "Allies" were invading Iraq to bring freedom to the Iraqi's and they ended up killing multiples of the numbers who would have died or been tortured if Saddam had been left alone.

Don't intervene, people will die. Intervene, people will die. So it's not quite as simple a decision as it appears.
If daesh take control of Syria while the rest of us continue taking refugees and starving their supply lines, they'll quickly find themselves presiding over a dwindling population, with no way to provide for them. And their power will collapse.

If we keep bombing their front lines, they're eventually going to win anyway, but they'll be far more powerful and become a "beacon" for extremists to gather in, in the same way that Israel is.

Paris terror attacks: Mother of suicide bomber says he 'did not mean to kill anyone' http://a.msn.com/01/en-gb/BBn4jf0?ocid=se

What load of balls!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What exactly is your alternative?

Do we ban freedom of speech? For everyone or just some people? Who gets to decide who can speak and who can't?
What sanctions will be put in place against those who insist in illegally engaging in free speech? Do we execute them? Imprison them? Will they be tried or do you think internment will do?

Will people be allowed freedom of thought?

Rape is already against the law so what do you suggest. Or is it your contention that rape gangs come from only one particular section of people?

Do you think in your brave new world of censorship you would have a forum like Boards to voice your opinion?

You want what ISIS wants - the end of Liberal Europe. I am sure you and they will be happy when Nazi 2.0 has control of Europe because version 1.0 worked out so well for everyone.

If anybody is going to create a 4th Reich it's Angela Merkel and the antics of the inept EU. Cause and effect.

Well I've a few suggestions as to how to address the growing problem if Islamic extremism in Europe.

A recent survey showed that 20% of UK mosques had extremist litrature in their shops or libraries. We have the same problem according one prominent Imam here. They need to be shut down untill the comunity that attends them put new management in place. If young Muslims are being radicalised anywhere, it's in places like these and the needs to be a zero tollerence approach to such preachers. Preach hate, you're on the next plane home.

Foreign funding for Mosques and 'cultural centers' or religious schools should be banned. The Saudis and Quataris are fond of such funding and thus exporting their particularly pernitious brand of Islam.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. So the funding has to stop.

We need to reform asylum laws that allow the immediate removal from the state of those that pose a threat to it. It makes me sick to think that people such as this can operate here with impunity:
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/paris-terror-attacks/paris-terror-attacks-leading-islamic-state-terror-suspect-still-in-ireland-thanks-to-irishborn-son-34206995.html
To that end a special dedicated Garda taskforce, just like those formed to deal with the gangs in Limerick should be formed to root them out.

A blacklist should be created of terrorist hotspots. If that nation is on a blacklist then no student visas, work permits or holiday visas can be issued to it's citizens.

We need to end the culture of moral relativism and the failed experiment of multiculturalism. Ban the veil. There needs to be a strong and unambiguous message sent out that no individual in this state is entitled to except themselves from it's norms, laws or values.

seamus wrote: »

I have no interest in Ireland sending over young Irish men and women to be killed and captured so that they can be held up as propaganda for daesh or whatever other radical group comes after.

More troops is literally exactly what they want. You know what they'd love? They'd love France to get super pissed off and drop in a nuke. Nothing like extreme violence to polarise people.

Close the borders, kick out all the Muslims from Europe and bomb the living crap out of the Middle East. Is that your wet dream? Your perfect wishlist? Yeah, that's what ISIS/Daesh wants too. And if they get it, they win and you lose.

Well you will only defeat them by using people on the ground.
Why do some people now think that they win if we actually fight them with all the force at the disposal of the West.

I saw a recent documentary about WWII and some veterans reckoned the people of today would be capable of showing as much heroism and resolve as they did.
I do seriously wonder if the guy was just saying that more in hope than anything.

After all how could he square the circle of seeing all the sacrificing he and his buddies made only for the current generations not to give a cra*.

Christy42 wrote: »

So what do you want to do about it? I don't support closing the borders and a nuke is obviously heavy handed. I figure we need precise strikes. Stirkes against Daesh are a publicity win for us, any civilian casualties are a pr win for them. We need to be careful to ensure we don't encourage any more recruits with our actions but we still need to deal with the people they have already recruited.

I don't think Europe will be silly enough to close the borders and give them thousands of new recruits or drop a nuke but they still need some response.

What is so wrong with closing the borders ?
Why should there be open borders between EU states and non EU states ?
Ok make exceptions for likes of Switzerland, Norway who have long had free movement with EU, but to hell with anyone else.

And what is even wrong with closing borders between EU countries ?
So long as we don't end up with massive queues and corrupt officials that need bribing ala some African countries then what is the big issue.

You queue up, present your passport of identification document, have a quick check done with interpol and hey presto you are through.

Nodin wrote: »

Much venom against "liberals", IS distant second place. Nice.

Just because I don't like people whose principles demand that we sell ourselves out.
Idiots like Corbyn have just shown themselves to be as good as enemies of their own people.

And don't worry I keep a certain amount of venom for certain other people, like the ones who refuse to condemn attacks on civilians and children in the name of some cause that they claim is a war.