Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

Saipanne · 17-11-2015 09:52PM

Carlee Noisy Screenplay wrote: »

So we build a wall? It will create jobs at least.

What are the liberals guilty of exactly? Compassion? Blaming compassion is just idiotic. If you are not against immigration, or Muslims for that matter, you are a bleeding heart liberal softy who wants to watch the world burn... or "oh here comes the PC brigade" rabble rabble. That's not what it is at all. In general, it's somebody who just shows some compassion, and like everything, there's tossers who take it to the extreme. "Let all asylum seekers in no matter what, bla bla bla".

If you are educating yourself from those ridiculous videos that are posted in this thread, then I can see where you are going wrong.

The ignorance in this thread is disgusting. From a crusty liberal who would rather see absolute anarchy than be called a racist... :rolleyes:

Lol. I didn't watch the videos, I went straight to the source material, mate. And Islam is an idea, not a race.

Remember, my friend...

It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) said:
“Whoever meets Allah with no mark on him (as a result of fighting) in His cause, he will meet Him with a deficiency.”

MadsL · 17-11-2015 09:57PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

International Research Journal of Applied Finance?????

Do you have a link to a source that explains all the passages that Stincker quotes and puts them in a context that neutralises the hate in them?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

Balanced analysis here. 7min audio link.

Saipanne · 17-11-2015 09:58PM

The founder of The Religion of Peace once said...

The Prophet (saws) said, "By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya' (army-unit) setting out in Allah's Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.

Peace and love.

flouncer · 17-11-2015 10:10PM

First up I have not spent the time to read the previous 337 pages of posts on boards.ie so probably my viewpoint is already expressed. So my first port of call is to offer my deepest sympathies to those killed in this tragedy and all associated family members and friends.

Then I get straight to the confused point. We have a United Nations. So our United Nations can decide the betterment or otherwise of our planet. But we start on an interesting foot. There are 5 countries who simply can block any activity by the UN by their singular vote (called a veto). These 5 countries are China, Russia, US, France and UK (this heralds back to WWII, who won and who lost).

So Russia and China and US and UK and France are the biggest suppliers of technological weapons into the middle east. I was really impressed with François hollande some time back saying that we need to solve the Syrian issue while all of these 5 countries are selling billions of euros of weapons into countries such as Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, yemen... the list goes on.

So the countries who are supposedly behind solving the problem are in fact complicit in creating the crisis. A simple, rational solution would be for all of the TOP 5 countries to come together on an agenda. But this is not going to happen. There is too much money involved.

As a response France increases its strikes on IS in Syria. So the arms manufacturers make more, there are more arms in the open market and there are more likelihoods of reprisals. Is this dumb or business.

The obvious response is that we need to stop this mayhem. Let's take it back to 9/11 (just an example). So the US go in, bomb the crap out of everything in Afghanistan (they did the same in Iraq and Libya), and then walk away. In what reality does this work. You have just lined up your next set of suicide bombers (well you just killed family members without predijuce, are you expecting a bit of a chat to overcome the problem).

It is not up to the US to 'solve' our problems. Our first issue is to remove the veto power at UN level for all 5 countries. We must have a Democratic majority vote on world problems.

Just look at Syria. Look at the amount of people who have lost their lives internal to the country and those who have lost their lives fleeing the country. It is a disgrace that we are ultimately controlled by arms dealers who control our politicians by the huge quantities of monies to be spread around.

So Paris won't be the last until we address the problem. But Russia, China, UK, US and France are so complicit in this game, while the veto remains, they are willing to take the casualties.

jackofalltrades · 17-11-2015 10:12PM

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

Balanced analysis here. 7min audio link.

What has that link got to do with the question that I asked?
"Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?"
What has the Bible got to do with this?
It just seems to be more of the usual "but the Bibles as bad" whataboutery that is so common in threads like this.

Iwasfrozen · 17-11-2015 10:14PM

Saipanne wrote: »

The founder of The Religion of Peace once said...

The Prophet (saws) said, "By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya' (army-unit) setting out in Allah's Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.

Peace and love.

"But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in God. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower."

JustTheOne · 17-11-2015 10:17PM

flouncer wrote: »

First up I have not spent the time to read the previous 337 pages of posts on boards.ie so probably my viewpoint is already expressed. So my first port of call is to offer my deepest sympathies to those killed in this tragedy and all associated family members and friends.

Then I get straight to the confused point. We have a United Nations. So our United Nations can decide the betterment or otherwise of our planet. But we start on an interesting foot. There are 5 countries who simply can block any activity by the UN by their singular vote (called a veto). These 5 countries are China, Russia, US, France and UK (this heralds back to WWII, who won and who lost).

So Russia and China and US and UK and France are the biggest suppliers of technological weapons into the middle east. I was really impressed with François hollande some time back saying that we need to solve the Syrian issue while all of these 5 countries are selling billions of euros of weapons into countries such as Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, yemen... the list goes on.

So the countries who are supposedly behind solving the problem are in fact complicit in creating the crisis. A simple, rational solution would be for all of the TOP 5 countries to come together on an agenda. But this is not going to happen. There is too much money involved.

As a response France increases its strikes on IS in Syria. So the arms manufacturers make more, there are more arms in the open market and there are more likelihoods of reprisals. Is this dumb or business.

The obvious response is that we need to stop this mayhem. Let's take it back to 9/11 (just an example). So the US go in, bomb the crap out of everything in Afghanistan (they did the same in Iraq and Libya), and then walk away. In what reality does this work. You have just lined up your next set of suicide bombers (well you just killed family members without predijuce, are you expecting a bit of a chat to overcome the problem).

It is not up to the US to 'solve' our problems. Our first issue is to remove the veto power at UN level for all 5 countries. We must have a Democratic majority vote on world problems.

Just look at Syria. Look at the amount of people who have lost their lives internal to the country and those who have lost their lives fleeing the country. It is a disgrace that we are ultimately controlled by arms dealers who control our politicians by the huge quantities of monies to be spread around.

So Paris won't be the last until we address the problem. But Russia, China, UK, US and France are so complicit in this game, while the veto remains, they are willing to take the casualties.

Isis have killed more Muslims than Christians.

They are killing anyone who doesn't subscribe to their views and religion.

Its the same ideology as Nazi Germany.

Stopping bombing them wont make them stop what their doing.

They will go on no matter what.

This is the point people are missing.

Eugene Norman · 17-11-2015 10:17PM

I was looking at a list of terrorist attacks in the EU in the last few decades. This isn't the worst era, the worst was the 70's when a mixture of left wing, right wing neo fascist and CIA funded anti-communists, European separatist nationalist,the Mafia and Palestinian nationalist groups attacked European cities every few months. Most weren't spectaculars or targeted directly at civilians (although Italian fascists and Abu Nadal bombed trains and targeted planes) but at embassy's or political enemies – like car bombs. Or street shootings. But there were bombings (notably the IRA).

However the last few years have seen the biggest single terrorist attacks, Milan in 2004, London 7/7, and Paris. If ISIS do continue then it will certainly be a greater threat than any previous. Al Queda haven't gone away either (you know).

Foxtrol · 17-11-2015 10:18PM

flouncer wrote: »

First up I have not spent the time to read the previous 337 pages of posts on boards.ie so probably my viewpoint is already expressed. So my first port of call is to offer my deepest sympathies to those killed in this tragedy and all associated family members and friends.

Then I get straight to the confused point. We have a United Nations. So our United Nations can decide the betterment or otherwise of our planet. But we start on an interesting foot. There are 5 countries who simply can block any activity by the UN by their singular vote (called a veto). These 5 countries are China, Russia, US, France and UK (this heralds back to WWII, who won and who lost).

So Russia and China and US and UK and France are the biggest suppliers of technological weapons into the middle east. I was really impressed with François hollande some time back saying that we need to solve the Syrian issue while all of these 5 countries are selling billions of euros of weapons into countries such as Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, yemen... the list goes on.

So the countries who are supposedly behind solving the problem are in fact complicit in creating the crisis. A simple, rational solution would be for all of the TOP 5 countries to come together on an agenda. But this is not going to happen. There is too much money involved.

As a response France increases its strikes on IS in Syria. So the arms manufacturers make more, there are more arms in the open market and there are more likelihoods of reprisals. Is this dumb or business.

The obvious response is that we need to stop this mayhem. Let's take it back to 9/11 (just an example). So the US go in, bomb the crap out of everything in Afghanistan (they did the same in Iraq and Libya), and then walk away. In what reality does this work. You have just lined up your next set of suicide bombers (well you just killed family members without predijuce, are you expecting a bit of a chat to overcome the problem).

It is not up to the US to 'solve' our problems. Our first issue is to remove the veto power at UN level for all 5 countries. We must have a Democratic majority vote on world problems.

Just look at Syria. Look at the amount of people who have lost their lives internal to the country and those who have lost their lives fleeing the country. It is a disgrace that we are ultimately controlled by arms dealers who control our politicians by the huge quantities of monies to be spread around.

So Paris won't be the last until we address the problem. But Russia, China, UK, US and France are so complicit in this game, while the veto remains, they are willing to take the casualties.

So it's all the fault of Russia, China, UK, US and France then?

fr336 · 17-11-2015 10:18PM

Copa Mundial wrote: »

Considering what happened in Paris and now Hannover, coupled with Cameron vowing to 'cut off the head of the snake' with air strikes on Syria, the whole situation might not be far off reaching a boiling point.

What kind of boiling point are you thinking?

Saipanne · 17-11-2015 10:18PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

"But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in God. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower."

Shame he never lived by that one...

:-(

Eugene Norman · 17-11-2015 10:20PM

flouncer wrote: »

First up I have not spent the time to read the previous 337 pages of posts on boards.ie so probably my viewpoint is already expressed. So my first port of call is to offer my deepest sympathies to those killed in this tragedy and all associated family members and friends.

Then I get straight to the confused point. We have a United Nations. So our United Nations can decide the betterment or otherwise of our planet. But we start on an interesting foot. There are 5 countries who simply can block any activity by the UN by their singular vote (called a veto). These 5 countries are China, Russia, US, France and UK (this heralds back to WWII, who won and who lost).

So Russia and China and US and UK and France are the biggest suppliers of technological weapons into the middle east. I was really impressed with François hollande some time back saying that we need to solve the Syrian issue while all of these 5 countries are selling billions of euros of weapons into countries such as Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, yemen... the list goes on.

So the countries who are supposedly behind solving the problem are in fact complicit in creating the crisis. A simple, rational solution would be for all of the TOP 5 countries to come together on an agenda. But this is not going to happen. There is too much money involved.

As a response France increases its strikes on IS in Syria. So the arms manufacturers make more, there are more arms in the open market and there are more likelihoods of reprisals. Is this dumb or business.

The obvious response is that we need to stop this mayhem. Let's take it back to 9/11 (just an example). So the US go in, bomb the crap out of everything in Afghanistan (they did the same in Iraq and Libya), and then walk away. In what reality does this work. You have just lined up your next set of suicide bombers (well you just killed family members without predijuce, are you expecting a bit of a chat to overcome the problem).

It is not up to the US to 'solve' our problems. Our first issue is to remove the veto power at UN level for all 5 countries. We must have a Democratic majority vote on world problems.

Just look at Syria. Look at the amount of people who have lost their lives internal to the country and those who have lost their lives fleeing the country. It is a disgrace that we are ultimately controlled by arms dealers who control our politicians by the huge quantities of monies to be spread around.

So Paris won't be the last until we address the problem. But Russia, China, UK, US and France are so complicit in this game, while the veto remains, they are willing to take the casualties.

It would be nice if Arab powers, India and China and others (with UN authorisation) took the war to ISIS but they have no reasons to get involved.

Saipanne · 17-11-2015 10:21PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

It would be nice if Arab powers, India and China and others (with UN authorisation) took the war to ISIS but they have no reasons to get involved.

Until they do have a reason.

Bannasidhe · 17-11-2015 10:21PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

So it's all the fault of Russia, China, UK, US and France then?

They are part of the problem but I don't think he said it's all their fault.
It's one strand in a gargantuan knot.
To have any hope of untangling the knot the strands need to be teased apart.

KingBrian2 · 17-11-2015 10:21PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Brian is an Assadist, he'll argue that we should back Assad and eradicate the FSA/Jaysh al-Islam so that Assad can attack Daesh.

Is that the new argument being used to debunk anti war posters, call them all Assadist. I challenge the constant rhetoric that the Syrian gvt or Egyptian gvt were responsible for the upsurge in Jihadist terrorist activities. ISIS first formed in Iraq as Al Qaeda not to mention other states that are a lot more repressive than the Assad gvt was.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 17-11-2015 10:22PM

Saipanne wrote: »

Lol. I didn't watch the videos, I went straight to the source material, mate. And Islam is an idea, not a race.

Remember, my friend...

It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) said:
“Whoever meets Allah with no mark on him (as a result of fighting) in His cause, he will meet Him with a deficiency.”

I'm not your friend, buddy...

The Quaran is a book, taking every word literally and saying that all muslims live by every word of this book is simplistic, it's idiotic.

In relation to being called a racist, I know Islam isn't a race. Yet that's what you are called by some...

fr336 · 17-11-2015 10:22PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

So it's all the fault of Russia, China, UK, US and France then?

Did you read that they wrote? People accuse socialists of living in a fairy tale, that may be very true, but the very same can be said for most warhawks. They'll keep on looking to the terrorists, who are idiots and write offs, while many blame every Muslim on earth. All while their leaders are selling billions worth of weapons. If the governments are as cut up as they claim, they'd stop this in an instant. And don't give me crap about jobs and co, doesn't stop job losses all over the place elsewhere being replaced by computers. The UK is a trillion pound economy, the UK doesn't need these sales. Maybe people in the UK elite do.

Iwasfrozen · 17-11-2015 10:23PM

Saipanne wrote: »

Shame he never lived by that one...

:-(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah

"The treaty was quite controversial for many reasons. Originally, the treaty referred to Muhammad as the Messenger of God, but this was unacceptable to the Quraish ambassador Suhayl ibn Amr. Muhammad compromised, and told his cousin Ali to strike out the wording. But Ali said, "I will not be the person to rub it out", after which Muhammad himself rubbed out the words."

He struck out the words "Messenger of God" hurting his image in the eyes of his own people, he submitted to a humiliating treaty when he didn't have to so he could carry out the mandatory pilgrimage to Mecca. Hardly the actions of a warlord.

fr336 · 17-11-2015 10:25PM

Saipanne wrote: »

Until they do have a reason.

About time nations were proactive rather than reactive :rolleyes: Yeah yeah the intelligence services do their best etc but funny how David Cameron for instance could find £2billion worth of funding after Paris. He's been telling us the terrorists were going to do that and worse for years, so why did it take it to happen to pour more resources in?

Bannasidhe · 17-11-2015 10:26PM

Carlee Noisy Screenplay wrote: »

I'm not your friend, buddy...

The Quaran is a book, taking every word literally and saying that all muslims live by every word of this book is simplistic, it's idiotic.

Of course they do - just like the 80odd % of people in Ireland who ticked the Roman Catholic box in the last census follow every single tenet of Roman Catholic Doctrine. To. The. Letter.

A la carte Muslims - who ever heard of such a thing!
Culturally Islamic - inconceivable!

Junkyard Tom · 17-11-2015 10:31PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

You’re placing the blame for the attacks in Paris on the invasion of Iraq

I place the blame with those who did the killing. I place the attacks in a wider context with disastrous outcomes that can be traced directly back to the invasion of Iraq based on lies.

there were plenty of terrorist attacks before that invasion.

None like Madrid, London and Paris. Iraq, as bad as it was, was immeasurably more stable than it is now.

ignoring the common religious beliefs of the attackers.

Oh I'm comfortable with describing their common religious beliefs as an apocalyptic death cult.

testaccount123 · 17-11-2015 10:33PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Hardly the actions of a warlord.

He cut off the heads of 700 Jews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

Saipanne · 17-11-2015 10:33PM

Carlee Noisy Screenplay wrote: »

I'm not your friend, buddy...

The Quaran is a book, taking every word literally and saying that all muslims live by every word of this book is simplistic, it's idiotic.

In relation to being called a racist, I know Islam isn't a race. Yet that's what you are called by some...

I don't really care. It's become an empty word because its thrown around without a thought.

As for the book, that's not really my point. The bible is full of nasty stuff too, but Islam was invented by a guy who would feel right at home with IS. That guy is the problem. That guy is why IS are motivated to commit acts such as burying children alive. It's exactly what Mo would do.

IrishTrajan · 17-11-2015 10:35PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Is that the new argument being used to debunk anti war posters, call them all Assadist. I challenge the constant rhetoric that the Syrian gvt or Egyptian gvt were responsible for the upsurge in Jihadist terrorist activities. ISIS first formed in Iraq as Al Qaeda not to mention other states that are a lot more repressive than the Assad gvt was.

But you have argued that Assad is the democratic President of Syria and we should back him, have you not?

Iwasfrozen · 17-11-2015 10:36PM

testaccount123 wrote: »

He cut off the heads of 700 Jews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

Yes. He didn't kill them for being Jews though. He killed them because they were an allied tribe who went over to the other side. How did any ruler of a medieval kingdom deal with treason?

Bannasidhe · 17-11-2015 10:43PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes. He didn't kill them for being Jews though. He killed them because they were an allied tribe who went over to the other side. How did any ruler of a medieval kingdom deal with treason?

Let's consider Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia...

bajer101 · 17-11-2015 10:44PM

Primer that I came across on FB:

Incase you don't know what's happening in the middle east. &#55357;&#56397;
President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)
So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).
Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.
Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).
So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!!

testaccount123 · 17-11-2015 10:45PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes. He didn't kill them for being Jews though. He killed them because they were an allied tribe who went over to the other side. How did any ruler of a medieval kingdom deal with treason?

I thought you said he wasnt a warlord?

Sand · 17-11-2015 10:48PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes. He didn't kill them for being Jews though. He killed them because they were an allied tribe who went over to the other side. How did any ruler of a medieval kingdom deal with treason?

Was he just the ruler of a medieval kingdom? How did Jesus deal with traitors for the sake of comparison?

Iwasfrozen · 17-11-2015 10:49PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Let's consider Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia...

testaccount123 wrote: »

I thought you said he wasnt a warlord?

Their treason put thousands of Muslim lives at risk. His response was harsh but impassionate and justified given the circumstance.

Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

Comments