Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

1…184185187189190…240

Comments

  • #5582
    testaccount123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    If we are going to continue along these lines of blaming all Muslims for the actions of their religiously insane homicidal extremists, can we make it a free for all, where we can blame all religious people of every religion, for the actions of their religiously insane extremists? It's only fair I think, and it's not like there is a religion that is free from religiously motivated, homicidal extremists.

    Why is it that it is only Islam that is subjected to this blame? If I were to suggest that all Irish Catholics are responsible for the deaths in 'mother and baby homes' in Ireland, or that all Christians worldwide, no matter what denomination, were responsible for same, there would be an uproar (I don't believe any of the above just for the record). Why is it OK to apply this general blame to Muslims, but Christianity should be exempt from the same treatment?
    What is this whataboutery? If Zionists or Extremist Christians starting gunning 150 innocent people down in Europe based on the texts of their holy books then those ideologies will face the same criticisms from Europeans.

    They arent though.


  • #5583
    fed up sick and tired
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,015 ✭✭✭fed up sick and tired


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    All men are not rapists...
    Most rapists are men.

    See what I did there?

    Yes. You contradicted yourself, with your hopeless use of the English language.

    Perhaps you meant to say 'Not all men are rapists' rather than 'All men are not rapists', which is utterly different, is not a crime against English usage, and is not a non sequitur to whatever dull point you were trying to make.

    Your history degree failed you in the important pursuit of writing well. Oh dear.


  • #5584
    DubVelo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 543 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    If we are going to continue along these lines of blaming all Muslims for the actions of their religiously insane homicidal extremists, can we make it a free for all, where we can blame all religious people of every religion, for the actions of their religiously insane extremists? It's only fair I think, and it's not like there is a religion that is free from religiously motivated, homicidal extremists.

    Why is it that it is only Islam that is subjected to this blame? If I were to suggest that all Irish Catholics are responsible for the deaths in 'mother and baby homes' in Ireland, or that all Christians worldwide, no matter what denomination, were responsible for same, there would be an uproar (I don't believe any of the above just for the record). Why is it OK to apply this general blame to Muslims, but Christianity should be exempt from the same treatment?

    Don't be silly, criticize away. Some very bad things were allowed to happen here in the name of catholicism, one could argue that society as a whole bore some responsibility.


  • #5585
    testaccount123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    DubVelo wrote: »
    Don't be silly, criticize away. Some very bad things were allowed to happen here in the name of catholicism, one could argue that society as a whole bore some responsibility.

    Exactly. All Catholics are indeed complicit to some degree in the deaths in Mother & Babies homes.


  • #5586
    fed up sick and tired
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,015 ✭✭✭fed up sick and tired


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    Well it is isnt it?

    If those who voluntarily came to Europe cant integrate after 30 years and have a significant minority who oppose European liberal democracy, what hope have we with these refugees?

    What will it take for people to realise this is an ideological issue stemming from the teachings of Islam

    As a group, there are possibly none in the UK more inexplicably radicalised, disaffected, and aggressively despising of Western society and values than the young Muslim men who were born and raised in the UK, educated there, and have never lived anywhere else.

    It won't take thirty years and it has little or nothing to do with skin colour, or much else, except that it is Islam.


  • Advertisement
  • #5587
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    They moved from war torn, illiterate hellholes and were provided with housing, welfare, education and healthcare. What do people want, someone assigned to every Muslim to look after their every need perhaps?
    If it's that simple, then why does virtually every country in the world have difficulty integrating large chunks of its own citizens, who form gangs and carry out robberies and other attacks on the society in which they're born? They're given housing, welfare, education and healthcare, what else do they want?

    Maybe human nature isn't that simple.

    "Islam is dangerous" is far too simplistic because it ignores that the Bible and the Torah are just as violent and hateful as the Koran, but modern Christians and Jews conveniently ignore those bits because they don't fit with their ideals.

    People choose the religion that suits them and change it to match their own beliefs, they don't change their beliefs to match their religion.


  • #5588
    speedboatchase
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,843 ✭✭✭speedboatchase


    inforfun wrote: »
    After less than a week discussing the attack in Paris in the MSM in The Netherlands the following recap can be made.
    I think it is quite to the point for this thread as well. (Translated via Google translate from Dutch)

    Causes of radicalization and / or terrorism

    Apartheid (see: Israel)

    Asylum policy (see: populism, (neo-) kolonialsme)

    Banlieues

    Cuts (see: Islamophobia)

    Whites, excuse me: white people

    Bush, George W.

    Cartoons (of Mohammed cartoons of Anne Frank are subject expression)

    Criminalization of Muslims

    Europhobia

    Facts (see: criticism of Islam)

    Mental health (see cuts)

    Borders, closed

    Criticism of Islam (see: Islamophobia)

    Islamophobia (see: Islamophobia)

    Israel (see: Apartheid)

    Jews (according honest anti-Semites, see: Zionists)

    Climate Change

    Colonialism (see also: neo-colonialism)

    Marginalization of Muslims

    Media, social

    Media, traditional

    Military intervention in Iraq

    Military intervention in Syria (see: no military intervention in Syria)

    Muslim hatred (see: Islamophobia and criticism of Islam)

    Neo-Colonialism (in countries that never colonized)

    Not military intervention in Syria

    Education (see: racism)

    Insecurity, sexual

    Putin, Vladimir (see: Geenstijl)

    Police (see: racism)

    Populism (see Wilders, right)

    Privilege, white

    Racism, whether or not the institutional

    Right (dip, guur-, or otherwise)

    Togetherness, lack (see cuts)

    Slavery (by whites, excuse me: white people)

    Internships, lack of (see: Islamophobia)

    Subsidies, lack (see cuts)

    Telegraph,

    Exclusion of Muslims

    Lighting, (see: islamkrititiek, Islamophobia, Islamophobia, racism)

    Arms supplies (to dictators supported by the West)

    Arms supplies, lack of (secular, moderate and pro-Western freedom fighters)

    We

    White people (see: whites, slavery and the rest of this list)

    Xenophobia (see criticism of Islam, etc.)

    Wilders, Geert

    Zionists (as unfair anti-Semites)

    Zwarte Piet (see: racism)

     

     

    Not cause of radicalization and / or terrorism

    Islam

    Such self-hating rubbish. Remind me which of the above 'causes' the Yazidi people belong to? You know, the ones ISIS are attempting to eradicate due to their 'devil worshipping'.


  • #5589
    DubVelo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 543 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    seamus wrote: »
    "Can't integrate" presumes the opportunity was afforded to them in the first place.

    The argument is basically an argument against all immigration, not just muslim.

    It's difficult not to get drawn into the trap of making sweeping generalisations (and then being called names), but shall we say; some people have probably observed that in our neighbouring countries, certain sections of the muslim community have been more than happy to 'self-segregate'. When there are children educated only in faith schools and raised having virtually no interaction with broader society it just leads to further division down the line.


  • #5590
    testaccount123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    seamus wrote: »
    "Islam is dangerous" is far too simplistic because it ignores that the Bible and the Torah are just as violent and hateful as the Koran, but modern Christians and Jews conveniently ignore those bits because they don't fit with their ideals.
    More whataboutery. The reality is that a significant minority of Muslims dont ignore those bits and an even bigger minority give tacit approval to the first group by their silence. That is what we are dealing with here, not Christians or Jews.


  • #5591
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    fed up sick and tired wrote: »
    Yes. You contradicted yourself, with your hopeless use of the English language.

    Perhaps you meant to say 'Not all men are rapists' rather than 'All men are not rapists', which is utterly different, is not a crime against English usage, and is not a non sequitur to whatever dull point you were trying to make.

    Your history degree failed you in the important pursuit of writing well. Oh dear.

    Due to the high volume of school yard taunts masquerading as 'debate' I am now operating a ticket system for those who wish to insult rather than deal with the point made.

    Please take a ticket and we will call you when it's your turn.


  • Advertisement
  • #5592
    kupus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,151 ✭✭✭kupus


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Nonsense, I never went on a march to prove I was against the the IRA as an Irish man and Muslims shouldn't have to do the same now. If they have come out online and said they are against the attacks in Paris, why do you need them to go through any more hoops?

    Because talk is cheap.


  • #5593
    fed up sick and tired
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,015 ✭✭✭fed up sick and tired


    seamus wrote: »
    If it's that simple, then why does virtually every country in the world have difficulty integrating large chunks of its own citizens, who form gangs and carry out robberies and other attacks on the society in which they're born? They're given housing, welfare, education and healthcare, what else do they want?

    What corresponding benefit to us is there in importing more of the same ?
    Maybe human nature isn't that simple.

    "Islam is dangerous" is far too simplistic because it ignores that the Bible and the Torah are just as violent and hateful as the Koran, but modern Christians and Jews conveniently ignore those bits because they don't fit with their ideals.

    Yes, modern Christians and Jews ignore the violent bits because they don't fit with their ideals.

    That sounds good to me.

    It is not too simplistic to say that 'Islam is dangerous', because we can not ignore that the violent and hateful bits of the Koran DO fit with the ideals of some of it's adherents.
    People choose the religion that suits them and change it to match their own beliefs, they don't change their beliefs to match their religion.

    Well, a lot of people I suspect do not choose the religion that suits them. They inherit it. Another poster has made that point and it's consequences elsewhere on the thread, so I won't rehash it here.

    Either way, the respect and deference given to any/all religious belief here and elsewhere, putting it on a par with race and sex/gender as a topic worthy of the highest levels of respect... is stupid. But I digress.


    .


  • #5594
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    What is this whataboutery? If Zionists or Extremist Christians starting gunning 150 innocent people down in Europe based on the texts of their holy books then those ideologies will face the same criticisms from Europeans.

    They arent though.

    Aren't they? Anders Behring Breivik, a reportedly self described 'Christian Warrior' gunned down 77! Are all Christians worldwide responsible for his actions? Is Christianity as a religion to blame?


  • #5595
    speedboatchase
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,843 ✭✭✭speedboatchase


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Aren't they? Anders Behring Breivik, a reportedly self described 'Christian Warrior' gunned down 77! Are all Christians worldwide responsible for his actions? Is Christianity as a religion to blame?

    One guy, five years ago. You know that 51% of all terrorist attacks worldwide in 2014 were from just TWO groups? Not the Amish, by the way.


  • #5596
    fed up sick and tired
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,015 ✭✭✭fed up sick and tired


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Due to the high volume of school yard taunts masquerading as 'debate' I am now operating a ticket system for those who wish to insult rather than deal with the point made.

    Please take a ticket and we will call you when it's your turn.

    Yet you couldn't help yourself.

    As Samuel Johnson said 'vanity catches small occasions'.


  • #5597
    fed up sick and tired
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,015 ✭✭✭fed up sick and tired


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Aren't they? Anders Behring Breivik, a reportedly self described 'Christian Warrior' gunned down 77! Are all Christians worldwide responsible for his actions? Is Christianity as a religion to blame?

    No they aren't. No it isn't. So what ?

    As an aside, did Breivik refer to sacred texts to validate his actions ? How many would believe him and find it credible, even if he said he was so informed ?


  • #5598
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    speedboatchase wrote: »
    One guy, five years ago. You know that 51% of all terrorist attacks worldwide in 2014 were from just TWO groups? Not the Amish, by the way.

    Interesting figure seeing as no one can agree on what terrorism is exactly.


  • #5599
    DubVelo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 543 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    seamus wrote: »
    People choose the religion that suits them and change it to match their own beliefs, they don't change their beliefs to match their religion.

    Pretty blasphemous stuff. You're headin' for the stonings and the hellfire anyway...


  • #5600
    DubVelo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 543 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    wes wrote: »
    Interesting figure seeing as no one can agree on what terrorism is exactly.

    Is this 'France did bombs so they're terrorists too so they DESERVED it' ?


  • #5601
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    DubVelo wrote: »
    Is this 'France did bombs so they're terrorists too so they DESERVED it' ?

    How did you get that from what I was saying exactly? Honest question, how did you come to the conclusion that is what I was saying. I am seriously puzzled how any person could come to the conclusion you have.

    I pointed out that stats in regards to terrorism are problematic, as there is no agreed upon definition on what terrorism is. If people can't even agree on what something is, then its kind of hard to have reliable stats on that basis.


  • Advertisement
  • #5602
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    fed up sick and tired wrote: »
    No they aren't. No it isn't. So what ?

    As an aside, did Breivik refer to sacred texts to validate his actions ? How many would believe him and find it credible, even if he said he was so informed ?

    So what you are saying is that when a Christian terrorist reports religious/biblical motivation (I don't know whether Breivik referred to the bible or not), they would not be believed, taken seriously or found to be credible? You've pretty much just backed up my argument there.


  • #5603
    Paramite Pie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Paramite Pie


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Nonsense, I never went on a march to prove I was against the the IRA as an Irish man and Muslims shouldn't have to do the same now. If they have come out online and said they are against the attacks in Paris, why do you need them to go through any more hoops?

    Maybe if more Irish people did then their kids wouldn't have got caught up in sectarian violence or terrorism especially those in both communities in NI. Parents in communities where their kids are at risk of terrorism (or gang violence..) should and hopefully to talk to their kids...

    But so many think -- oh but my son would never do that. It's not because people are muslim that they need to do this, it's because young people often need a voice from their own community -- and what happens when that only voice or figure is from ISIS??


  • #5604
    DubVelo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 543 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    wes wrote: »
    How did you get that from what I was saying exactly? Honest question, how did you come to the conclusion that is what I was saying. I am seriously puzzled how any person could come to the conclusion you have.

    I pointed out that stats in regards to terrorism are problematic, as there is no agreed upon definition on what terrorism is. If people can't even agree on what something is, then its kind of hard to have reliable stats on that basis.

    Jumped to conclusions based on other posters, my apologies.

    I would have thought it was pretty obvious what was terrorism, but there you go.


  • #5605
    speedboatchase
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,843 ✭✭✭speedboatchase


    wes wrote: »
    Interesting figure seeing as no one can agree on what terrorism is exactly.

    Well, the figure is from the Global Terrorism Index, and that's kinda their thing. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/18/456508943/new-report-says-boko-haram-worlds-deadliest-terrorist-organization-in-2014


  • #5606
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    DubVelo wrote: »
    I would have thought it was pretty obvious what was terrorism, but there you go.

    Oh I can't blame you on that. Terrorism it seem is deliberately defined so as to be vague so that various people can say that the people they support aren't terrorist. e.g. Free Syrian army terrorists, but the other side saying they aren't or Russian back rebels aren't terrorists according to Russian, but the other side saying they are and so on.


  • #5607
    DubVelo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 543 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    Paramite Pie wrote: »
    Maybe if more Irish people did then their kids wouldn't have got caught up in sectarian violence or terrorism especially those in both communities in NI.

    Peace march in Belfast, 1972: http://victorpatterson.photoshelter.com/image/I0000LCl_SWh9xUQ

    Women's peace march in Dublin, 1976: http://irishphotoarchive.photoshelter.com/image/I0000gKUYeEDIO2A

    Etcetera etc.


  • #5608
    fed up sick and tired
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,015 ✭✭✭fed up sick and tired


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    So what you are saying is that when a Christian terrorist reports religious/biblical motivation (I don't know whether Breivik referred to the bible or not), they would not be believed, taken seriously or found to be credible? You've pretty much just backed up my argument there.

    Maybe I have, maybe not. Could you elucidate on why you think so, please ?

    No matter how anachronistic the reference to sacred texts, or how obscure the context, if a soi-disant 'Christian' terrorist massacred 139 homosexuals (as an example) and claimed Biblical grounds for doing so, then I think we in the west in 2015 would say 'this guy says he's a Christian, but in the context of 2015, actually he's mentally ill, and let's lock him up'. That's where Western society on the whole is at with that, I think.

    If a soi-disant Muslim in 2015 in some less-liberal or less-secular part of the world than our own (and they do exist) decided to kill 139 homosexuals (as an example), I think we might decide to weigh that differently, based on our understanding of the general mores of that society or part of the world, and the relative importance of religious custom, and practice - especially where they inform the government.

    We might with some justification go from there to decide that we would not wish to see our own society go backwards in that medieval fashion. Or at least wonder what precisely such an element might positively bring to our own society.

    I take it as a given that the political and social concerns of Islam are inseparable from it's narrow doctrinal element. Whether or not all Muslims equally feel that intensely about it is neither here nor there.

    My personal prejudice is that all religious belief is eyewash, and unworthy of recognition, (just for the sake of disclosure).


    .


  • #5609
    bajer101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    French authorities have confirmed that Abdelhamid Abaaoud is among those killed in yesterday's raid.


  • #5610
    Depp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    bajer101 wrote: »
    French authorities have confirmed that Abdelhamid Abaaoud is among those killed in yesterday's raid.

    should be buried with a pig!


  • Advertisement
  • #5611
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    speedboatchase wrote: »
    Well, the figure is from the Global Terrorism Index, and that's kinda their thing. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/18/456508943/new-report-says-boko-haram-worlds-deadliest-terrorist-organization-in-2014

    Yeah, you see the fact still remains that no one agrees on what terrorism is exactly. The Global Terrorism Index is a think tank (plenty of those with fancy names around), and that doesn't change the fact that no one can agree what is terrorism.

    For example why weren't the mass killings from South Sudan included? Do they class that as a civil war? You could also argue that the attacks by Boko Haram and ISIS are also part of a civil war.

    Now to me it make exactly 0 sense that the mass killings in places like South Sudan are not terrorism, but Boko Haram and ISIS are. I fail to see any appreciable difference between the mass murdering lunatics in South Sudan, Iraq, Syria and Nigeria.


Advertisement