Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

conorhal · 25-11-2015 12:46PM

kettlehead wrote: »

The French Prime Minister Valls has now said that Europe should take in no more refugees.

Headline is from today's Irish Time. He is absolutely correct, of course. The safety of EU citizens must be put first.

Same guff from the Swedes who cautiously feel like they 'need a pause' but the question is, what are they going to do?
The answer is simple, you have to slam the door shut and in this ideological war build a new Iron Curtain.

Are any of our governments actually prepared to do anything beyond offer platitudes, expressions of sympathy and a general statement of 'we should probably do something..perhaps?' No. So nothing will change other then a few politicians scrambling to look like they are reflecting the shifting mood while not actually offering any solutions.
I'll bother to listen to these morons they day the tell us what they actually intend to do to stop this nonsense, till then all their words are wind.

kleefarr · 25-11-2015 01:01PM

Nodin wrote: »

..Different culture in that way.

Exactly, different culture.
This is exactly why I disagree with Muslims coming to Europe and then trying to change its culture.
If they don't find a culture that they like and can respect then they need to get the fark out and go back to a country that does things the way they like.
Any chance we could migrate to Saudi or somewhere similar and start trying to change it to our way of thinking and not expect some backlash?

Nodin · 25-11-2015 01:05PM

kleefarr wrote: »

Exactly, different culture.
This is exactly why I disagree with Muslims coming to Europe and then trying to change its culture.
If they don't find a culture that they like and can respect then they need to get the fark out and go back to a country that does things the way they like.
Any chance we could migrate to Saudi or somewhere similar and start trying to change it to our way of thinking and not expect some backlash?

Saudi Arabia is a highly conservative wahabi monarchy. It is not the equivalent of the Vatican for muslims, it happens to hold the centre of main pilgrimage to the religion of Islam.

kettlehead · 25-11-2015 01:10PM

Nodin wrote: »

....or I watched it, didn't read what somebody else read into it, and agreed with it.

So, you agree with what the gentleman in the video is saying? Correct? You realise that what you've been typing in this thread and what he is saying, are two very different things? Polar opposites, in fact.

Or you could admit that you did not watch the clip, saw the. Muslim name, presumed he was on your side and threw it an oul like.

Nodin · 25-11-2015 01:23PM

kettlehead wrote: »

So, you agree with what the gentleman in the video is saying? Correct? You realise that what you've been typing in this thread and what he is saying, are two very different things? Polar opposites, in fact.

Or you could admit that you did not watch the clip, saw the. Muslim name, presumed he was on your side and threw it an oul like.

He identifies militant Islamism as a problem, separate from the Islam practiced by the vast majority of muslims. No problem for me there.

Christy42 · 25-11-2015 01:28PM

custard gannet wrote: »

Before you align yourself with the rape apologist, lol teh irish pplz is homeless l0lz 0H N0EZ racist little welfare dependent pervert nonce who stalks these boards from dusk til dawn, ask yourself this.

But hey, I'm naming no names. Who you think I'm talking about could be anyone who has contributed to this topic.

If I say young people going to fight in Syria, do you think of misguided jihadists or old army men and European born Kurds. Because the contrast in numbers is fairly stark.

Due process exists for a reason. It doesn't matter what I think. The study is invalid in terms of speaking about ISIS. It could be true, maybe that is what everyone thought about when they answered the question but the question was not phrased properly.

The Sun should feel absolutely free to carry out the process again properly at which point we can discuss the results. I can't see why doing things so that there are no questions about the result is an issue. It is just asking people a different question and so should be no more work than the last survey.

I don't know if asking this question caused a difference but I will not encourage the practice by ignoring that such a massive flaw in the set up of the experiment.

fed up sick and tired · 25-11-2015 03:15PM

Nodin wrote: »

I don't think was your point. My opinion, as twice stated now, was not regards its worth as a "social experiment" but in the way the womans bigoted attitudes are reflected on this thread and others like it.

Right. You used a worthless experiment, to illustrate what is at 6.4k posts a fairly empty point. Good man.

Nodin · 25-11-2015 03:22PM

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

Right. (..........)Good man.

The spread of anti-muslim stereotypes in the English speaking world is unfortunately not an "empty point".

fed up sick and tired · 25-11-2015 03:29PM

Nodin wrote: »

The spread of anti-muslim stereotypes in the English speaking world is unfortunately not an "empty point".

It becomes empty by repetition. That's partly a function of the quality of poster throwing it out there.

Have you changed anyone's mind about a single thing anywhere between the two threads ?

I don't think you have.

hatrickpatrick · 25-11-2015 07:45PM

For anyone who doubts that Western treatment of Muslim countries is a primary factor in Isis' recruitment strategy:

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/24/isis-recruitment-thrives-in-brutal-prisons-run-by-u-s-backed-egypt/

Among the facilities in which Soltan was incarcerated was the notorious Tora Prison, where he was kept in an underground dungeon with dozens of other prisoners. Between regular beatings, humiliation, and torture by guards, the prisoners would talk to one another. In this grim environment, ISIS members would attempt to convince others of the justice of their cause. “The ISIS guys would come and tell everyone these nonviolent means don’t work, that Western countries only care about power and the Egyptian regime only understands force,” Soltan says. “They would say that the world didn’t respect you enough to think you deserve democracy, and now the man who killed your friends is shaking hands with international leaders who are all arming and funding his regime.”

How long more are people going to tolerate Western leaders shaking hands with the most vile f*cking scumbag dictators on Earth? Especially now that we know what it's costing us in terms of making powerful enemies?

Irish Praetorian · 25-11-2015 08:03PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For anyone who doubts that Western treatment of Muslim countries is a primary factor in Isis' recruitment strategy:

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/24/isis-recruitment-thrives-in-brutal-prisons-run-by-u-s-backed-egypt/

How long more are people going to tolerate Western leaders shaking hands with the most vile f*cking scumbag dictators on Earth? Especially now that we know what it's costing us in terms of making powerful enemies?

Just about everything seems to be a recruiting strategy for ISIS or similar Islamist hardliners, from us existing as secular states and not Sharia dominated societies infuriates these people, trading with the people presently in power infuriates the Islamists, drawing cartoons infuriates the Islamists, having a free society where even peoples religious beliefs are open to lampooning irritates the Islamists. So if we want to stop irritating the Islamists, maybe we should go throw ourselves all off a cliff, because unless we do that much we will continue to irritate the Islamists simply by virtue of our existence, and much as it would please me if our societies would end their relationship with this motley collection of double dealing despots in the region, I don't believe for a moment that will in any way secure us from the ire of the Islamists.

Rabo Karabekian · 25-11-2015 08:55PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

So if we want to stop irritating the Islamists, maybe we should go throw ourselves all off a cliff,

We could just not bomb the shít out of the middle east. ISIS, and all the pre-ISISes, were a product of the chaos caused by invasions, or invasions-by-proxy. It's not a coincidence that they were (or are) called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Irish Praetorian · 25-11-2015 09:13PM

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

We could just not bomb the shít out of the middle east. ISIS, and all the pre-ISISes, were a product of the chaos caused by invasions, or invasions-by-proxy. It's not a coincidence that they were (or are) called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

I'm generally of the opinion that we shouldn't be bombing the **** out of anywhere, regardless of whether or not we are being bombed back in return.

But then again the worlds largest terrorist attack on September 11th prior to Afghanistan and Iraq 2, and it occurred ostensibly because the US has violated the sanctity of Saudi Arabian soil by stationing its troops there during the liberation of Kuwait. There is at some point a certain level of zealotry and stupidity that cannot be negotiated away.

IrishTrajan · 25-11-2015 09:26PM

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

We could just not bomb the shít out of the middle east. ISIS, and all the pre-ISISes, were a product of the chaos caused by invasions, or invasions-by-proxy.

You can argue IS grew from the result of US invasion of Iraq, but you think all of the Middle East's problems grow solely out of the West's intervention in that region?

Do you think the world didn't know war before the Westerners rolled up and showed them?

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

It's not a coincidence that they were (or are) called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

You can blame that one on the Turks and the Saudis. They're the ones who started and are fuelling the fire in Syria.

Rabo Karabekian · 25-11-2015 10:51PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I'm generally of the opinion that we shouldn't be bombing the **** out of anywhere, regardless of whether or not we are being bombed back in return.

But then again the worlds largest terrorist attack on September 11th prior to Afghanistan and Iraq 2, and it occurred ostensibly because the US has violated the sanctity of Saudi Arabian soil by stationing its troops there during the liberation of Kuwait. There is at some point a certain level of zealotry and stupidity that cannot be negotiated away.

And the troops were there in order to conduct air strikes against Iraq. There may be zero chance of negotiating with ISIS or Al-Qaeda (at least in their current states) but not trying to protect your foreign assets by changing governments depending on what way the wind is blowing is usually a good policy. A good warning to take from history would be how events unfolded in Iran from the 1950s onwards.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

You can argue IS grew from the result of US invasion of Iraq, but you think all of the Middle East's problems grow solely out of the West's intervention in that region?

Do you think the world didn't know war before the Westerners rolled up and showed them?

You can blame that one on the Turks and the Saudis. They're the ones who started and are fuelling the fire in Syria.[/QUOTE]

Not sure where I said that all of the Middle East's problems were from Western intervention. I didn't even use the word 'west'. Of course there were problems there before, of course there was radicalisation there before (I assume that's what you mean by problems?) but the opportunity to export this radicalisation (along with some other factors) was given a great boost by the chaos and power vacuum that was left in the wake of Afghanistan and (especially) Iraq. And I would absolutely include Saudi Arabia and Turkey as prime asshóle actors in the whole sorry mess.

KingBrian2 · 25-11-2015 11:14PM

Islam is a rich culture in Arab countries but the level of Arab hatred is disturbing. Americans and Europeans are way too hostile to the Arabs. Look at how Israel treats the Palestinians or the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia or the ignorance when Iraqis were suffering from ISIS attacks. The international community is less Islamophobic and just bash the Arab world.

Irish Praetorian · 25-11-2015 11:17PM

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

And the troops were there in order to conduct air strikes against Iraq. There may be zero chance of negotiating with ISIS or Al-Qaeda (at least in their current states) but not trying to protect your foreign assets by changing governments depending on what way the wind is blowing is usually a good policy. A good warning to take from history would be how events unfolded in Iran from the 1950s onwards.

Changing governments to protect assets, are there some specific cases you have in mind? Normally I find there is a tendency to overestimate the amount of western interference that goes on in the Middle East, normally this is expressed in the kind of Jewish conspiracy theories you see thrown around, but notwithstanding the more obviously ones like the Iraq Wars and now Syria, I can't really observe too much interference in the region by outsiders.

Irish Praetorian · 25-11-2015 11:24PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Islam is a rich culture in Arab countries but the level of Arab hatred is disturbing. Americans and Europeans are way too hostile to the Arabs. Look at how Israel treats the Palestinians or the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia or the ignorance when Iraqis were suffering from ISIS attacks. The international community is less Islamophobic and just bash the Arab world.

'Islam is a rich culture in Arab countries' - OK, I'll take your word for it, heck I imagine Thailand has a rich culture too but I must confess to not knowing much about it, it's somewhere very far away, I have not visited, I've no family connections and really I've nowhere to start. I suspect however, if Thai extremists started blowing people up across Europe in the name of the King, it would be considered ridiculous if people started being berated for being 'Thai-phobic' and 'not knowing enough about the rich culture of Thailand'. We are forced in our everyday lives to deal with the realities that we are approached with, the pragmatic banal realities, we won't achieve any sort of peace if it's going to be predicated on getting everybody a Masters degree in all things Arab.

Oh and to be fair to the Israelis, there are at least some Arabs left in what was Mandatory Palestine, a pity you can't say that about Jews in the Arab world to any significant degree.

KingBrian2 · 25-11-2015 11:33PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

'Islam is a rich culture in Arab countries' - OK, I'll take your word for it, heck I imagine Thailand has a rich culture too but I must confess to not knowing much about it, it's somewhere very far away, I have not visited, I've no family connections and really I've nowhere to start. I suspect however, if Thai extremists started blowing people up across Europe in the name of the King, it would be considered ridiculous if people started being berated for being 'Thai-phobic' and 'not knowing enough about the rich culture of Thailand'. We are forced in our everyday lives to deal with the realities that we are approached with, the pragmatic banal realities, we won't achieve any sort of peace if it's going to be predicated on getting everybody a Masters degree in all things Arab.

Oh and to be fair to the Israelis, there are at least some Arabs left in what was Mandatory Palestine, a pity you can't say that about Jews in the Arab world to any significant degree.

There is violence in Thailand between the Yellows and Reds. It happens everywhere terrorism is not something that is inherent to people of the Arab world. Shi'ite, Sunni and Christians have lived in peace. Take it from me, I have read up on Arab history and the various Islamic Empires. It is not this savage world we see today. The Umayyad's built a monetary system. Andalusia was shaped by Islamic trade and scholarship. The Abbasids were around for long time competing against European crusaders.

Irish Praetorian · 25-11-2015 11:37PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

There is violence in Thailand between the Yellows and Reds. It happens everywhere terrorism is not something that is inherent to people of the Arab world. Shi'ite, Sunni and Christians have lived in peace. Take it from me, I have read up on Arab history and the various Islamic Empires. It is not this savage world we see today. The Umayyad's built a monetary system. Andalusia was shaped by Islamic trade and scholarship. The Abbasids were around for long time competing against European crusaders.

Be that as it may, we are not living in the era of the Fatimids or the Abbasids, the Crusades are long since over (heck Christianity itself is becoming something of a novelty across Europe) and we can't simply just repeat to ourselves 'Islam is a religion of peace and a great civilization' every time someone blows themselves up in its name in a European city. We do have to face stark realities, and whilst it is absurd to suggest Islam is nothing but terrorism and violence we do need to accept that is has something to do with the current wave of international violence and that burying our heads in the sand thinking 'ah sure hasn't this happened before' is simply wrong.

KingBrian2 · 25-11-2015 11:40PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Be that as it may, we are not living in the era of the Fatimids or the Abbasids, the Crusades are long since over (heck Christianity itself is becoming something of a novelty across Europe) and we can't simply just repeat to ourselves 'Islam is a religion of peace and a great civilization' every time someone blows themselves up in its name in a European city. We do have to face stark realities, and whilst it is absurd to suggest Islam is nothing but terrorism and violence we do need to accept that is has something to do with the current wave of international violence and that burying our heads in the sand thinking 'ah sure hasn't this happened before' is simply wrong.

Islam not Arab. The Arabs are a lot more secular than the vast majority of Muslims many of whom are from India, Pakistan and North Africa.

Irish Praetorian · 25-11-2015 11:47PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Islam not Arab. The Arabs are a lot more secular than the vast majority of Muslims many of whom are from India, Pakistan and North Africa.

Really? I mean this claim genuinely perplexes me, given the presence of regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Sudan, and more importantly the driving force of Salafism as centred in Saudi Arabia. Then there is the fact that every Arab state but Lebanon and Syria describe themselves as Islamic States or States where Islam is the official religion.

KingBrian2 · 26-11-2015 12:11AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Really? I mean this claim genuinely perplexes me, given the presence of regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Sudan, and more importantly the driving force of Salafism as centred in Saudi Arabia. Then there is the fact that every Arab state but Lebanon and Syria describe themselves as Islamic States or States where Islam is the official religion.

Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait & Jordan are all Arab and secular states. ISIS does not speak for them neither does Saudi Arabia.

Irish Praetorian · 26-11-2015 12:32AM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait & Jordan are all Arab and secular states. ISIS does not speak for them neither does Saudi Arabia.

To be fair I might disagree with some of those claims considering almost all of those states declare Islam to be the official religion and practice varying degrees of preference for the state religion. However this is bringing us off on a tangent when I believe our original topic was hatred of Arabs. Frankly I think the only engine driving this particular train of thought is Islamic fundamentalism and the presence of Arabs within that movement. Ultimately, the only thing that's going to stop that train of thought is the decline of Islamic fundamentalism and the kinds of attacks we saw in Paris because simply trying to 'OK these guys trying to blow you up are only a small part of us' simply does not cut it.

Rabo Karabekian · 26-11-2015 12:40AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Changing governments to protect assets, are there some specific cases you have in mind? Normally I find there is a tendency to overestimate the amount of western interference that goes on in the Middle East, normally this is expressed in the kind of Jewish conspiracy theories you see thrown around, but notwithstanding the more obviously ones like the Iraq Wars and now Syria, I can't really observe too much interference in the region by outsiders.

There has been a huge amount of interference in the region (not just by the west, of course) but seeing as we were talking about the rise of ISIS due to the Iraqi war, then obviously that's what I was referring to when I mentioned the perils of changing governments to protect your assets. Why else would you change a government?

Not sure where you're going with the Jewish conspiracy idea. Once again, not something I have mentioned.

Irish Praetorian · 26-11-2015 12:43AM

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

There has been a huge amount of interference in the region (not just by the west, of course) but seeing as we were talking about the rise of ISIS due to the Iraqi war, then obviously that's what I was referring to when I mentioned the perils of changing governments to protect your assets. Why else would you change a government?

Not sure where you're going with the Jewish conspiracy idea. Once again, not something I have mentioned.

Right I'm just not sure the the US and UK had many assets in Iraq prior to the 2nd Gulf War, nor that they have many now either for that matter. But if you're just referring to Iraq 2 then fair enough, I usually run into the kind of lunatics who would put the US behind the Iranian Revolution as some masterful false-flag but there you go.

hatrickpatrick · 26-11-2015 01:01AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I'm generally of the opinion that we shouldn't be bombing the **** out of anywhere, regardless of whether or not we are being bombed back in return.

But then again the worlds largest terrorist attack on September 11th prior to Afghanistan and Iraq 2, and it occurred ostensibly because the US has violated the sanctity of Saudi Arabian soil by stationing its troops there during the liberation of Kuwait. There is at some point a certain level of zealotry and stupidity that cannot be negotiated away.

Bin Laden was emphatically clear in every recorded message he published after 9/11 that his atrocity was primarily motivated by US funding and diplomatic support of Israeli imperialism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3627775.stm

"What happened on 11 September and 11 March are your goods returned to you, so that you know security is a necessity for all," the voice said.

"Stop spilling our blood so we can stop spilling your blood."

Spain has been a prominent member of the US-led coalition in Iraq, although its new prime minister has said Spanish troops could be withdrawn if the situation in Iraq does not improve.

And

The tape also criticised US policy for ignoring the "real problem" which is "the occupation of all of Palestine".

It said the death of Sheikh Yassin, spiritual leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas, would be avenged.

Sheikh Yassin was killed in March in an Israeli missile attack

"We vow before God to take revenge for him from America for this, God willing," it said.

Sheikh Yassin was killed in an Israeli missile attack in March in the Gaza Strip.

The tape also condemned the US-led occupation of Iraq as a money-making scheme for companies making weapons or aiding reconstruction efforts - specifically naming the American firm Halliburton.

The idea that what these scumbags hate is our freedom is a well established bullsh!t piece of propaganda. What they hate is Western governments' continued support for people who hurt them and their countrymen. Obviously it doesn't justify what they've done or what they are planning to do, but the point is that with or without a terrorist threat, we shouldn't be supporting any dictators or imperialists in the first place, so this is just a new reason, on top of a whole crapload of existing ones, for the West to get the f*ck out of the Middle East and mind its own feckin' business.

hatrickpatrick · 26-11-2015 01:05AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Just about everything seems to be a recruiting strategy for ISIS or similar Islamist hardliners, from us existing as secular states and not Sharia dominated societies infuriates these people, trading with the people presently in power infuriates the Islamists, drawing cartoons infuriates the Islamists, having a free society where even peoples religious beliefs are open to lampooning irritates the Islamists. So if we want to stop irritating the Islamists, maybe we should go throw ourselves all off a cliff, because unless we do that much we will continue to irritate the Islamists simply by virtue of our existence, and much as it would please me if our societies would end their relationship with this motley collection of double dealing despots in the region, I don't believe for a moment that will in any way secure us from the ire of the Islamists.

It's worth a shot though isn't it? While the older Isis people are probably religious hardliners, the young recruits are almost certainly angry reactionaries to what they see as Western pillaging of their region. And disengaging from the middle easy something we should be doing anyway, regardless. I'm always astonished that so many people in our supposedly free, secular countries are perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to the West's support of utterly evil despots in exchange for material goods. It's genuinely astonishing. "We believe in liberty, democracy and freedom - and we'll happily supply Morsi with weapons to kill his own people with, as long as he keeps the cheap oil flowing".

Is that not an inherently scumbaggy position to take? We shouldn't be tolerating that sh!t from our governments; we're supposed to be better than this as a society.

Irish Praetorian · 26-11-2015 01:17AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Bin Laden was emphatically clear in every recorded message he published after 9/11 that his atrocity was primarily motivated by US funding and diplomatic support of Israeli imperialism.

And you will find more material released by Bin Laden complaining about support for Russia and its actions in Chechnya, support Indian occupation of Muslim soil in Kashmir, support for the liberation of East Timor from occupation by Indonesia, as well as support for any government in the Middle East that is pro American.

The idea that what these scumbags hate is our freedom is a well established bullsh!t piece of propaganda. What they hate is Western governments' continued support for people who hurt them and their countrymen. Obviously it doesn't justify what they've done or what they are planning to do, but the point is that with or without a terrorist threat, we shouldn't be supporting any dictators or imperialists in the first place, so this is just a new reason, on top of a whole crapload of existing ones, for the West to get the f*ck out of the Middle East and mind its own feckin' business.

I don't think its so much a case of 'mah freedums!' as it is a case of religious zealotry run wild - please don't think it impossible for people to have such a fear of death, such a depth of belief, such a conviction of self righteousness, that they will carry out what could be spun as a literal interpretation of their religion, with all the violence and atrocity that that entails.

As for our 'supporting dictators or imperialists', well what the hell does that mean, simply dealing with the internationally recognized governments? Seriously, should we eschew dealing with say Tunisia because it is more liberal and more progressive than what a bunch of fundamentalist nut-jobs want? Do you seriously think that is a recipe for dealing with the entirety of the Middle East? But don't think I'm dodging the bullet here, there are some vile regimes in the region we deal with like Saudi Arabia, and part of me is inclined to think that we should not so much as recognize them as a country let alone trade with them - but putting aside the moral indignation for a second, what does that actually get us? Will they have no markets for their oil (most of which goes to Asia anyway)? Will they be unable to obtain weaponry? Will we inspire so much love from the fundamentalists to make good what little security cooperation we get from the Saudis anyway? No, the Saudis are a vile regime but we don't have any good options for dealing with them.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's worth a shot though isn't it? While the older Isis people are probably religious hardliners, the young recruits are almost certainly angry reactionaries to what they see as Western pillaging of their region. And disengaging from the middle easy something we should be doing anyway, regardless. I'm always astonished that so many people in our supposedly free, secular countries are perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to the West's support of utterly evil despots in exchange for material goods. It's genuinely astonishing. "We believe in liberty, democracy and freedom - and we'll happily supply Morsi with weapons to kill his own people with, as long as he keeps the cheap oil flowing".

Is that not an inherently scumbaggy position to take? We shouldn't be tolerating that sh!t from our governments; we're supposed to be better than this as a society.

Take my above replies as part of this, I'd like to keep our back and forth contained in a set of single posts if we can.

kleefarr · 26-11-2015 10:31AM

Nodin wrote: »

Saudi Arabia is a highly conservative wahabi monarchy. It is not the equivalent of the Vatican for muslims, it happens to hold the centre of main pilgrimage to the religion of Islam.

Couldn't give a flying fark about what they are, it was an example of what they (Muslims in general) expect to be able to do whenever they are not in a Muslim country.

Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

Comments