Breaking: At least 1 man dead after stabbing rampage in Dundalk

Kivaro · 05-01-2018 10:29pm

The Japanese kid was murdered by a failed asylum seeker.
One of them was a tax paying contributor to Irish society; the other ..... a taker.

The irony is that the taxes paid by the murdered kid will be used to feed, house, clothe, and provide free legal aid and psychiatric services for his murderer.

falinn merking · 05-01-2018 10:31pm

Kivaro wrote: »

The Japanese kid was murdered by a failed asylum seeker.
One of them was a tax paying contributor to Irish society; the other ..... a taker.

The irony is that the taxes paid by the murdered kid will be used to feed, house, clothe, and provide free legal aid and psychiatric services for his murderer.

That is sick when you think about it.

Captain Obvious · 05-01-2018 11:00pm

Kivaro wrote: »

The Japanese kid was murdered by a failed asylum seeker.
One of them was a tax paying contributor to Irish society; the other ..... a taker.

The irony is that the taxes paid by the murdered kid will be used to feed, house, clothe, and provide free legal aid and psychiatric services for his murderer.

If they were both Irish the situation would be exactly the same.

Spanish Eyes · 05-01-2018 11:04pm

The way reporting is going in this country now, there may be thousands of assaults perpetrated by these undocumented.

But we cannot say anything for fear of being called racist. Just saying.

Sofiztikated · 05-01-2018 11:21pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The way reporting is going in this country now, there may be thousands of assaults perpetrated by these undocumented.

But we cannot say anything for fear of being called racist. Just saying.

You can't ****e yourself in this country without someone knowing about it.

If there were 1000's of assaults, it would be everywhere. You don't say anything because you'd be called a fear monger, or a fool. Not a racist.

Professor Moriarty · 05-01-2018 11:22pm

What's that stench? Smells like righteous indignation.

AllForIt · 05-01-2018 11:35pm

Kivaro wrote: »

The Japanese kid was murdered by a failed asylum seeker.
One of them was a tax paying contributor to Irish society; the other ..... a taker.

The irony is that the taxes paid by the murdered kid will be used to feed, house, clothe, and provide free legal aid and psychiatric services for his murderer.

That's actually a good point that exposes that there is something utterly stomach churning about this indiscriminate murder. I mean he didn't do it for financial gain, he didn't do it because he had a score to settle with the victim personally, he did it because he felt he had some right to do it, perhaps because he feels he's been slighted in some way by the west. Well I'm sorry if he feels second best in the west but that's just the way it is, it's not the Japanese mans fault he feels that way, he feels that way cause it's true. I don't mean Muslims are second best , nor Egyptians, but himself.

Noel82 · 05-01-2018 11:37pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's not correct. Multiracial does not equal multicultural. Culture is about social norms, values, and expressions of art etc. It's perfectly possible to have a society which welcomes individuals of all colours and nationalities, without accepting that they can live - and more crucially, demand that their children born and raised here live - according to foreign and incompatible social norms.

For instance: I would have absolutely no issue with banning non medical circumcision in Ireland for infants. I find the very concept of it obscene and barbaric. Now, this would straight away mean that Ireland would cease to be a multicultural society - we would be saying to Jewish people, "if you want to live here, you must accept that this aspect of your culture is illegal under Irish law, so if you want to live here, you'll have to leave that part of your culture behind".

Many, many countries do this in all sorts of different ways. If you grew up in Amsterdam then legalised weed is part of your culture, if you come to Ireland, it is not. If you grew up in Ireland and move to America at 18, then drinking at your age is probably part of your culture but it is illegal in America.

This is what multiculturalism means. It doesn't just mean people of different ethnicities living in the same geographic region, it also means allowing them to live according to their own cultural norms as opposed to demanding that they adopt Ireland's. And I have never been fully on board with multiculturalism in the latter manner - for instance, if you teach your daughter that her role in life is to be subservient to men and that she must hide her face in public or be punished at home, that in my view is something which in our culture we should regard as child abuse, and insist that people either refrain from practising that in Ireland or else get the f*ck out of here.

Multiculturalism is *not* the same as multiracialism and it is *not* in any way racist to disagree with or oppose the concept of multiculturalism.

Still the best post on this thread.

Mountainsandh · 05-01-2018 11:56pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

There seems to be a persistent inference in this talk of 'incompatibility of cultures' that people from cultural backgrounds all think the same way. There are 1.3 billion Muslims on the planet -- they are not all hooked up to some Muslim Mainframe where they are all programmed to think and act in the exact same way and to react to Western norms in the same way. .

Sorry late reply, I was busy all day.

Remember that the terms of reference here are whether it is a good idea to relocate a large swathe of population into a new culture, not, as your examples refer to, whether a large swathe of population already established within an area can be ostracized on the grounds of incompatibility.

Ireland does not have a large Muslim community established yet, so the time to have these conversations is now.

I agree with you really. Not all Muslims or Middle-Eastern refugees are incompatible. The extremists and the silent moderates who do not stand up to extremism or even decide to join in are the issue.

Multiculturalism is not working out. It has resulted in the tensions the rest of Europe are experiencing, and led to this thread actually.

Assimilation is the name of the game, and it implies that the newcomers are flexible enough to integrate and adapt, while they can retain aspects of their previous culture that do not clash with the new setting. Of course extremists and silent/passive/active followers thereof cannot abide.

We have two options really to protect ourselves from the incompatible section of Middle-Eastern refugees : ever-more stringent background checks (I'm not convinced), or simply declining help until we can tell for sure which group is which.

In other words yes, absolutely, help Muslims that are candidates for assimilation (compatible).
As soon as we're able to tell them apart from extremists that is. Until then, it is foolish to let immigration happen to the extent it is currently happening.

Right now it's not only extremism within the community that is already settled in Western Europe that we have to deal with, but also
a) the recent traction it has found in previously moderate Muslims of Western countries (ie new recruits in the Western countries)
b) an unchecked influx of extremists from the Middle-East (along with non-extremists).

The issue is not microscopic on a French scale, I disagree, and similarly, it will not be microscopic on an Irish scale.

Also, on the point of talking to the moderate Muslims who are happily settled in our countries, I would say that they are well able for these conversations and the ones I know agree about the incompatibility of extremists.

edit for tl;dr : all Muslims willing to assimilate welcome when they'll have their **** together and somehow deal with the extremists problem.

Ash.J.Williams · 06-01-2018 12:06am

Kivaro wrote: »

The Japanese kid was murdered by a failed asylum seeker.
One of them was a tax paying contributor to Irish society; the other ..... a taker.

The irony is that the taxes paid by the murdered kid will be used to feed, house, clothe, and provide free legal aid and psychiatric services for his murderer.

he hadn't taken anything from the tax payer at that point

Mountainsandh · 06-01-2018 12:12am

Noel82 wrote: »

Still the best post on this thread.

Hadn't caught up with that post actually. Hatrickpatrick I think this is the "assimilation" I'm on about.
Jargon I suppose.

Ash.J.Williams · 06-01-2018 12:33am

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The way reporting is going in this country now, there may be thousands of assaults perpetrated by these undocumented.

But we cannot say anything for fear of being called racist. Just saying.

that's quite a stretch of the imagination there

Odhinn · 06-01-2018 12:48am

AllForIt wrote: »

That's actually a good point that exposes that there is something utterly stomach churning about this indiscriminate murder. I mean he didn't do it for financial gain, he didn't do it because he had a score to settle with the victim personally, he did it because he felt he had some right to do it, perhaps because he feels he's been slighted in some way by the west. Well I'm sorry if he feels second best in the west but that's just the way it is, it's not the Japanese mans fault he feels that way, he feels that way cause it's true. I don't mean Muslims are second best , nor Egyptians, but himself.

.....we've currently no idea why he did it.

AllForIt · 06-01-2018 1:46am

Odhinn wrote: »

.....we've currently no idea why he did it.

Spot on. Lets say he's mentally deranged. Still, where did he get the idea from to go out on the street and indiscriminately attack ppl. Could it possibly be because he seen some of his 'brothers' do the same. Also, can you give me one example in the last year indeed ever where a mentally deranged Irish person in this country stabbed and killed anyone in the same fashion that this guy did.

Ash.J.Williams · 06-01-2018 2:04am

AllForIt wrote: »

Spot on. Lets say he's mentally deranged. Still, where did he get the idea from to go out on the street and indiscriminately attack ppl. Could it possibly be because he seen some of his 'brothers' do the same. Also, can you give me one example in the last year indeed ever where a mentally deranged Irish person in this country stabbed and killed anyone in the same fashion that this guy did.

there's a few a year to be fair.

Odhinn · 06-01-2018 2:07am

AllForIt wrote: »

Spot on. Lets say he's mentally deranged. Still, where did he get the idea from to go out on the street and indiscriminately attack ppl. Could it possibly be because he seen some of his 'brothers' do the same.

...which still leaves him deranged.

AllForIt wrote: »

Also, can you give me one example in the last year indeed ever where a mentally deranged Irish person in this country stabbed and killed anyone in the same fashion that this guy did.

Why are we going on time limits?
https://www.herald.ie/news/dubs-star-jonny-coopers-knife-attacker-a-danger-to-society-34174728.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/man-stabs-garda-kills-self-in-fermoy-1.801246

millie35 · 06-01-2018 2:17am

Odhinn wrote: »

...which still leaves him deranged.

Why are we going on time limits?
https://www.herald.ie/news/dubs-star-jonny-coopers-knife-attacker-a-danger-to-society-34174728.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/man-stabs-garda-kills-self-in-fermoy-1.801246

Is that you Nodin?

Strazdas · 06-01-2018 2:20am

AllForIt wrote: »

Spot on. Lets say he's mentally deranged. Still, where did he get the idea from to go out on the street and indiscriminately attack ppl. Could it possibly be because he seen some of his 'brothers' do the same. Also, can you give me one example in the last year indeed ever where a mentally deranged Irish person in this country stabbed and killed anyone in the same fashion that this guy did.

Many of the assaults we hear about at nighttime are not 'fights' but random attacks carried out by complete strangers. The fact that drink or drugs might be involved is neither here nor there : a random violent assault is a random violent assault.

take everything · 06-01-2018 3:10am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not about Muslims and it never was, it's about people from the geographic region encompassing North Africa and the Middle East, which have a very recent history of cultural hostility towards what we in the West consider basic, non-negotiable human rights in various ways. A non-Muslim from Saudi Arabia is just as likely to have a backwards view of womens' place in society as a Muslim from Saudi Arabia - it's not about religion or race, it's about cultural immersion. Somebody who converted to Islam while living in Ireland is not culturally connected to ultraconservative middle eastern culture, so they're unlikely to adopt such views.

It's not about race or religion, it's about the culture you grew up surrounded by and taught by. Odds are, for example, that if you grew up in a country where women are legally second class citizens and your family enforced this at home, you are more likely to hold such views yourself, which will fundamentally clash with how people live in this country. Now, if you're willing to discard your own social values at the border when you move here, then that's fine. The issue is that "multiculturalism" as an ideology insists that we shouldn't force people to do this - that we should allow people to continue living by the lifestyle they lived in their original country. This is fine in some cases, but absolutely toxic in others. Several obvious examples have been given.

I'd argue that historic precedent has actually shown us that this form of multiculturalism simple never works out well. The problems you refer to only arose because people with vastly conflicting cultures were forced to share the same geographic regions without agreeing on a mutually acceptable set of values by which to live. This is what leads to the creation of ghettoes etc. This is where the concept of cultural ethnicities deserving their own homeland in which they can live according to their own cultures - for example, the two state solution of Israel and Palestine - came about. Because it was recognised that throwing people of utterly incompatible cultures into one small geographic region together only ever leads to conflict. History has taught us this repeatedly.

Again, it's not about religion. Seeking out Muslims to do this would be pointless, since there are many Muslims who do not adopt ultraconservative cultural ideologies imported from repressed nations elsewhere. A far better analogy would be if you meet a teenage girl or young woman whose family doesn't let her out of the house without a male chaperone. Telling her to her face that you find this repulsive is obviously pointless, but how about phoning the Gardai or social services to report a suspected case of psychological / emotional abuse? If it was a case of somebody's partner treating them this way, under the new domestic violence laws introduced very recently this would be a clear cut case of emotional abuse, no question whatsoever. Why should it be different when it comes to familial relationships as opposed to sexual ones?

It's different if you generalise based on culture, which unlike religion or race is a tangible measure of the lifestyle one not only lives by, but expects their family to live by as well.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we don't allow such people into this country at all, I am suggesting that the concept of multiculturalism is flawed - that the currently considered un-PC rule of "when in Rome, do as Romans do" makes more sense than the currently popular concept of letting people move to a country without adopting its basic social values as part of their lifestyle and their families' lifestyle.

Go way out of that with your rationality.

Your post has no smug condescension.
No feels.
No shrieking.
No whataboutery.

2/10.
I need feelz goddamit.

dok_golf · 06-01-2018 3:14am

AllForIt wrote: »

Spot on. Lets say he's mentally deranged. Still, where did he get the idea from to go out on the street and indiscriminately attack ppl. Could it possibly be because he seen some of his 'brothers' do the same. Also, can you give me one example in the last year indeed ever where a mentally deranged Irish person in this country stabbed and killed anyone in the same fashion that this guy did.

Alan Hawe

ArthurDayne · 06-01-2018 3:49am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not about Muslims and it never was, it's about people from the geographic region encompassing North Africa and the Middle East, which have a very recent history of cultural hostility towards what we in the West consider basic, non-negotiable human rights in various ways. A non-Muslim from Saudi Arabia is just as likely to have a backwards view of womens' place in society as a Muslim from Saudi Arabia - it's not about religion or race, it's about cultural immersion. Somebody who converted to Islam while living in Ireland is not culturally connected to ultraconservative middle eastern culture, so they're unlikely to adopt such views.

It's not about race or religion, it's about the culture you grew up surrounded by and taught by. Odds are, for example, that if you grew up in a country where women are legally second class citizens and your family enforced this at home, you are more likely to hold such views yourself, which will fundamentally clash with how people live in this country. Now, if you're willing to discard your own social values at the border when you move here, then that's fine. The issue is that "multiculturalism" as an ideology insists that we shouldn't force people to do this - that we should allow people to continue living by the lifestyle they lived in their original country. This is fine in some cases, but absolutely toxic in others. Several obvious examples have been given.

I'd argue that historic precedent has actually shown us that this form of multiculturalism simple never works out well. The problems you refer to only arose because people with vastly conflicting cultures were forced to share the same geographic regions without agreeing on a mutually acceptable set of values by which to live. This is what leads to the creation of ghettoes etc. This is where the concept of cultural ethnicities deserving their own homeland in which they can live according to their own cultures - for example, the two state solution of Israel and Palestine - came about. Because it was recognised that throwing people of utterly incompatible cultures into one small geographic region together only ever leads to conflict. History has taught us this repeatedly.

Again, it's not about religion. Seeking out Muslims to do this would be pointless, since there are many Muslims who do not adopt ultraconservative cultural ideologies imported from repressed nations elsewhere. A far better analogy would be if you meet a teenage girl or young woman whose family doesn't let her out of the house without a male chaperone. Telling her to her face that you find this repulsive is obviously pointless, but how about phoning the Gardai or social services to report a suspected case of psychological / emotional abuse? If it was a case of somebody's partner treating them this way, under the new domestic violence laws introduced very recently this would be a clear cut case of emotional abuse, no question whatsoever. Why should it be different when it comes to familial relationships as opposed to sexual ones?

It's different if you generalise based on culture, which unlike religion or race is a tangible measure of the lifestyle one not only lives by, but expects their family to live by as well.

So we have now moved on from saying that it’s not about religion or race – but simply about being from North Africa or the Middle East? I do not wish to be presumptuous but is your point therefore that we should generalise all those from that geographic region on the basis that they simply could never have the intellectual capacity to think differently from their powerful clerics and lawmakers? Has it ever crossed your mind that many of them conform to what you deem to be their collective monoculture because, if they don’t, they can wind up in prison? If you were a citizen in one of those countries with a wife and three kids – would you have the courage to stand up and voice your opinion at the risk of incarceration? Culture is often obfuscated by what the law of a country says, and often the people of a country are way ahead of their governments on matters of progressivism (think Ireland and the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1993) – we are simply fortunate enough to live in a part of their world where we can do that free from the threat of oppression. Are we going to say that there are no gay people in North Africa or the Middle East? No people who think OK well maybe we do take this religion a bit too seriously? No believers in women’s rights? Of course there are – they just do not have the comfortable platform to voice those beliefs and seemingly unlike you I have not given up on those people or simply labelled them as undesirables among us enlightened Europeans on the simplistic basis that they come from North Africa / Middle East.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we don't allow such people into this country at all, I am suggesting that the concept of multiculturalism is flawed - that the currently considered un-PC rule of "when in Rome, do as Romans do" makes more sense than the currently popular concept of letting people move to a country without adopting its basic social values as part of their lifestyle and their families' lifestyle.

Well than what are you saying? You've just pretty much lumped the whole of North Africa and the Middle East into holding one single point of view on social issues but now you seem to be going back on it by saying that you don't think all of them should be barred -- namely the ones who adapt to our way of life. But Europe is an overwhelmingly intermingled continent and is highly multicultural, with lots of people from your supposed Netherworld of North Africa and the Middle East too ---- but can you point out to me where along the path towards multiculturalism that Europe has become fundamentally less progressive? LGBT rights for example have actually accelerated, not slowed.

AllForIt · 06-01-2018 4:43am

Strazdas wrote: »

Many of the assaults we hear about at nighttime are not 'fights' but random attacks carried out by complete strangers. The fact that drink or drugs might be involved is neither here nor there : a random violent assault is a random violent assault.

Yes, but the motivation behind it is the issue.

Either he is psychology deranged or there is something more to it, we don't know fully yet.

Your attempt to trivialise the incident in the sense that these kinds of incidents are just part of everyday life is not one I could agree with.

vicwatson · 06-01-2018 11:42am

Can anyone logically explain why there was around 30+ Gardai present to take the one person accused into court??

pitifulgod · 06-01-2018 12:02pm

vicwatson wrote: »

Can anyone logically explain why there was around 30+ Gardai present to take the one person accused into court??

To avoid some randomer attacking him. It's high profile and you run the risk of it happening in this particular case.

vicwatson · 06-01-2018 12:19pm

pitifulgod wrote: »

To avoid some randomer attacking him. It's high profile and you run the risk of it happening in this particular case.

Unlikely, he's a no one, it's not John K Kennedy

joeysoap · 06-01-2018 12:23pm

What did he do to attract Garda attention on monday?
Anyone who is familiar with Dundalk would know that there’s a fair amount of immigrants present in the town, and would pass no attention to anyone going about their daily business.

* from the 2011 census and there’s now about 800 Chinese Students.
Curious to know what drew their attention.

Non-Irish nationals accounted for 12.8 per cent of the population of Dundalk compared with a national average figure of 12.0 per cent. Lithuanians (673 persons) were the largest group, followed by Nigerians (650 persons).

Ash.J.Williams · 06-01-2018 12:29pm

vicwatson wrote: »

Unlikely, he's a no one, it's not John K Kennedy

Are you serious?

splinter65 · 06-01-2018 12:30pm

vicwatson wrote: »

Can anyone logically explain why there was around 30+ Gardai present to take the one person accused into court??

There was going to be a violent mob there, possibly armed, 30 Gardai is about right.

vicwatson · 06-01-2018 12:35pm

splinter65 wrote: »

There was going to be a violent mob there, possibly armed, 30 Gardai is about right.

10 from the armed response unit would have been just fine and dandy, I didn't see any "mob", armed or otherwise, in the video on the Indo website, the only "mob" I saw was that of journalists brandishing cameras.

splinter65 · 06-01-2018 12:39pm

joeysoap wrote: »

What did he do to attract Garda attention on monday?
Anyone who is familiar with Dundalk would know that there’s a fair amount of immigrants present in the town, and would pass no attention to anyone going about their daily business.

* from the 2011 census and there’s now about 800 Chinese Students.
Curious to know what drew their attention.

Non-Irish nationals accounted for 12.8 per cent of the population of Dundalk compared with a national average figure of 12.0 per cent. Lithuanians (673 persons) were the largest group, followed by Nigerians (650 persons).

As far as we know he presented himself to the Gardai as someone with no papers. That’s what you’re supposed to do, and was told to go to Dublin and apply for asylum.
This is not a case of someone making their way to Dundalk in order to commit a jihadist attack.
He was refused asylum in the UK.
Don’t forget it’s very easy to hide in the UK, he could have just melted into the crowd.
But for whatever reasons he didn’t.
The next country is Ireland, so he came here obviously via Scotland and NI and Dundalk was the first big place the bus, or the train, stopped so he decided to ask for asylum there.
What happened after that remains a mystery.

Breaking: At least 1 man dead after stabbing rampage in Dundalk

Comments