Turkey and the E.U.?

djpbarry

censuspro wrote: »

Which has no relevance to this thread...

Sure it does. You stated that you were worried about Islamic terrorists, right? Now in the context of this thread, that implies you are of the opinion that Islamic terrorism will become a greater threat in Europe should Turkey join the EU, right? However, given the miniscule threat of terrorism within Turkey itself, combined with the low levels of support for Islamic extremism within that country, one has to wonder why Turkey poses such a grave threat to Europe in your mind?

sirromo wrote: »

It's a different kind of terrorism though. Christian terrorists try to avoid causing innocent civilian deaths...

I don’t wish to open that particular can of worms, but, Omagh?

sirromo wrote: »

As well as that Turkey has a population of 72 million while the republic of Ireland's population is 4.3 million. If 2% of Turkey's population have extremist or terrorist sympathies, that works out at over a million people.

And how many people in the rest of the EU sympathise with one terrorist cell or another? I’m guessing there’s a similar small, irrelevant minority in every country and Turkey is no different.

prinz

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t wish to open that particular can of worms, but, Omagh?

Omagh was not perpetrated by anyone motivated by religion, intending to promote a religion, or looking to fulfill some misplaced religious obligation. Terrible example. Though there are other such supposedly Christian groups for whom murder doesn't seem to present a problem, for instance the Hutaree Christian Warriors, various groups beind abortion clinic attacks etc.

djpbarry

prinz wrote: »

Omagh was not perpetrated by anyone motivated by religion, intending to promote a religion, or looking to fulfill some misplaced religious obligation. Terrible example.

If you must be pedantic, I was not labeling the perpetrators as "Christian fundamentalists" or "Christian terrorists". However, they were certainly fundamentalists, they were almost certainly from a Christian background and had they died in carrying out the attack, they would have been viewed as martyrs (by some).

prinz

djpbarry wrote: »

If you must be pedantic, I was not labeling the perpetrators as "Christian fundamentalists" or "Christian terrorists". However, they were certainly fundamentalists, they were almost certainly from a Christian background and had they died in carrying out the attack, they would have been viewed as martyrs (by some).

It's not being pedantic, you simply cannot compare the two, they most certainly would not have been viewed as Christian martyrs. There's a huge difference between political terrorism and religion inspired terrorism.

censuspro

prinz wrote: »

It's not being pedantic, you simply cannot compare the two, they most certainly would not have been viewed as Christian martyrs. There's a huge difference between political terrorism and religion inspired terrorism.

I've made this point a few times. It's a flawed tactic that's endemic on boards. A poster makes unrelated comparisons and then in the same sentence knocks down the comparison in order to give their own point some re-enforcement. Enough with the comparisons!

djpbarry

prinz wrote: »

It's not being pedantic, you simply cannot compare the two, they most certainly would not have been viewed as Christian martyrs.

I didn't say they would and yes, you are being pedantic because by focusing on my use of the word 'Christian', you're completely missing my point (see below).

prinz wrote: »

There's a huge difference between political terrorism and religion inspired terrorism.

In your opinion. In my opinion, terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. I don't care how the perpetrators justify their actions - they've all been indoctrinated into some ideology or another to the point were rational decision-making apparently escapes them. Whether their doctrine is social, political, racial or religious in nature is totally irrelevant in my eyes because it simply cannot justify their crimes. Besides, I would argue that a political cause can resemble a religion.

Anyways, this is getting off-topic. My point is that I remain to be convinced that the 'terrorist element' within the Turkish population is proportionally any larger than that already present within the EU.

prinz

djpbarry wrote: »

I didn't say they would and yes, you are being pedantic because by focusing on my use of the word 'Christian', you're completely missing my point (see below)..

You responded to a post about Christian terrorists, citing Omagh as an example. There was no Christian element whatsoever behind the Omagh bombing.

You are correct in one thing, there is no evidence whatsoever of a greater level of support for terrorism of any kind in Turkey from what I can see, quite the opposite in fact with, the Turkish state and people dealing ruthlessly with the PKK for decades now.

djpbarry

prinz wrote: »

You responded to a post about Christian terrorists, citing Omagh as an example. There was no Christian element whatsoever behind the Omagh bombing.

Perhaps I misinterpreted the meaning of the term 'Christian terrorists' in the original post - apologies for the confusion.

irishconvert

prinz wrote: »

You responded to a post about Christian terrorists, citing Omagh as an example. There was no Christian element whatsoever behind the Omagh bombing..

Likewise people say 9/11 was an Islamic terrorist attack. However these people did not attack to spread Islam, they attacked because they were not happy about US foreign policy and US presence in their homelands*


*assuming you believe the official version of events

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

Likewise people say 9/11 was an Islamic terrorist attack. However these people did not attack to spread Islam, they attacked because they were not happy about US foreign policy and US presence in their homelands*

Bit more to it than that. They were duped into believing they were attacking the Great Satan and would be guaranteed places in heaven with all accompanying rewards. Yes it wasn't an Islamic attack per se but Islam was abused as a convenient method of roping in some volunteers. The concept of Jihad, being in itself hijacked to gain legitimacy. Islam has been stained by the likes of Bin Laden and his cronies. I wouldn't like to hear what men like Saladin and Caliph Umar would think of September 11th.

But yes, there's a lot of politics also involved particularly in relation to the Saudis.

irishconvert wrote: »

*assuming you believe the official version of events

If by official, you mean reality, then yeah.

jacaranda

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Well we will have a european public prosecutor soon who can prosecute you initially for fraud against the union budget but there is a flexibility cluase to extend the scope of his/her remit.

The last time I looked the EU was bankrupt and the Euro under increasing pressure. I'm not sure the european public prosecutor is really high on the agenda of an organisation fighting for its life.

sirromo

djpbarry wrote:

I don’t wish to open that particular can of worms, but, Omagh?

Omagh was an accident. The people who planted the bomb did not intend to kill innocent civilians. And even if they had intended to kill innocent people, the public reaction following the bombing shows that there's no support for that kind of thing among the Irish population.

djpbarry wrote:

And how many people in the rest of the EU sympathise with one terrorist cell or another?

Apart from the Basque separatists and a few dissident republicans and loyalists in this country, I can't think of any other non-muslim terrorist groups in the EU that could command the support of more than a few hundred people.

halkar

prinz wrote: »

Bit more to it than that. They were duped into believing they were attacking the Great Satan and would be guaranteed places in heaven with all accompanying rewards. Yes it wasn't an Islamic attack per se but Islam was abused as a convenient method of roping in some volunteers. The concept of Jihad, being in itself hijacked to gain legitimacy. Islam has been stained by the likes of Bin Laden and his cronies. I wouldn't like to hear what men like Saladin and Caliph Umar would think of September 11th.

There are over 1.5 Billion muslims practicing Islam in the world. How many % of Bin Ladin and his cronies does represent? Saladin and other Caliphs throughout the history would not think of any more than you would about Sept 11. Jihad is not something that can be called over personal or national interest. Caliphate past to Ottomans (Turks) during 14th century till the formation of Turkish Republic in early 20th century. Before its collapse at their weekest times none of the late Ottoman Sultans which were also caliphs called for Jihad. Even though they were under pressure from their allies and internal religious leaders.

If you are worried about Islam and terrorist you do not need to stretch as far as Turkey. You are more likely to be attacked by muslims in UK than muslims in Turkey.

On the topic. I doubt Turkey has any more interest in EU other than trade relations. It has been a long tiring road for them and support for EU is below 40% comparing to over 70% few years ago. Their PM also indicated that they may hold referendum when\if the time comes. Last year they have abolished visas with many of the ME countries including Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Qatar etc as well as they have no visa requirements for Iran, Libya,Tunusia. Most are enemies of west. This week they are working on abolishing visas between Russia. Why would they bother if they are going to join EU and will have to cancel all these agreements which EU will not allow?

Does Turkey need EU? No. Does EU need Turkey? Time will tell...

RandomName2

irishconvert wrote: »

Like the way they did in Nagasaki?

Worst comparison. Ever.

Try firebombing of Toyko. Still wrong. Nearer the mark, though.

Oh, just for a laugh: can anyone name any group that wasn't muslim that advocated suicide bombing?

Spoiler: Japanese Empire (Shinto)

prinz

halkar wrote: »

There are over 1.5 Billion muslims practicing Islam in the world. How many % of Bin Ladin and his cronies does represent? ..... Even though they were under pressure from their allies and internal religious leaders..

tbh I have no idea what you were trying to say. I am not saying they represent any significant percentage of Muslims, or that they have any legitimacy to call Jihad. I was explaining that Islam had a role in 9/11 simply because Al Qaida et al find it expedient to abuse the religion to suit their own agendas.

I am no more afraid of terrorists in Turkey than I am of terrorists in our own country.

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh, just for a laugh: can anyone name any group that wasn't muslim that advocated suicide bombing?

Spoiler: Japanese Empire (Shinto)

Also, the Tamil Tigers (Hindu majority with Christain minority). They are, I believe, "credited" with introducing the concept into modern Terrorists' tactics.

irishconvert

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh, just for a laugh: can anyone name any group that wasn't muslim that advocated suicide bombing?

Spoiler: Japanese Empire (Shinto)

Hindu

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Hindu-Al-Qaeda-training-suicide-bombers-in-Nepal/Article1-231358.aspx

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

Hindu
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Hindu-Al-Qaeda-training-suicide-bombers-in-Nepal/Article1-231358.aspx

The Luftwaffe had a suicide unit towards the end of WWII, The PKK in Kurdistan are officially a secular organisation and IIRC have condoned suicide attacks.

Not quite suicide, but the IRA also had no qualms about using people to deliver proxy bombs to targets. IMO there's not a whole lot of difference between brainwashing someone into it, and forcing someone to essentially carry out the same thing.

RandomName2

prinz wrote: »

The Luftwaffe had a suicide unit towards the end of WWII, The PKK in Kurdistan are officially a secular organisation and IIRC have condoned suicide attacks.

Not quite suicide, but the IRA also had no qualms about using people to deliver proxy bombs to targets. IMO there's not a whole lot of difference between brainwashing someone into it, and forcing someone to essentially carry out the same thing.

Wrong about the Luftwaffe (Hitler :eek: put his foot down about kamikaze nonsense). The PKK's modus operandi is to use planted bombs. I don't know what the IIRC are.

The IRA's proxy bombs didn't slip my mind. Nor the fact that the IRA are so incompetent that they thankfully sometimes blow themselves up.

There is a whole world of difference between someone stupid and blind enough to walk into a crowded market in Baghdad to kill as many civilians as possible due to crazy personal religious sentiments, and being forced at gun point to drive at a British check-point.

prinz

RandomName2 wrote: »

Wrong about the Luftwaffe (Hitler :eek: put his foot down about kamikaze nonsense).

I think you'll find I am not. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas_Squadron

However, from 17 April until 20 April 1945 (during the Battle of Berlin) thirty-five pilots of the Leonidas Squadron flew suicide sorties against Soviet bridges over the river Oder with little noticeable effect.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The PKK's modus operandi is to use planted bombs. I don't know what the IIRC are..

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL23394275

IIRC = If I Remember Correctly.

RandomName2 wrote: »

There is a whole world of difference between someone stupid and blind enough to walk into a crowded market in Baghdad to kill as many civilians as possible due to crazy personal religious sentiments, and being forced at gun point to drive at a British check-point.

Come of the suicide bombers in Iraq have been coerced and forced into carrying out attacks using the same methods as the IRA ( threatening family members and whatnot), some have had mental disabilities and didn't have a notion of what they were doing etc.