Hostage/Siege in French Supermarket - Islamic State angle

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

How about an instant solution of closing up the borders. Do what the Australians do and process people offshore and relocate them in non war torn countries in Africa or the Middle East. Send the rest back to Tunisia/Turkey/wherever/any of the crossing points.

Wasn't this fella a French citizen?

baylah17

My sympathies to all the victims and my unending admiration to the Colonel who died so heroically
There are no excuses or justifications for happened

baylah17

My sympathies to all the victims and my unending admiration to the Colonel who died so heroically
There are no excuses or justifications for happened

OneEightSeven

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Wasn't this fella a French citizen?

No, this one was born in Morocco and became a citizen, but the terrorists in other attacks who were born in France were sons of immigrants. Banning immigration from Muslim countries is the only way to prevent these attacks in future. Just because these terrorists of Middle Eastern and North African decent are born in Europe, it doesn't make it homegrown problem. Their culture/religion isn't indigenous to Europe and it doesn't belong here either.

Phoebas

How does banning immigration solve the problem if many of the perpetrators are already in Europe and in many cases are the children of immigrants that arrived decades ago?

That seems like a simplistic knee jerk reaction.

Wibbs

Phoebas wrote: »

How does banning immigration solve the problem if many of the perpetrators are already in Europe and in many cases are the children of immigrants that arrived decades ago?

For countries like France and others in the EU it would be a bit of a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted alright. However in Ireland we could learn from their mistakes and the mistake of that kind of multiculturalism and nip it in the bud now. Though we won't.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Wasn't this fella a French citizen?

Phoebas wrote: »

How does banning immigration solve the problem if many of the perpetrators are already in Europe and in many cases are the children of immigrants that arrived decades ago?

That seems like a simplistic knee jerk reaction.

future damage limitation, nothing else

multiculturalism is great when you get a chinatown or little italy out of it but not when you get terrorism, ghettos, sharia law patrols (like in england before, just youtube it) and like the link posted to France where women cant go to a coffee shop

Absolutely no need to turn Europe into the third world, nobody wins that way. Sensible migration and dare I saw it, sustainable to the point of population and environmental maintenance.

dermo888

Its a bit extreme. Lets face it, our own white thrash in the form of the likes of the Collopy's, the Dundon's, the Hutches and the skangers cause far more trouble than Muslims. Though I find it almost impossible to rationalise how - what is generally a peaceful law abiding community has members that end up having their brains mashed up.

Phoebas

Wibbs wrote: »

For countries like France and others in the EU it would be a bit of a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted alright. However in Ireland we could learn from their mistakes and the mistake of that kind of multiculturalism and nip it in the bud now. Though we won't.

It seems like the issue isn't so much about immigration itself and more about how multiculturalism has worked/failed.

Stopping immigration isn't a realistic solution to the problem (that's not to say there aren't other good arguements for restricting immigration).
Dealing with integration / multiculturalism / extremism etc is a lot more complex and messy.

dermo888

dermo888 wrote: »

Its a bit extreme. Lets face it, our own white thrash in the form of the likes of the Collopy's, the Dundon's, the Hutches and the skangers cause far more trouble than Muslims. Though I find it almost impossible to rationalise how - what is generally a peaceful law abiding community has members that end up having their brains mashed up.

It would be foolish to allow migration policy to create any sort of sizeable muslim minority to form in any country in Europe. Lebanon is a warning.

dermo888

Well, lets face it, France poked its nose into North Africa and colonised it. Britain also colonised Muslim countries, such as Pakistan. So hey - its a bit rich of them to complain about Immigrants considering their history.

Phoebas

[Deleted User] wrote: »

. Sensible migration and dare I saw it, sustainable to the point of population and environmental maintenance.

Sure. But it isn't primarily about the numbers.
In France they don't seem to have done the integration bit very well.

Other countries (like the US) seem to make a better job of it.

SSr0

dermo888 wrote: »

Well, lets face it, France poked its nose into North Africa and colonised it. Britain also colonised Muslim countries, such as Pakistan. So hey - its a bit rich of them to complain about Immigrants considering their history.

Yeah they have some neck alright, complaining about radical muslims killing their fellow countrymen/women.

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

It seems like the issue isn't so much about immigration itself and more about how multiculturalism has worked/failed.

Depends on the controls being used to determine immigration policies. If only the educated/skilled, and those with adequate funds were allowed in, it would likely cut down those causing trouble. The vast majority of the reports I've seen of immigrants causing trouble refer to young single males, or those without families living in the area.

Stopping immigration isn't a realistic solution to the problem (that's not to say there aren't other good arguements for restricting immigration).

Stopping immigration is impossible. Anyone suggesting it doesn't understand the perception of Western Europe, Democracy etc. However, stricter restrictions put in place to vet/process applicants makes sense. I've never understood why we should be encouraging those with little education, no skills, or those without our languages to enter. Surely we have enough of those already, without importing more.

Dealing with integration / multiculturalism / extremism etc is a lot more complex and messy.

I genuinely believe it's only complex and messy because 'saying' its so prevents anything from being done. It's complex so it's dismissed as something to be done later. Nobody wants to make the hard decisions, and be considered responsible for those decisions. We've become so afraid of making <insert group of> people unhappy, that nothing is ever really done until it's too late.

FTA69

France has had a solid Muslim population for over a century and at one stage considered Algeria and other parts of the Maghreb as actual parts of France. This radical jihadi lunacy is a recent thing and has come about as part of a systematic hardening of Islamic orthodoxy across the Muslim world. This sort of thing was barely in existence not so long ago.

Our problem per se isn't "Muslim immigration", we've had that in European countries for decades (and longer) now - it's the radicalisation of a section of young Muslim men. In England you have the bizarre situation of Pakistani fellas who moved here in the early 1970s happy out now dealing with their sons or grandsons who have been radicalised in places like Bradford. It's a deeply complex thing but 'shut the doors' won't make a blind of difference when most of the ones doing the killing are the people born and raised here.

We need to analyse why this version of radical, confrontational religion has gained traction.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

France has had a solid Muslim population for over a century and at one stage considered Algeria and other parts of the Maghreb as actual parts of France. This radical jihadi lunacy is a recent thing and has come about as part of a systematic hardening of Islamic orthodoxy across the Muslim world. This sort of thing was barely in existence not so long ago.

Our problem per se isn't "Muslim immigration", we've had that in European countries for decades (and longer) now - it's the radicalisation of a section of young Muslim men. In England you have the bizarre situation of Pakistani fellas who moved here in the early 1970s happy out now dealing with their sons or grandsons who have been radicalised in places like Bradford. It's a deeply complex thing but 'shut the doors' won't make a blind of difference when most of the ones doing the killing are the people born and raised here.

We need to analyse why this version of radical, confrontational religion has gained traction.

You're missing the numbers involved though. When Muslims (or any cultural/religious group) are a clear minority in an area, there is little to no trouble from them. They put their heads down and avoid bringing negative attention.

However, Europe is seeing unprecedented numbers entering its borders with most of them heading to similar areas. They're no longer a clear minority since the populations in those "enclaves"/areas are significant compared to the (original) local population. Hence their ability to directly influence the culture of those areas often in ways which are alien to the host culture.

dermo888

The radical Jihadi thing was triggered by the 1973 and 1979 oil crises, which ensured a tidal wave of money went to countries such as Saudi Scumraapia who - due to inbreeding are genetically and psychologically defective. I mean they've been marrying and screwing their cousins for hundreds of years. 
The French possess a strategic Nuclear Deterrent. Launch one missile at Riyadh and another at Mecca for a bonus. Let it be used for the peacekeeping purpose for which it was built. No more Mecca, no more Riyadh, no more problem.

dermo888

The radical Jihadi thing was triggered by the 1973 and 1979 oil crises, which ensured a tidal wave of money went to countries such as Saudi Scumraapia who - due to inbreeding are genetically and psychologically defective. I mean they've been marrying and screwing their cousins for hundreds of years. 
The French possess a strategic Nuclear Deterrent. Launch one missile at Riyadh and another at Mecca for a bonus. Let it be used for the peacekeeping purpose for which it was built. No more Mecca, no more Riyadh, no more problem.

weldoninhio

dermo888 wrote: »

Its a bit extreme. Lets face it, our own white thrash in the form of the likes of the Collopy's, the Dundon's, the Hutches and the skangers cause far more trouble than Muslims. Though I find it almost impossible to rationalise how - what is generally a peaceful law abiding community has members that end up having their brains mashed up.

Same nonsense argument as normal. We have trouble makers born here, so let’s keep importing foreign scum. Ridiculous.

Phoebas

Yeah. I was a little bit concerned about knee jerk reactions earlier, but now it's obvious.

Nuking Saudi Arabia is the obvious solution. :-?

dermo888

Phoebas. 'Obvious' no. 'Final' most definitely.

Phoebas

dermo888 wrote: »

Phoebas. 'Obvious' no. 'Final' most definitely.

I'm not really that keen on 'final solutions' , especially ones that end up killing millions of innocent civilians.

dermo888

When it comes to Saudi Arabia, lets just call it 'collateral damage'.
After all, when you treat Cancer with Chemotherapy, a few healthy tissue cells will get damaged. 
The Saudis are not innocent civilians. They've created this monster and must be made to pay for the damage they've done over the past 45 years.

Captain Red Beard

dermo888 wrote: »

When it comes to Saudi Arabia, lets just call it 'collateral damage'.
After all, when you treat Cancer with Chemotherapy, a few healthy tissue cells will get damaged. 
The Saudis are not innocent civilians. They've created this monster and must be made to pay for the damage they've done over the past 45 years.

You can't be that ****ing stupid.

dermo888

I most certainly AM that stupid.

Lackey

dermo888 wrote: »

Well, lets face it, France poked its nose into North Africa and colonised it. Britain also colonised Muslim countries, such as Pakistan. So hey - its a bit rich of them to complain about Immigrants considering their history.

Please explain exactly when Jean Mazieres a 61 year old wine maker, Christian Medves a 51 year old butcher, Herves Sonsa a 65 year old who loved walking, or Belrame the hero policeman colonised North Africa.

Or when any of the previous victims of these terrorist attacks in England such as the teenagers at the Ariana Grande concert, a Catholic Priest, those sitting outside a café, or at an Eagles of Death Metal concert poked their noses into Muslim counties?

dermo888

Absolutely nothing - they are the innocents caught up as usual in the crossfire of events. I cannot rationalise radical Islam, or the minds of those twisted to engage in acts of terror. 
But that can also be said of those who suffered when both Britain and France historically entered independent nations and took their resources, while leaving the population impoverished and uneducated.

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not really that keen on 'final solutions' , especially ones that end up killing millions of innocent civilians.

And which would just generate more refugees that are outside the regulations that normal immigrants are screened for, and would be allowed in for humanitarian reasons. Doesn't matter that such 'final' solutions just generate more justifications for their hatred of our culture or way of life. (although these final solutions aren't ever really final)

dermo888

dermo888 wrote: »

But that can also be said of those who suffered when both Britain and France historically entered independent nations and took their resources, while leaving the population impoverished and uneducated.

Rather selective perspective on their histories... like the ruling families who sold them out to the foreigners, or the enforced slavery by their own peoples, or the massive inequalities due to station... or the injustices in the name of religion while those enforcing the rules enjoyed a lifestyle immune to those same rules.

There is amazing willingness to ignore the horrible cultural environments of countries before and during colonialism in the attempt to highlight the injustices of the "west".

Leaving them impoverished and uneducated by western civilisations standards... which they would have been anyway before the British/French arrived. :rolleyes:

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I have yet to read a post on here where somebody has been apologetic or sympathetic towards the terrorist in this case, yet people are quoting posts and using this incredibly weak angle.

Deleted User wrote: »

...because Merkel opened Europe to millions of unchecked people from parts of the world where the Wests way of life is despised.

She didn't open up Europe as she doesn't control all the borders. It's really easy to find a scapegoat here, but Merkel shouldn't take the blame for the problems that France is facing.

Ulysses Gaze

dermo888 wrote: »

When it comes to Saudi Arabia, lets just call it 'collateral damage'.
After all, when you treat Cancer with Chemotherapy, a few healthy tissue cells will get damaged. 
The Saudis are not innocent civilians. They've created this monster and must be made to pay for the damage they've done over the past 45 years.

You do realise that quite apart from killing 3 or so million innocent civilians, and enraging the entire Islamic world against the West, by nuking the Kaaba you actually play right into Isis hands?

Isis believe that worshipping at the Holy Stone is Idolatry and wish to destroy the Black Cube. Now here you come along and drop a nuke on Mecca and do that for them.

They will then spin it as THE ultimate propaganda tool. That this is the Wrath of God because he is angry at the majorities idolatry. The only way for clemency would be for all Muslims to unite under the Islamic State flag and commit Jihad against the West.

So a mass uprising of all Muslims in the West.

Yes, you are the ****ing stupid alright....

Lackey

dermo888 wrote: »

Absolutely nothing - they are the innocents caught up as usual in the crossfire of events. I cannot rationalise radical Islam, or the minds of those twisted to engage in acts of terror. 
But that can also be said of those who suffered when both Britain and France historically entered independent nations and took their resources, while leaving the population impoverished and uneducated.

When you put a BUT after anything it really means is: everything I said before the But is peace making bull$hit what I really think is.....

There is NO correlation between the victims and the actions of their ancestors except their nationality.
If we do not blame all Muslims for these attacks then we cannot blame all regular everyday French and English for the HISTORIC (your words) actions of their ancestors.

You cant have one set of standers for one group of people and another set for others......that would be racist

dermo888

Yes, but no matter what we do in the civilised world, they'll always be miserable and unhappy. We could give up our Beer, our Pork, close every Bookies and Pub in our land, and it would never be enough for them. 
Because they believe in total victory at all costs.
Because they believe in creating hell on earth in order to reach heaven when they die. In essence that makes it a mental death cult.
They want us, and our kind eliminated. There is no rationalising with Wahabbi's. Its convert or be killed.]
Syria was peaceful and secular before the Wahabbi's started messing around. Iraq was secular. The Saudis have spread a poison around, and a warning given. 
Any more terrorist attacks on European soil will be met with the gravest of consequences. A 48 hour warning will be given before the Missiles are launched, thereby giving civilians the opportunity to evacuate. Faced with the choice of losing wealth and control, they'll have to surrender. 
Its like training a Pet Dog when its a puppy how to poop and pee in the right place. No different.

Chris_Heilong

dermo888 wrote: »

Well, lets face it, France poked its nose into North Africa and colonised it. Britain also colonised Muslim countries, such as Pakistan. So hey - its a bit rich of them to complain about Immigrants considering their history.

That is a misconception, ISIS produce material which clearly states the reasons why they hate the west, and the NO.1 reason is:
1. Because we do not believe in Islamic monotheism.

Mentioning anything to do with moving in on Muslim lands only ranks as No.6

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nabeel-qureshi/isis-is-killing-us-because-we-are-not-muslim_b_11793770.html

quintana76

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

You do realise that quite apart from killing 3 or so million innocent civilians, and enraging the entire Islamic world against the West, by nuking the Kaaba you actually play right into Isis hands?

Isis believe that worshipping at the Holy Stone is Idolatry and wish to destroy the Black Cube. Now here you come along and drop a nuke on Mecca and do that for them.

They will then spin it as THE ultimate propaganda tool. That this is the Wrath of God because he is angry at the majorities idolatry. The only way for clemency would be for all Muslims to unite under the Islamic State flag and commit Jihad against the West.

So a mass uprising of all Muslims in the West.

Yes, you are the ****ing stupid alright....

If Mecca ended up being nuked as suggested above, what effect would it have on Islam in general. Would the fact that there would be no central place of worship (radioactivity would be a factor) demoralise at least some believers. It can't be a great advertisement for the power of Allah if he allows his holiest site to be nuked. Surely something would be remiss on his part in that situation.

Ulysses Gaze

quintana76 wrote: »

If Mecca ended up being nuked as suggested above, what effect would it have on Islam in general. Would the fact that there would be no central place of worship (radioactivity would be a factor) demoralise at least some believers. It can't be a great advertisement for the power of Allah if he allows his holiest site to be nuked. Surely something would be remiss on his part in that situation.

The second Holiest Site of Islam, Medina, would just replace Mecca.
That is where the prophet is buried.

Nuking Mecca would be seen as divine will by Allah because he was angry with his followers. Nuking the Kaaba would be seen as punishment/warning for idolatry for worshipping the black cube.

quintana76

It would cause problems for the haj though.

Phoebas

quintana76 wrote: »

It would cause problems for the haj though.

Yes. Bus services would be severely disrupted too.

Ulysses Gaze

quintana76 wrote: »

It would cause problems for the haj though.

Yes, but the Salafists believe that the Hajj and all the rituals attached to it, are un-Islamic. So nuking Mecca and stopping the Hajj would again be seen as a sign of divine will from Allah. The purification of Islam essentially.

So instead of the West dealing with a few hundred or thousand jihadis running around, we would be looking at a few hundred thousand rising up and running wild in Europe.

It would be strategic folly to even consider nuking Mecca.

And the fact that you'd be killing 3 million people just to prove a point and to teach the House of Saud a lesson is lunacy.

Odhinn

quintana76 wrote: »

If Mecca ended up being nuked as suggested above, what effect would it have on Islam in general. Would the fact that there would be no central place of worship (radioactivity would be a factor) demoralise at least some believers. It can't be a great advertisement for the power of Allah if he allows his holiest site to be nuked. Surely something would be remiss on his part in that situation.

Shia islams main holy celebration is of a battle where their precedents were massacred in a one sided slaughter, outnumbered by thousands. So no.

Odhinn

dermo888 wrote: »

When it comes to Saudi Arabia, lets just call it 'collateral damage'.
After all, when you treat Cancer with Chemotherapy, a few healthy tissue cells will get damaged. 
The Saudis are not innocent civilians. They've created this monster and must be made to pay for the damage they've done over the past 45 years.

As it's a monarchy, yes, a great deal of them are just that.

pjohnson

quintana76 wrote: »

If Mecca ended up being nuked as suggested above, what effect would it have on Islam in general. Would the fact that there would be no central place of worship (radioactivity would be a factor) demoralise at least some believers. It can't be a great advertisement for the power of Allah if he allows his holiest site to be nuked. Surely something would be remiss on his part in that situation.

You do provide great amusement.

Captain Obvious

OneEightSeven wrote: »

No, this one was born in Morocco and became a citizen,

Did you mean to say yes?

Fann Linn

Rock da Casbah.

Captain Obvious

Wibbs wrote: »

For countries like France and others in the EU it would be a bit of a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted alright. However in Ireland we could learn from their mistakes and the mistake of that kind of multiculturalism and nip it in the bud now. Though we won't.

How would you nip it in the bud?

jmayo

Omackeral wrote: »

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The policeman who swapped himself hostage to save a woman's life yesterday has died.

A proper hero.

Arnaud Beltrame...

Dunno if it’s really appropriate to say this but look who did and didn’t thank this post. It speaks volumes really.

It is very noticable who didn't thank that post.

Maybe if the policeman was of an immigrant background of a certain religious background we would see more posters admiring his ultimate sacrifice. :rolleyes:

FTA69

Deleted User wrote: »

Rather selective perspective on their histories... like the ruling families who sold them out to the foreigners, or the enforced slavery by their own peoples, or the massive inequalities due to station... or the injustices in the name of religion while those enforcing the rules enjoyed a lifestyle immune to those same rules.

There is amazing willingness to ignore the horrible cultural environments of countries before and during colonialism in the attempt to highlight the injustices of the "west".

Leaving them impoverished and uneducated by western civilisations standards... which they would have been anyway before the British/French arrived. :rolleyes:

This is a load of simplistic rubbish to be honest, and if you're an Irish person I'd love to know why you're making apologies for colonialism considering we were absolutely ridden by it.

This idea that countries in today's Global South were somehow enhanced or civilised by colonialism is a pernicious lie and the vestige of a load of self-serving propaganda that was put out there to justify a system of wholesale looting. Places like India and China were categorically poorer after years of colonialism with people left with an even worse quality of life. Industry was deliberately destroyed, sophisticated systems of government were annihilated and natural wealth was extracted and shipped off to Europe. India especially was raped basically, going from one of the biggest economies in the world with varied industry to an impoverished backwater utterly dependent on serving the Empire that colonised it.

No country got wealthier due to huge amounts of wealth being extracted at gunpoint, that's just a fundamentally ridiculous assertion to make.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

This is a load of simplistic rubbish to be honest, and if you're an Irish person I'd love to know why you're making apologies for colonialism considering we were absolutely ridden by it.

First off, where did I seek to excuse British or any other western imperialism/colonialism?

All I did was point out that many countries weren't that wonderful before the Western powers arrived.

As for being Irish... We're obviously different kinds of Irish people. I grew out of my conditioned gut-reaction of hating the British a long time ago. But then we were originally talking about colonialism in general rather than simply Ireland.

This idea that countries in today's Global South were somehow enhanced or civilised by colonialism is a pernicious lie and the vestige of a load of self-serving propaganda that was put out there to justify a system of wholesale looting.

Agreed. No problems with that. Western empires were greedy bastards. But so too were the empires in those regions before the Europeans arrived.

Places like India and China were categorically poorer after years of colonialism with people left with an even worse quality of life.

Worse quality of life? After colonialism? Hardly. Perhaps for the ruling classes, but the poor were still poor and still treated badly by those above them.

Want to provide some evidence that their lives were so much worse after colonialism, and that they wouldn't have been just as bad regardless of whether the Europeans had been there or not?

Industry was deliberately destroyed, sophisticated systems of government were annihilated and natural wealth was extracted and shipped off to Europe. India especially was raped basically, going from one of the biggest economies in the world with varied industry to an impoverished backwater utterly dependent on serving the Empire that colonised it.

Yup. Little argument there except that they were already in decline before the British arrived... with the fall of the Mughal Empire, and the rise of the Princes who struggled against each other, with the common person feeling the brunt of it. India wasn't the peaceful paradise you seem to want to make it, especially when you consider the caste system tied with religious persecution.

Worth taking a look at this wiki link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India (hint: Have a look at the area before the British came)

And China? Also was in severe decline when the Europeans arrived, with corruption, inbreeding and bureaucracy ruining the lives of most living under their rule. Chinese people without money/influence were dirt, and treated that way. Although I'm not sure why you would bring up China since they weren't victims of colonialism, and brought about their own destruction all by themselves.

No country got wealthier due to huge amounts of wealth being extracted at gunpoint, that's just a fundamentally ridiculous assertion to make.

And you're the one making that assertion and rejecting it. I didn't state anywhere in my post that they did.

weldoninhio

150 posts and nobody has been in to tell us about the dangers of peanuts. Is this progress??

baylah17

jmayo wrote: »

Omackeral wrote: »

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The policeman who swapped himself hostage to save a woman's life yesterday has died.

A proper hero.

Arnaud Beltrame...

Dunno if it’s really appropriate to say this but look who did and didn’t thank this post. It speaks volumes really.

It is very noticable who didn't thank that post.

Maybe if the policeman was of an immigrant background of a certain religious background we would see more posters admiring his ultimate sacrifice. :rolleyes:

Trying to derail the thread much??
Second time you've tried to incite a response.
Maybe it's just the case that nobody wishes to demean this man's ultimate sacrifce and nobody can see any excuse or justification for the callous murders that were committed.