Female Police officer stabbed to death in France

biko

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Problem here is that you are assuming radicalisation took place before immigration. I never said this.

They were actually radicalised here in Ireland.
ISIS are/were here radicalising 2 students in my city.
Is ISIS still here? We don't know.
Are they planning further activities here? We don't know.



ISIS martyr Mustapha al-Hayani, a graduate of NUIG’s medical programme, was still somehow disenfranchised and poor according to at least one poster.

WrenBoy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What isis really wants- The Atlantic

Yep. Armies want land. Religious groups want followers.



And yet you can't actually debate the point...? Strange that...



I see it's ad homeinem day again

The Catholic Church is a religious group. The Jews are a rleigous group. Sunni and Shi-ite muslims are religious groups.

The IRA were not religious - they were political.
ISIS are not rleigous - they are political.

Religious groups tend not to be democratic: case in point, do catholics vote for the pope? There are catholics in democratic countires, there are catholics in non-democratic countries. They have to obey the laws of the land they are in, that doesn't make them "political" or "democtratic". Trying to force a doctorine on a country would make them political.

If they were religous, they'd be going after infedels and non-believers. Not land.

isis are religious, they're raison d'etre is the spreading of fundamentalist islam to fulfil the desires of allah and muhammad and to destroy those who don't believe as they do.
Not even remotely close to the IRA's goals. Conquering land is a by-product of this. Its the spreading of the religion to the people (by force if necessary) and destroying those that don't accept it/ stand in their way.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

biko wrote: »

They were actually radicalised here in Ireland.
ISIS are/were here radicalising 2 students in my city.
Is ISIS still here? We don't know.
Are they planning further activities here? We don't know.



ISIS martyr Mustapha al-Hayani, a graduate of NUIG’s medical programme, was still somehow disenfranchised and poor according to at least one poster.

And you think having a 10-year volunteer program would have stopped him?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

WrenBoy wrote: »

isis are religious, they're raison d'etre is the spreading of fundamentalist islam to fulfil the desires of allah and muhammad and to destroy those who don't believe as they do.
Not even remotely close to the IRA's goals. Conquering land is a by-product of this. Its the spreading of the religion to the people (by force if necessary) and destroying those that don't accept it/ stand in their way.

Hang on - earlier you quoted soneone saying it was to 'conquer the world'...?

The goals of both organizations was territorial acquisition. That's political. Then forcing their doctrines on the captives.

Can't do it the other way around.

biko

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And you think having a 10-year volunteer program would have stopped him?

Yes, we know that the children of Muslim immigrants tend to be more radical than the parents.
If a volunteer had been in place to help the family assimilate maybe he would not have gone off the rails.

We also need to address NUIGs role in the radicalisation of its students.

Mustapha al-Hayani, a graduate of NUI Galway’s medical programme, and Tariq Mohainuteen, a visiting Malaysian student, are believed to have become radicalised while in Galway.

According to the Sunday Times, both were members of NUI Galway’s Muslim Youth Society and held positions in the group.

Members of the society say they were unaware of their colleagues radical beliefs, with many not finding out about their deaths until years later.

It’s also reported that some students did raise concerns about their whereabouts, but were allegedly met with a ‘wall of silence’ at NUI Galway.

https://galwaybayfm.ie/galway-bay-fm-news-desk/two-nui-galway-medical-students-died-fighting-for-islamic-state/

biko

It's so odd that people keep defending an ideology that has the potential to turn followers into murderers of innocents.

TomTomTim

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hang on - earlier you quoted soneone saying it was to 'conquer the world'...?

The goals of both organizations was territorial acquisition. That's political. Then forcing their doctrines on the captives.

Can't do it the other way around.

I'm confused. Are you arguing that if something is political then it can't be religious? If so, we've reached a new low.

WrenBoy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hang on - earlier you quoted soneone saying it was to 'conquer the world'...?

The goals of both organizations was invasion. Then forcing their doctrines on the captives.

Can't do it the other way around.

isis want only islam everywhere that involves taking land but the goal is not taking land to have land, they're not interested in taking the land to farm it or whatever. They don't want to control trade routes through the taking of ports. Land acquisition is not the goal its the dominance of islam over all. The IRA see themselves as resistance against invasion, they didn't want to invade England and Europe to spread the Holy words of Martin McGuinness and kill those that insulted him.

What is the IRA version of imposing islam and sharia on others worldwide?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TomTomTim wrote: »

I'm confused. Are you arguing that if something is political then it can't be religious? If so, we've reached a new low.

Primary as opposed to secondary.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

biko wrote: »

It's so odd that people keep defending an ideology that has the potential to turn followers into murderers of innocents.

Didn't you just do this in the past above by arguing in favor of improved integration?

Oram are you actually saying people are defending extremist fundamentalism (in which case, where?)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

WrenBoy wrote: »

isis want only islam everywhere that involves taking land but the goal is not taking land to have land, they're not interested in taking the land to farm it or whatever. They don't want to control trade routes through the taking of ports. Land acquisition is not the goal its the dominance of islam over all. The IRA see themselves as resistance against invasion, they didn't want to invade England and Europe to spread the Holy words of Martin McGuinness and kill those that insulted him.

What is the IRA version of imposing islam and sharia on others worldwide?

The IRA aren't intent on farming either, what's your point? Also I'm trying to argue that weren't religious, remember?

By 'land' I don't mean physical land for resources. I mean land as in territorial power and influence.

Are your saying the IRA didnt want influence in the North, or ISIS just want to influence the world without actually taking political power?

WrenBoy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Probably forcing Northern Ireland to accept catholic laws that were active in the republic at the time.

The IRA aren't intent on farming either, what's your point?

By 'land' I don't mean physical land for resources. I mean land as in territorial power and influence.

Are your saying the IRA didnt want influence in the North, or ISIS just want to influence the world without actually taking political power?

The IRA want to remove a foreign power from the island of Ireland = political
isis want to conquer the world in the name of allah and impose islam on all, at the direction of muhammad = religious.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

WrenBoy wrote: »

The IRA want to remove a foreign power from the island of Ireland = political
isis want to conquer the world in the name of allah and impose islam on all, at the direction of muhammad = religious.

We're going setting in circles.

Obtain first. Political. Influence. You said it yourself. Conquer the world.

Easier ways of simply spreading a doctrine.

WrenBoy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

We're going setting in circles.

Obtain first. Political. You said it yourself. Conquer the world....

Youre dug in so Ill leave it there.
I'm aware your talking about the IRA of the troubles era but those same tactics and ideals were of those of the Irish struggle for independence. The attempt to put them in the same bracket as the murderous totalitarians of daesh is below consideration imo.

Timberrrrrrrr

biko wrote: »

Muslims born in Ireland already are probably not a problem.

Charlie Hebdo victims would disagree, I'm sure they thought thier killers were "probably not a problem"

Timberrrrrrrr

WrenBoy wrote: »

The IRA want to remove a foreign power from the island of Ireland = political
isis want to conquer the world in the name of allah and impose islam on all, at the direction of muhammad = religious.

What they want is irrelevant, are you expecting to see hordes of ISIS fighters swarming across Europe? Marching into cities and taking over?

WrenBoy

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What they want is irrelevant, are you expecting to see hordes of ISIS fighters swarming across Europe? Marching into cities and taking over?

In Europe, no. More attacking media outlets, large events, religious and cultural locations/events, desecration/destruction of other religious sites.
Instilling fear in the population, leading to changes in their way of life for fear of attack or "retaliation"

Pushing islamic cultural ways of life through political means, demographic shifts and of course by hijacking calls of inclusion, tolerance and multiculturalism.
Im speaking of daesh and muslim brotherhood and such groups I hope it goes without saying.

biko

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Charlie Hebdo victims would disagree, I'm sure they thought thier killers were "probably not a problem"

Do you have a solution for that so it doesn't happen again?
And don't say "do you?" again. Try to figure something out this time.

Overheal

WrenBoy wrote: »

The IRA wanted the Reunification of Ireland and removal of a foreign power.

That doesn’t sound that far removed from the underlying purpose of the Caliphate though. I think that only proves the point the user was making.

WrenBoy

Overheal wrote: »

That doesn’t sound that far removed from the underlying purpose of the Caliphate though. I think that only proves the point the user was making.

Would you say the French Resistance during World War 2 are the same as isis ?

Is Sitting Bull the same as Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi (leader of isis) ?

Overheal

WrenBoy wrote: »

Would you say the French Resistance during World War 2 are the same as isis ?

Is Sitting Bull the same as Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi (leader of isis) ?

Many of the Muslim countries involved in the proposed caliphate have been occupied/colonized and had tinpot leaders installed by world powers to keep Cold War balance, more recently than that several such countries have been occupied by armed forces and given hamfisted democratic revolutions. Nevermind that business in a couple of these countries with depleted uranium weapons - nothing to see here. This things and more ISIS etc. use to radicalize both refugee and foreign born national alike.

They’ve as much as the above examples I suppose had their national self determination taken from them, which plays heavily into the spread of radicalization by ISIS and similar terror organizations. Decades of western foreign policy plays a crucial role in this crisis. Thusly assuming that you can just ban people from coming into your county based on a religious purity test is dangerously naive. There’s a much greater problem here than a leaky border.

WrenBoy

Overheal wrote: »

Many of the Muslim countries involved in the proposed caliphate have been occupied/colonized and had tinpot leaders installed by world powers to keep Cold War balance, more recently than that several such countries have been occupied by armed forces and given hamfisted democratic revolutions. Nevermind that business in a couple of these countries with depleted uranium weapons - nothing to see here.

They’ve as much as the above examples I suppose had their national self determination taken from them, which plays heavily into the spread of radicalization by ISIS and similar terror organizations. Decades of western foreign policy plays a crucial role in this crisis. Thusly assuming that you can just ban people from coming into your county based on a religious purity test is dangerously naive. There’s a much greater problem here than a leaky border.

The claim Im arguing against is that the IRA and isis are the same. I reject it completely.
isis is a religious extremist group whole goal is to murder their way to a worldwide caliphate, annihilating anything that doeesnt align with their version of the sharia. The IRA were and are arguably are paramilitary group aiming to gain independence from England, thats where it stops for them. daesh are looking to remove independence. from all.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

ISIS is a religious group in the same way the IRA was a religious group.

Not at all, what a weird thing to say. ISIS are clear they are driven by religious beliefs and not by ethnic nationalism. Arab nationalism was pro Christian.

The IRA didn’t fight based on specific readings of the gospel. On transubstantiation vs consubstantiation.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Many of the Muslim countries involved in the proposed caliphate have been occupied/colonized and had tinpot leaders installed by world powers to keep Cold War balance, more recently than that several such countries have been occupied by armed forces and given hamfisted democratic revolutions. Nevermind that business in a couple of these countries with depleted uranium weapons - nothing to see here. This things and more ISIS etc. use to radicalize both refugee and foreign born national alike.

They’ve as much as the above examples I suppose had their national self determination taken from them, which plays heavily into the spread of radicalization by ISIS and similar terror organizations. Decades of western foreign policy plays a crucial role in this crisis. Thusly assuming that you can just ban people from coming into your county based on a religious purity test is dangerously naive. There’s a much greater problem here than a leaky border.

Western is doing a lot of work there. Do you mean American. No doubt the US is responsible for a lot of the problems, taking down secular societies in the ME and replacing them with chaos, in my view deliberately.

France declined engaging the Iraq war, if you recall. You renamed chips because if it.

France was involved in Libya but that was mostly Sarkozy.

BattleCorp

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What they want is irrelevant, are you expecting to see hordes of ISIS fighters swarming across Europe? Marching into cities and taking over?

Eh, that is kind of happening. Plenty of potential muslim fighters swarming Europe at the moment. But they are playing the long game. Give it another generation or so.

Overheal

WrenBoy wrote: »

The claim Im arguing against is that the IRA and isis are the same. I reject it completely.
isis is a religious extremist group whole goal is to murder their way to a worldwide caliphate, annihilating anything that doeesnt align with their version of the sharia. The IRA were and are arguably are paramilitary group aiming to gain independence from England, thats where it stops for them. daesh are looking to remove independence. from all.

Oh I agree they’re completely different organizations in many regards, however they were each cut out of the same cloth in regard to many of the things stated above.

Hard to stop any of this while nation sponsors like Saudi Arabia are capitulated to and countries like Afghanistan can be said to be under foreign occupation. They bottle all that up, put it in recruitment videos and such, eg. Painting cynicism about France’s involvement in waging war against majority Muslim countries while its people only get out on the streets to protest things the government is doing, like *checks notes* the stabbing of a Jewish woman? Hey that might be related. But that’s overtly recent - we have in the great French backlog of things worth protesting over: British fish, farming taxes, etc. meanwhile the people have France have been pushing an agenda to ban hijabs (not be misconstrued with a Niqab or Burka) and the like which I don’t know how you don’t construe that as a religious assault. Such a ban, again, seems like will have entirely missed the point of what the underlying problems are here, and I don’t see how a hijab ban makes France safer etc.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Western is doing a lot of work there. Do you mean American. No doubt the US is responsible for a lot of the problems, taking down secular societies in the ME and replacing them with chaos, in my view deliberately.

France declined engaging the Iraq war, if you recall. You renamed chips because if it.

France was involved in Libya but that was mostly Sarkozy.

British Colonialism, NATO, etc.

The USA gets its very own special death chants yes but the USA has its enablers, from that perspective, with France ranking highly among those despite not being as all in on the US as engaging in armed conflict, they still sat behind and gave support.

WrenBoy

Overheal wrote: »

Oh I agree they’re completely different organizations in many regards, however they were each cut out of the same cloth in regard to many of the things stated above.

Hard to stop any of this while nation sponsors like Saudi Arabia are capitulated to and countries like Afghanistan can be said to be under foreign occupation. They bottle all that up, put it in recruitment videos and such, eg. Painting cynicism about France’s involvement in waging war against majority Muslim countries while its people only get out on the streets to protest things the government is doing, like *checks notes* the stabbing of a Jewish woman? Hey that might be related. But that’s overtly recent - we have in the great French backlog of things worth protesting over: British fish, farming taxes, etc. meanwhile the people have France have been pushing an agenda to ban hijabs (not be misconstrued with a Niqab or Burka) and the like which I don’t know how you don’t construe that as a religious assault. Such a ban, again, seems like will have entirely missed the point of what the underlying problems are here, and I don’t see how a hijab ban makes France safer etc.

Hijab bans are bread and circus, its a hypocritical law to signal that religious dogma is not respected in France. Its inconsequential imo.

Western presence in the the ME is a handy recruiting tool but it is not the root cause of isis, the directions of the prophet and allah laid out in qoran and hadiths
are used to support their actions. isis members themselves say so. The source of islams animosity to non adherents has been present since the founding of islam.
The IRA and isis are nothing alike.

Overheal

WrenBoy wrote: »

Hijab bans are bread and circus, its a hypocritical law to signal that religious dogma is not respected in France. Its inconsequential imo.

Western presence in the the ME is a handy recruiting tool but it is not the root cause of isis, the directions of the prophet and allah laid out in qoran and hadiths
are used to support their actions. isis members themselves say so. The source of islams animosity to non adherents has been present since the founding of islam.
The IRA and isis are nothing alike.

It would be an inconsequential ban to me too but not to Muslims and not to radicalizers or radicals alike.

Rosary beads are dogmatic too but those won’t be targeted by any ban to virtue signal against dogma. Just as well I think if you banned rosary beads that you would get violent uproar about it - sheesh, especially over here in the United States.

The Koran is used heavily as a recruitment tool by ISIS etc. however banning/assaulting a religion or its holy text is not going to solve anything. By making it taboo it only becomes that more attractive to the radical mindset just as I’m sure an effort to ban or impinge on the holy Bible or it’s circulation would be met with violent acts of defiance.

WrenBoy

WrenBoy wrote: »

The claim Im arguing against is that the IRA and isis are the same. I reject it completely.
isis is a religious extremist group whole goal is to murder their way to a worldwide caliphate, annihilating anything that doeesnt align with their version of the sharia. The IRA were and are arguably are paramilitary group aiming to gain independence from England, thats where it stops for them. daesh are looking to remove independence. from all.

Radicalisation of young men into terrorist organisations is similar no matter what the organisation.
It doesn't matter what the ideology behind the terrorists are.
A terrorist is a terrorist. They will commit atrocities.
So while you may say they are different because of different ideologies, the organisation itself is similar.