Female Police officer stabbed to death in France

WrenBoy

bubblypop wrote: »

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.

Of course it does. One fought to throw off subjugation the other fights to subjugate.

Were the forces who fought the Nazi's in World War 2 the same as isis ?

jmreire

bubblypop wrote: »

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.

There are major diferences between an organization that has been actice since the 6th century and operates in multiple Countrys , and one which became operative in 1916 and inactive in 1998. A total of 82 years, and confined to two Countrys..

WrenBoy

Overheal wrote: »

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.

I don't care about hijab or rosary bead bans, if introduced I would ignore them. Similarly, what about bans on blasphemy (very specific kind)? Imposed on us under pain of death. That is not hyperbolic as the French have learned more than once.

This attempt to rationalise daesh's actions by comparing them to the IRA doesn't hold water for me. They are as bad as nazis.

jmreire

jmreire wrote: »

There are major diferences between an organization that has been actice since the 6th century and operates in multiple Countrys , and one which became operative in 1916 and inactive in 1998. A total of 82 years, and confined to two Countrys..

Sorry but the ideology is not gone away, the PIRA may not be active but there are plenty who are.
Irish people seem to think that the IRA are different to all other mindless killing organisations, they are not. Just because they are Irish doesn't make them right.

WrenBoy

WrenBoy wrote: »

Of course it does. One fought to throw off subjugation the other fights to subjugate.

Were the forces who fought the Nazi's in World War 2 the same as isis ?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Are you comparing the IRA to the forces.fighting against Nazis?

WrenBoy

bubblypop wrote: »

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Are you comparing the IRA to the forces.fighting against Nazis?

Im comparing daesh to nazis.

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Charlie Hebdo attackers, born in France

3 of the 4 London bombers were born in the UK, The other was from Jamaica.

And many more are the same so your "solution" starts to fail at the first hurdle.

This most recent attack, going by your rules for asylum above, would have still happened. Also who the fudge is going to volunteer for a ten year unpaid position :rolleyes:

Would their parents have been in Europe if there had been proper checks done at the time?

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would their parents have been in Europe if there had been proper checks done at the time?

Have their parents committed a crime?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Would their parents have been in Europe if there had been proper checks done at the time?

I assume you're of the belief that it's possible to tell what parents a child who would go on to become radicalised would be born to / raised by; so with that in mind - what checks do you think should have been done and how do you know they weren't?

Overheal

jmreire wrote: »

There are major diferences between an organization that has been actice since the 6th century and operates in multiple Countrys , and one which became operative in 1916 and inactive in 1998. A total of 82 years, and confined to two Countrys..

Agreed. And yet also, there are major similarities as well.

Overheal

WrenBoy wrote: »

I don't care about hijab or rosary bead bans, if introduced I would ignore them. Similarly, what about bans on blasphemy (very specific kind)? Imposed on us under pain of death. That is not hyperbolic as the French have learned more than once.

This attempt to rationalise daesh's actions by comparing them to the IRA doesn't hold water for me. They are as bad as nazis.

Trying to understand their rationale is not about defending them, it is about understanding them and making a proper threat analysis.

jmreire

Overheal wrote: »

Agreed. And yet also, there are major similarities as well.

Such as?

Overheal

jmreire wrote: »

Such as?

Such as elements that I have already established my viewpoint on, an hour or two ago on thread already. Rebuttals to this viewpoint are welcome:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117022265&postcount=380
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117022515&postcount=382
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117022778&postcount=387

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jmreire wrote: »

Such as?

Both are dangerous and unrperesentative embarassments to the people they claim to represent.

Wallet Inspector

Danzy wrote: »

Are there still people pretending that the war in the North had something to do with religion.

Religion was an element of a bigger picture, but whether it was or not, "ThE tRoUbLeS" as a response to the very real problems in Islamist extremism being criticised... I just don't understand. I mean, and? How does this negate criticism of other extreme ideologies? Is it not possible to be critical of both? Does perpetrators of provo violence coming from Ireland mean that Irish people are hypocrites for criticising violence by other extremists?

It's a bizarre form of arguing.

jmreire

Overheal wrote: »

Such as elements that I have already established my viewpoint on, an hour or two ago on thread already. Rebuttals to this viewpoint are welcome:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117022265&postcount=380
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117022515&postcount=382
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117022778&postcount=387

They are interesting points ok.
(1) 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..

The whole purpose Caliphate (IMHO) was and still is to spread Islam throughout the world by any means. Over the years since the 6th century, this "project" has ebbed and flowed. Latest attempt on a large scale was isis. It took multiple military forces and 7 years to defeat them. But they're still active. Of course historically , Islamic armys enjoyed the spoil's of war of any conquered country. But this was not like a " standard" war, where Countrys fought over territory and resources...it was primarily religion driven. And where this makes the difference is " standard" wars have a beginning and an end. Islamic jihad will end when the whole world has been converted to Islam. Bears no resemblence to the IRA and Irish War of Independence.

(2) Agreed.100%. And I'm not trying to deflect the blame for western intervention in these Countrys when I say that corrupt local governments played their parts too. In Afghanistan, the Clans / Tribes / Warlords control everything in their areas, especially cash flows...as they have been doing for centurys. While painting the US as Enemies of Islam when it suits them, conveniently forgetting who was picking up the tab.

(3) Agreed. Islamic exploition by misrepresentation of events in France ( and the west generally ) is a major problem. They have learned very well the importance of publicity. Glorifying martyrdom plays very well into their narrative, and in turn, increases the anti-islam sentiment in France....and so the circle continues.

I have to say the idea IRA = ISIS because both have political goals and both engaged in terror is utterly reductive. Nor do I see the point of it.

biko

IRA did kill people yes, and some that should not have been killed died yes.

But they never took and sold slaves, nor did they video their beheadings or have child soldiers (preteens) shoot prisoners.
IRA didn't hang heads from fences.

IRA were not known to throw gays of roofs to their death, or hang them from cranes, or burn prisoners alive on video.

Also, in IRA a woman isn't worth half that of a man.
And I think that if you decided to leave the IRA you weren't killed.





Why are we even discussing this. They are not the same.
This is a thread about a person that stabbed another in the neck and now there some weird relativisation going on.
"Yes, ISIS is bad but so are the IRA.." WTF?

Can't say I believe in a top ten of terrorist organisations myself.
They are all the same, hateful killing scumbags

Overheal

bubblypop wrote: »

Can't say I believe in a top ten of terrorist organisations myself.
They are all the same, hateful killing scumbags

Yeah I don't plan to listicle that.

jmreire

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Both are dangerous and unrperesentative embarassments to the people they claim to represent.

The Chechen who beheaded the french teacher, Samual Pety, returned home to his home town in Chechnya to a heros welcome. His family is now one of the most respected familys there. They are parents of a son who has achieved martrydom by killing a infidel who insulted the prophet. The teachers name is not even mentioned.
The IRA who fought for Irish freedom and independence, are national heros, whose efforts are celebrated every year.

Danzy

ISIS are magnitudes more murderous and nihilistic than the SS.

biko

To bring thread back to Jamel

Marine Le Pen and President Macron clash over jihadist attack

The far-right leader Marine Le Pen has demanded tighter immigration controls after a police employee was murdered by a jihadist who had arrived illegally but was allowed to stay.

Shouting Allahu akbar, Jamel Gorchène, 37, a Tunisian, slashed Stéphanie M to death in the doorway of a police station in Rambouillet, 30 miles from Paris. Officers shot him dead after he refused to drop a nine-inch knife.

Le Pen has rounded on the Macron administration for being soft on terrorists and demanded the expulsion of illegal immigrants.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/marine-le-pen-and-president-macron-clash-over-jihadist-attack-bcbzkgnwl

WrenBoy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Both are dangerous and unrperesentative embarassments to the people they claim to represent.

Without the IRA we wouldn't have Ireland. Feel free to spit on the men and women who died to free this country but you'll get nothing but disdain from me.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I assume you're of the belief that it's possible to tell what parents a child who would go on to become radicalised would be born to / raised by; so with that in mind - what checks do you think should have been done and how do you know they weren't?

Obviously it's impossible to go back in time and fix this. But I think looking to the future, it's entirely predictable that migrants from muslim countries will have kids born in Europe who are more at risk of being radicalised than parents from non-muslim countries.

I know it's unpalatable to say this, but let's live in the real world for a second. So I would be in favour of restricting immigration from those countries through whatever means available, as much as possible without restricting freedoms of legal immigrants.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously it's impossible to go back in time and fix this. But I think looking to the future, it's entirely predictable that migrants from muslim countries will have kids born in Europe who are more at risk of being radicalised than parents from non-muslim countries.

I know it's unpalatable to say this, but let's live in the real world for a second. So I would be in favour of restricting immigration from those countries through whatever means available, as much as possible without restricting freedoms of legal immigrants.

Theirin lies the problem: you are basing your ideas on the applicable use of hindsight, which we both know is impossible.

The ultimate question then is: how do you predict which immigrants will go on to become rdicialised or have radicalised children, and which don't? Is it even possible? And the uncomroftable ethical dilemma: is it morally acceptable to convict someone because they might commit a crime based on a hunch and no evidence? Or who will raise someone to commit a crime?

Let's be practical: you can do all the profiling and background checks you like, it won't prevent the next murder. Not unless you get lucky. And you don't get lucky every time. And that;s before we get to the point of the guys becoming radicalised because you reject or imprison them. So all you're doing is rearrancing the deckchairs on the Titanic.

And should this be extended to ALL crimes? And to everyone? Because not all crimes and murders are terrorist-related and they arent all carried out by radicalised immigrants.

Someone asked: do we just sit round and wait for the next murder? Well, without a time-machine that's pretty much what's going to happen whther we like it or not.

TL-DR - go watch Minorty Report.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Theirin lies the problem: you are basing your ideas on the applicable use of hindsight, which we both know is impossible.

The ultimate question then is: how do you predict which immigrants will go on to become rdicialised or have radicalised children, and which don't? Is it even possible? And the uncomroftable ethical dilemma: is it morally acceptable to convict someone because they might commit a crime based on a hunch and no evidence? Or who will raise someone to commit a crime?

Let's be practical: you can do all the profiling and background checks you like, it won't prevent the next murder. Not unless you get lucky. And you don't get lucky every time. And that;s before we get to the point of the guys becoming radicalised because you reject or imprison them. So all you're doing is rearrancing the deckchairs on the Titanic.

And should this be extended to ALL crimes? And to everyone? Because not all crimes and murders are terrorist-related and they arent all carried out by radicalised immigrants.

Someone asked: do we just sit round and wait for the next murder? Well, without a time-machine that's pretty much what's going to happen whther we like it or not.

TL-DR - go watch Minorty Report.

There is a common theme running through the grooming gangs and the religious terrorists these days. It's like the poison bowl of skittles. If there are 3 skittles in a massive bowl that contain cyanide, and the rest of them are fine, do you want to try to eat one at random?

The ideal solution is - don't allow skittles in the house that might be from the same batch.

But I would welcome ALL skilled immigrants who fulfil an economic need, regardless of race, religion or nationality. Nobody has a problem with genuine asylum seekers or skilled workers.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

But I would welcome ALL skilled immigrants who fulfil an economic need, regardless of race, religion or nationality. Nobody has a problem with genuine asylum seekers or skilled workers.

You're ignoring the point: how do you tell the difference between genuine assylum seekers and radicalised or prone-to-radicalisation individuals?

And how do you know that the children of skilled workers aren't going to be suicide mobmers in twenty years?

Because you've now gone from "that child of a skilled worker murdered someone, did no one think to check the parents?" to "I have no problem with skilled workers" and will promptly go back to "that child of a skilled worker murdered someone....." in a heartbeat.

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is a common theme running through the grooming gangs and the religious terrorists these days. It's like the poison bowl of skittles. If there are 3 skittles in a massive bowl that contain cyanide, and the rest of them are fine, do you want to try to eat one at random?

The ideal solution is - don't allow skittles in the house that might be from the same batch.

But I would welcome ALL skilled immigrants who fulfil an economic need, regardless of race, religion or nationality. Nobody has a problem with genuine asylum seekers or skilled workers.

And if their children get radicalised online and murder someone as has happened already?

jmreire

The solution lies with having all of the violent and deadly kill the unbelievers passages removed from the Quran. But until that happens, suicide bombing and beheadings will continue. Its a well known military fact, that the deadliest attacks are suicide mission's. Simply because they're unpredictable. So Europe can expect more of them. You only have to see what is happening in Kabul at the moment, almost daily IED or suicide bombings, and Kabul is heavily militarised. If explosives were as readily available here in Europe, you could expect the same thing to happen.