Three dead as woman beheaded in knife attack at French church

[kingdong]

11 minutes ago, kingdong said:

The book " the devil's guard"written by an ex ss officer who served in vietnam illustrates that point of view perfectly,if you look back on history a hell of a lot of  military success was attributed to unorthodox units such as the sas,serious scouts,etc,etc.

I wrote selous scouts,another feather in the hat of my spell checker

[pacovl46]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 A lion is an animal. Muslims are people. We accept animals to react in certain ways, we expect better from people.

It’s not about whether it’s an animal, it’s about being dangerous...

[simple1]

Self deleted - Off Topic

Edited November 2, 2020 by simple1

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.  

 

[simple1]

2 hours ago, kingdong said:

And we all live happily ever after,fine in theory,reality appears to be somewhat different.

Have Pakistani Christians and Ahmadiyya Muslims refugees committed  acts of terrorism in their host countries of refuge - NO.

[Opl]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

They are not France's sole responsibility, a number of other countries are providing refuge, including where I now live, Australia. However, IMO, any country which talks of it's humanitarian policies, should step up to contribute to assisting persecuted peoples, so long as they do not pose a threat to national security.

 

And how many M people in the Muslim World can pretend to be persecuted by the rest of the population of their own countries - and vice versa? 

Let's take Pakistan for example, population 220M, do you have any idea?  

[KhunFred]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

Have Pakistani Christians and Ahmadiyya Muslims refugees committed  acts of terrorism in their host countries of refuge - NO.

Excellent point. . There are many Muslims (perhaps MOST of them)  that do not engage in terror tactics. Indiscriminate killing gets no sympathy from me.

[simple1]

2 hours ago, Opl said:

 

And how many M people in the Muslim World can pretend to be persecuted by the rest of the population of their own countries - and vice versa? 

Let's take Pakistan for example, population 220M, do you have any idea?  

 

Don't know, what's France's rejection rate of Pakistani Muslims seeking refugee status? How many Pakistani Christians and Ahmadiyya Muslims have been granted refugee status in France?

[Opl]

 

As Anti-France protests draw tens of thousands across Muslim world

(the most active countries are countries which have no history of colonization with France: Pakistan, Qatar, Bangladesh ..)

 

   

Edited November 2, 2020 by Opl

[Opl]

RIP, you are France

The 3 victims of this atrocious terror attack in Nice chruch

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Opl

[Rimmer]

An inflammatory baiting post and replies have been removed

[kingdong]

9 hours ago, simple1 said:

Have Pakistani Christians and Ahmadiyya Muslims refugees committed  acts of terrorism in their host countries of refuge - NO.

Yet,give them a chance

[Morch]

16 hours ago, Opl said:

Arab Youth Survey: Almost 100 million young Arabs in Mena region want to leave their country

The COVID-19 pandemic has further increased young Arabs’ desire to emigrate, says Survey

For the ninth consecutive year, the UAE continues to prevail as the preferred nation for young Arabs to live in (46 per cent) and for their own nation to emulate (52 per cent). The United States is the next most popular country among Arab youth to live in (33 per cent) and emulate (30 per cent).

"The desire to leave is most prevalent (63 per cent) among youth in Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Yemen and Palestinian Territories."

Maghreb: 47%

https://thestateindia.com/2020/10/06/arab-youth-survey-almost-100-million-young-arabs-in-mena-region-want-to-leave-their-country/

https://asdaa-bcw.com/en/frustrated-with-struggling-economies-and-corruption-nearly-half-of-young-arabs-have-considered-leaving-their-country/

 

And the same article continues to quote the motivations for this as follows...

 

Quote

The primary drivers of potential emigration are economic reasons (24 per cent) and corruption (16 per cent), with educational opportunities, new experiences and safety and security also playing a significant role.

 

Note that with the possible exception of Jordan - Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Palestinian Territories are a political mess as well an economic one. In some cases, coming close to being 'failed', if not already there.

 

That people would like to live somewhere better is not surprising.

 

[Morch]

13 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

There is no particular imperative for France to open it's gates for all and sundry.

 

Never suggested there was / is such an obligation.

 

IMO EU countries refusing to accept an intake of asylum seekers for vetting / refugees should face penalties as they would have had to make commitments under the terms of their EU membership. As I understand all such EU countries are net recipients of EU subsidies. Acknowledge would be challenging to enforce, whilst keeping the EU intact for trade and defence purposes.

 

No, you did not directly suggest this. But as seen in a following post, you assert that France's emphasis on certain issues (like human rights) and/or other core concepts making it what it is, sort of do make it imperative (if not in an explicit manner). Could have misunderstood your point of view.

 

As for the EU countries failing to live up to commitments and expectations - that's pretty much what I meant that this whole policy is, IMO, destined to go down the drain. The level of cohesiveness within the EU is not solid enough as to allow shoving more of these immigration regulations down people's throats. What happens is that weaker countries can't handle it, more right-wing/bigoted populations aren't accepting this, and the bottom line is that the stronger countries who play ball get shafted.

 

 

[kingdong]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And the same article continues to quote the motivations for this as follows...

 

 

Note that with the possible exception of Jordan - Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Palestinian Territories are a political mess as well an economic one. In some cases, coming close to being 'failed', if not already there.

 

That people would like to live somewhere better is not surprising.

 

Then it's up to the Arab youth to change their countries from within,if you look back into English history the people had to stand up to effect change only 100 years ago,they didn,t go trekking thousands of miles across the world expecting some other country to take them in.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

It’s not about whether it’s an animal, it’s about being dangerous...

 

Let's try again - a lion is dangerous. So is a man with machete who wants to chop your head off. We would usually be weary of both, but not treat them the same with regard to accountability, responsibility and reaction.

[pacovl46]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Let's try again - a lion is dangerous. So is a man with machete who wants to chop your head off. We would usually be weary of both, but not treat them the same with regard to accountability, responsibility and reaction.

Ok, let me rephrase it, who plays with fire will eventually get burned. They got burned 3 times already now, how many more times do they need until they learn not to play with fire?! 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Then it's up to the Arab youth to change their countries from within,if you look back into English history the people had to stand up to effect change only 100 years ago,they didn,t go trekking thousands of miles across the world expecting some other country to take them in.

 

Back then, traveling long distances was not much of an option, and people did not have much details as to the possible destination countries. We're in a different age when it comes to information and travel. I think a better comparison would be moving from rural areas to London etc.

 

As for remaining and affecting change in their own countries, I'm all for that - though easily said than done, and easier to prescribe when not having to face the consequences of such decisions.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Ok, let me rephrase it, who plays with fire will eventually get burned. They got burned 3 times already now, how many more times do they need until they learn not to play with fire?! 

 

No, that wouldn't do as well. Treating Muslims/Islamist/Islamic/Whatever response as 'fire' amounts to  it's acceptance as legitimate, unchanging and something that we just need to live with. It basically absolves the perpetrators of such violence from any accountability. In a way, even worse than the lion bit.

[kingdong]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Back then, traveling long distances was not much of an option, and people did not have much details as to the possible destination countries. We're in a different age when it comes to information and travel. I think a better comparison would be moving from rural areas to London etc.

 

As for remaining and affecting change in their own countries, I'm all for that - though easily said than done, and easier to prescribe when not having to face the consequences of such decisions.

Can see your points,however in present circumstances the West is simply unable to afford to take on large numbers of migrants who there is no work for,there is going to be a s..t storm depression hitting the world very shortly,

[simple1]

10 hours ago, kingdong said:

Then it's up to the Arab youth to change their countries from within,if you look back into English history the people had to stand up to effect change only 100 years ago,they didn,t go trekking thousands of miles across the world expecting some other country to take them in.

 

The fact is Arab youth have tried (Arab Spring) to change the dictatorships, but were violently crushed. Western nations did nothing to assist the uprisings, only empty words of encouragement, against heavily armed militaries, supplied by the West, The only success was the Tunisian Arab Spring.

 

Those that did go 'trekking'. more often than not were occupying / exploitative of the local population for the benefit of their home country. Decolonisation didn't get underway until after WW11, sometimes only after vicious independence wars. 

Edited November 2, 2020 by simple1

[simple1]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, you did not directly suggest this. But as seen in a following post, you assert that France's emphasis on certain issues (like human rights) and/or other core concepts making it what it is, sort of do make it imperative (if not in an explicit manner). Could have misunderstood your point of view.

 

As for the EU countries failing to live up to commitments and expectations - that's pretty much what I meant that this whole policy is, IMO, destined to go down the drain. The level of cohesiveness within the EU is not solid enough as to allow shoving more of these immigration regulations down people's throats. What happens is that weaker countries can't handle it, more right-wing/bigoted populations aren't accepting this, and the bottom line is that the stronger countries who play ball get shafted.

 

 

 

Given the those countries with a right of centre government are basically repressive / police states, personally I would not call them out as 'week' from a law and order perspective. To me knowledge EU member countries cannot have immigration polices 'shoved down their throats', they can easily just say no without too much consequence other than exchanging 'words'.

[kingdong]

37 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

The fact is Arab youth have tried (Arab Spring) to change the dictatorships, but were violently crushed. Western nations did nothing to assist the uprisings, only empty words of encouragement, against heavily armed militaries, supplied by the West, The only success was the Tunisian Arab Spring.

 

Those that did go 'trekking'. more often than not were occupying / exploitative of the local population for the benefit of their home country. Decolonisation didn't get underway until after WW11, sometimes only after vicious independence wars. 

They wanted their independence and got it,no good whingeing when it dosen,t go the way you want it,you kak your bed you lie in it.

[simple1]

33 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Given the those countries with a right of centre government are basically repressive / police states, personally I would not call them out as 'week' from a law and order perspective. To me knowledge EU member countries cannot have immigration polices 'shoved down their throats', they can easily just say no without too much consequence other than exchanging 'words'.

 

@Morch; please excuse my spelling error

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, kingdong said:

They wanted their independence and got it,no good whingeing when it dosen,t go the way you want it,you kak your bed you lie in it.

No whinging, just pointing historical fact in reponse to ignorant commentary

Edited November 3, 2020 by simple1

[pacovl46]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, that wouldn't do as well. Treating Muslims/Islamist/Islamic/Whatever response as 'fire' amounts to  it's acceptance as legitimate, unchanging and something that we just need to live with. It basically absolves the perpetrators of such violence from any accountability. In a way, even worse than the lion bit.

I call vehemently BS on that one! I never said it’s justified or legitimate to kill people in response to a cartoon making fun of their religion! It also has absolutely nothing to do with absolving or not holding them responsible! Their crimes are despicable! There’s no two ways about it! 
 

What you either aren’t capable of grasping or not willing to understand is that there’s psychopaths out there who will kill if you make fun of their prophet! The question at hand is, and I know I’m repeating myself, is it worth it to publish a fricking cartoon that’s aimed to <deleted> off people and willingly take the risk of getting your own people killed for the sake of “free speech?” If you’re answer to this question is yes, then don’t bother replying anymore because it’s a waste of time! 
 

P.S. Intentionally enraging them, which is exactly what Charlie Hebdo does, is like playing with fire, whether you can get that through your head doesn’t change the fact, as a matter of fact, it’s actually worse because by now they know perfectly well that people will die every time they publish that utterly and completely unnecessary piece of <deleted>! In my opinion the guy who gave the okay for this cartoon to be released is directly responsible for their deaths because if he hadn’t released it, they wouldn’t have died! 

Edited November 3, 2020 by pacovl46

[Opl]

Is Freedom of Speech  under attack in France?

Yes.

Is there a danger of a State within a State?

Yes.

Why? 

Edited November 3, 2020 by Opl

[kingdong]

50 minutes ago, simple1 said:

No whinging, just pointing historical fact in reponse to ignorant commentary

Sorry if my realistic,albeit simple post offended you.

[simple1]

3 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

is it worth it to publish a fricking cartoon that’s aimed to <deleted> off people and willingly take the risk of getting your own people killed for the sake of “free speech?”

My two cents...

 

It's a question, which is usually responded to with the equivalent "give an inch and they'll take a mile". In the case of those with an Islamist outlook, no doubt correct with ever increasing demands contrary to the legal and cultural aspects of Western society e.g. Sharia criminal law. IMO it is not a matter one can ask in isolation of all other issues and will take decades to negotiate and transition to in a mutually agreeable cultural co-existence. In the meantime killings of innocents will continue, likely on both sides, which will take immense effort by Western governments to minimise further decisiveness within society -

 

[bert bloggs]

18 minutes ago, simple1 said:

My two cents...

 

It's a question, which is usually responded to with the equivalent "give an inch and they'll take a mile". In the case of those with an Islamist outlook, no doubt correct with ever increasing demands contrary to the legal and cultural aspects of Western society e.g. Sharia criminal law. IMO it is not a matter one can ask in isolation of all other issues and will take decades to negotiate and transition to in a mutually agreeable cultural co-existence. In the meantime killings of innocents will continue, likely on both sides, which will take immense effort by Western governments to minimise further decisiveness within society -

 

Nothing is going to change the Muslim mindset ,you can see what a few silly words about their prophet has set off around the world and their reaction to them,i remember the days in my old home town where there were no mosques ,no imams ,and most of them dressed like us and in many ways were fairly integrated ,times long gone ,now muslims on the whole cannot integrate ,nothing can be done ,eventually we will either have a war with them or just let them take over ,thankfully i will never see the outcome .