Although I have no issue with attacking these jihadi death-cult nutbars, bombing and killing isn't going to stop this. The only thing that will is the reformation of Islam. It needs to resolve whether barbaric, medieval views or modern, pluralist tolerance will prevail. The christian reformation took hundreds of years and cost millions of lives so I expect this will be a vile and bloody struggle that will last for generations too.
While I agree with you about religious reformation on principle, I suspect that in practice this has in fact happened for a lot of Muslims. I teach a rich Muslim kid from a Saudi family and he's into Katy Perry, Shakira, Taylor Swift etc, while the dad/patriarch is a tattooed guy in a Kings Of Leon hoodie. Not that they are representative - money and education distorts - but they are probably expected by familial association to be highly traditional in their lifestyles; they simply aren't. The same goes for other Muslim clients I've had and the universally pleasant Muslim cricket teammates I have.
The important thing is to ensure that reformation of a sort permeates to the global Muslim working classes - not even reformation so much as education, interfaith dialogue, a softening of views. I'm aware that in some countries (not so much the UK) this may prove a steep challenge.
Another dimension to this is that the funding and support of terrorism is usually provided not by the working classes themselves but educated men in search of greater power and influence - men for whom religious reform would do little, as their ultimate goal is tangential to their devout faith. These men must be dealt with as gangsters and criminals.
I would class this as non-observance rather than reformation. They are muslim in the same way that I am nominally christian and its easy to do when you live in the west and have money in your pocket.
If he has had any involvement in the Paris attacks they should put him in a room and tie him to a chair... Then the families of those who have been affected can queue to "visit" him
I just cant believe that deep down the terrorists are doing this in the name of religion.
..........
Shiites aren't going to be supporting ISIS in just the same way there weren't any protestant IRA members.
Really can't understand why people keep comparing IRA terrorism with ISIS/Islamic extremist terrorism. IRA terrorists were as likely to be atheist as being able to quote more than one sentence from the bible. You can compare IRA terrorists to Palestinian terrorists but not to religious terrorists.
This is one bit of good news, from a horrible weekend. If this "suspect" had anything to do with Friday's atrocities, I hope the French police get every bit of information they can out of him. And if he has any information about future plans, I hope they're able to extract names which lead to further arrest.
Then, I hope he's put away for a very, very long time.
Bombing Raqqa must feel good and like I said earlier, who can blame the French for doing so.
Re. the Islamists living in France, they need to deport about 100,000 after shooting 400-500 of them to set an example, then take it from there IMO
If, and it's a big IF, they take my advice I reckon other European countries will follow suit and it will result in the eradication of this menace from Our society for ever. Here's hoping eh
Disgusting tbh.
He referred to Islamists, not law abiding muslims, there is a big difference. Islamists (radicalised extremists) are our enemy. Kill them before they kill us. I'd be surprised if there were 100,000 of them living in France, but it is highly likely that there would be 400 -500 of them.
Disgusting tbh
Kill the enemy, disgusting concept eh Chizz!
Calling for the extra-judicial round-up and murder of a group people, based on their religion and/or beliefs is disgusting, yes. It's happened before in Europe. It didn't end well then, either.
Classic Chizz wind-up tactics.
This guys worse than Colin.
What part of chizz's post in anyway WUM like?
He deliberately ignored the Islamist (Radicalised Extremist) ie THE ENEMY, part, and turned it back to being an attack on the religion and law abiding Muslims. He ignored the true meaning and the substance of the post which is about killing the enemy before they can kill us. That is, Radicalised Extremists, who have been clearly identified by extensive intelligence and strong links to other terrorists and terrorist organisations, and where there is evidence of them plotting to commit a terrorist act. It's a tactic that Chizz uses regularly and very cleverly as ValleyGarry has astutely observed. Many other posters get taken in, but the ones who take the time to carefully read through a post, do not.
Bombing Raqqa must feel good and like I said earlier, who can blame the French for doing so.
Re. the Islamists living in France, they need to deport about 100,000 after shooting 400-500 of them to set an example, then take it from there IMO
If, and it's a big IF, they take my advice I reckon other European countries will follow suit and it will result in the eradication of this menace from Our society for ever. Here's hoping eh
Disgusting tbh.
He referred to Islamists, not law abiding muslims, there is a big difference. Islamists (radicalised extremists) are our enemy. Kill them before they kill us. I'd be surprised if there were 100,000 of them living in France, but it is highly likely that there would be 400 -500 of them.
Disgusting tbh
Kill the enemy, disgusting concept eh Chizz!
Calling for the extra-judicial round-up and murder of a group people, based on their religion and/or beliefs is disgusting, yes. It's happened before in Europe. It didn't end well then, either.
Classic Chizz wind-up tactics.
This guys worse than Colin.
What part of chizz's post in anyway WUM like?
He deliberately ignored the Islamist (Radicalised Extremist) ie THE ENEMY, part, and turned it back to being an attack on the religion and law abiding Muslims. He ignored the true meaning and the substance of the post which is about killing the enemy before they can kill us. That is, Radicalised Extremists, who have been clearly identified by extensive intelligence and strong links to other terrorists and terrorist organisations, and where there is evidence of them plotting to commit a terrorist act. It's a tactic that Chizz uses regularly and very cleverly as ValleyGarry has astutely observed. Many other posters get taken in, but the ones who take the time to carefully read through a post, do not.
I hope eventually you'll see the glaring difference between murdering people whom we suspect of having beliefs different from our own and arresting, charging and prosecuting criminals.
I am never going to subscribe to your view that killing people prevents people being killed. I hope, however, you'll eventually come round to agreeing that the best way to deal with people who fall outside the law is to deal with them within the law.
Put him in a room and tie him to a chair... Then the families of those who have been affected can queue to "visit" him
Wow... How can this be flagged!!
Are you new to this site?
lol! At times I wish I could claim I was... Although am extremely proud that my first flag was for saying the Video Game I was looking forward to the most was Candy Crush Saga from @Dazzler21, although looking back it could have been for the exclamation mark that I used
Best way to deal with anyone who wishes to harm innocent people by ways of terrorism is to kill them and that's the only way, dont jail them dont treat them with humanity treat them like a dog gone bad and put them to sleep
Best way to deal with anyone who wishes to harm innocent people by ways of terrorism is to kill them and that's the only way, dont jail them dont treat them with humanity treat them like a dog gone bad and put them to sleep
Noooo dont kill them... By blowing themselves up on Friday, death is what these terrorists want
As I've said, take these terrorists alive, let the effected families pay them a visit and then chuck them in room with no windows for the rest of their days, of course though this is just fiction as they've got their Human Rights and the fact they've just killed someone (taking away that persons rights) is irrelevant
Edit: Sorry I actually called them people for a second
I just cant believe that deep down the terrorists are doing this in the name of religion.
Like many, they use religion to justify their own beliefs and desires. You search hard enough in any major religious text then you'll find something that backs up your own desires, as long as you're willing to that literally what was meant figuratively and vice versa. Christians did it to validate slavery and still do to to try to justify racism and homophobia. Much like the troubles between protestants and catholics, Muslims use minor disagreements on interpretation of religious text to cause division and bloodshed. The difference being that Sunnis and Shiites are far closer in belief than Catholics and Protestants, but seemingly hate each other far more. As has been stated on this thread many times, ISIS are killing hundreds of westerners a year, but they are killing 1000s of muslims a week, over (from an outside perspective at least) minor theological differences.
They are partaking in a genocide of shiites, killing all who won't convert. The mainstream press seems unwilling to cover it in sufficient detail, lumping both sides of the conflict into the big pot marked "muslim". We didn't call the IRA Christain terrorists, we understood the sectarian nature of the conflict. We need to do the same in the middle east to have any chance of understanding what the hell is going on, why there are refugees, why some countries help whilst other don't, etc.
People on this thread keep pulling out ridiculous numbers, without doing any basic sanity checks into any of them. So there's 6 million muslims in France. How many Shia, how many Sunni? Nobody on here has even addresses that basic question. Shiites aren't going to be supporting ISIS in just the same way there weren't any protestant IRA members.
Well done randy andy! Agree with all of that.
However one thing I do not agree on is the free movement of people into Europe. There are plenty of 'Islamic' nations who have lots of room, and are also part of NATO. The integration of Islamic people into Western Society and Europe is not easy due to ongoing prejudices, and also their beliefs that drinking, music etc are ways of sinning.
History has proven and also from personal experiences living in a heavily populated Asian community that Islamic people don't integrate with so called Westerners. Whereas Sikhs and Hindu's dont seem to segregate themselves in the same way.
I just cant believe that deep down the terrorists are doing this in the name of religion.
..........
Shiites aren't going to be supporting ISIS in just the same way there weren't any protestant IRA members.
Really can't understand why people keep comparing IRA terrorism with ISIS/Islamic extremist terrorism. IRA terrorists were as likely to be atheist as being able to quote more than one sentence from the bible. You can compare IRA terrorists to Palestinian terrorists but not to religious terrorists.
The comparison is done because people simply don't understand the difference between Sunni and Shia. Now the protestant/catholic comparison is far from perfect, but it is at least a distinction that most will understand and therefore is useful to at least introduce the idea that now all muslims are the same and that one sect is not going to be helping the other any time soon. And the comparison works on another level too. The NI conflicts weren't just about religion, but about national politics too. ISIS is similar, it may be dressed up as a religious war, and religion used as a way to attract followers, but it is about power and politics just as much if not more so.
I'll happily admit it's not a perfect analogy, but it is the closest example of two sides in a conflict being of the same religion, but of violently incompatible versions of that same religion.
But the Northern Ireland conflict was not about religion in any way. And the Palestinian conflict is not about religion in any way. It is incidental that the combatants on either side of both conflicts belong to different religions.
Going a bit off topic now so not going debate this particular point any more.
Bombing Raqqa must feel good and like I said earlier, who can blame the French for doing so.
Re. the Islamists living in France, they need to deport about 100,000 after shooting 400-500 of them to set an example, then take it from there IMO
If, and it's a big IF, they take my advice I reckon other European countries will follow suit and it will result in the eradication of this menace from Our society for ever. Here's hoping eh
Disgusting tbh.
He referred to Islamists, not law abiding muslims, there is a big difference. Islamists (radicalised extremists) are our enemy. Kill them before they kill us. I'd be surprised if there were 100,000 of them living in France, but it is highly likely that there would be 400 -500 of them.
Disgusting tbh
Kill the enemy, disgusting concept eh Chizz!
Calling for the extra-judicial round-up and murder of a group people, based on their religion and/or beliefs is disgusting, yes. It's happened before in Europe. It didn't end well then, either.
Classic Chizz wind-up tactics.
This guys worse than Colin.
What part of chizz's post in anyway WUM like?
He deliberately ignored the Islamist (Radicalised Extremist) ie THE ENEMY, part, and turned it back to being an attack on the religion and law abiding Muslims. He ignored the true meaning and the substance of the post which is about killing the enemy before they can kill us. That is, Radicalised Extremists, who have been clearly identified by extensive intelligence and strong links to other terrorists and terrorist organisations, and where there is evidence of them plotting to commit a terrorist act. It's a tactic that Chizz uses regularly and very cleverly as ValleyGarry has astutely observed. Many other posters get taken in, but the ones who take the time to carefully read through a post, do not.
I hope eventually you'll see the glaring difference between murdering people whom we suspect of having beliefs different from our own and arresting, charging and prosecuting criminals.
I am never going to subscribe to your view that killing people prevents people being killed. I hope, however, you'll eventually come round to agreeing that the best way to deal with people who fall outside the law is to deal with them within the law.
How would this have worked during WWII? Excuse me Mr. German, would you mind popping down to the Old Bailey with us?
Bombing Raqqa must feel good and like I said earlier, who can blame the French for doing so.
Re. the Islamists living in France, they need to deport about 100,000 after shooting 400-500 of them to set an example, then take it from there IMO
If, and it's a big IF, they take my advice I reckon other European countries will follow suit and it will result in the eradication of this menace from Our society for ever. Here's hoping eh
Disgusting tbh.
He referred to Islamists, not law abiding muslims, there is a big difference. Islamists (radicalised extremists) are our enemy. Kill them before they kill us. I'd be surprised if there were 100,000 of them living in France, but it is highly likely that there would be 400 -500 of them.
Disgusting tbh
Kill the enemy, disgusting concept eh Chizz!
Calling for the extra-judicial round-up and murder of a group people, based on their religion and/or beliefs is disgusting, yes. It's happened before in Europe. It didn't end well then, either.
Classic Chizz wind-up tactics.
This guys worse than Colin.
What part of chizz's post in anyway WUM like?
He deliberately ignored the Islamist (Radicalised Extremist) ie THE ENEMY, part, and turned it back to being an attack on the religion and law abiding Muslims. He ignored the true meaning and the substance of the post which is about killing the enemy before they can kill us. That is, Radicalised Extremists, who have been clearly identified by extensive intelligence and strong links to other terrorists and terrorist organisations, and where there is evidence of them plotting to commit a terrorist act. It's a tactic that Chizz uses regularly and very cleverly as ValleyGarry has astutely observed. Many other posters get taken in, but the ones who take the time to carefully read through a post, do not.
I hope eventually you'll see the glaring difference between murdering people whom we suspect of having beliefs different from our own and arresting, charging and prosecuting criminals. Here you go again. We are not talking about killing people simply because they have different beliefs, and you know it, we are talking about taking out the enemy before they get the chance to kill us. Killing the enemy in war is not murder in my book.
I am never going to subscribe to your view that killing people prevents people being killed. Yes it does, just ask the hundreds in Paris who managed to escape the theatre with their lives thanks to the Police engaging the terrorists. I hope, however, you'll eventually come round to agreeing that the best way to deal with people who fall outside the law is to deal with them within the law.
That's some disingenuous work. Of course if these people take up arms then they're absolutely fair game to be gunned into a zillion little pieces. What was suggested by our charming new poster was the rounding up and selective slaughter of presumably unarmed dissidents and Islamist sympathisers.
If they sympathise enough to agree that attacks on innocent civilians in the atrocities that we have witnessed is OK then round em up and slay them no issues from me
If they sympathise enough to agree that attacks on innocent civilians in the atrocities that we have witnessed is OK then round em up and slay them no issues from me
What you're suggesting is that some people should be killed because they think something different from what you think.
That's some disingenuous work. Of course if these people take up arms then they're absolutely fair game to be gunned into a zillion little pieces. What was suggested by our charming new poster was the rounding up and selective slaughter of presumably unarmed dissidents and Islamist sympathisers.
That's some disingenuous work. Of course if these people take up arms then they're absolutely fair game to be gunned into a zillion little pieces. What was suggested by our charming new poster was the rounding up and selective slaughter of presumably unarmed dissidents and Islamist sympathisers.
I ain't new pal, its me Rob.
Faugh, I can't even decipher a simple anagram! Score one to the big man
Bombing Raqqa must feel good and like I said earlier, who can blame the French for doing so.
Re. the Islamists living in France, they need to deport about 100,000 after shooting 400-500 of them to set an example, then take it from there IMO
If, and it's a big IF, they take my advice I reckon other European countries will follow suit and it will result in the eradication of this menace from Our society for ever. Here's hoping eh
Disgusting tbh.
He referred to Islamists, not law abiding muslims, there is a big difference. Islamists (radicalised extremists) are our enemy. Kill them before they kill us. I'd be surprised if there were 100,000 of them living in France, but it is highly likely that there would be 400 -500 of them.
Disgusting tbh
Kill the enemy, disgusting concept eh Chizz!
Calling for the extra-judicial round-up and murder of a group people, based on their religion and/or beliefs is disgusting, yes. It's happened before in Europe. It didn't end well then, either.
Classic Chizz wind-up tactics.
This guys worse than Colin.
What part of chizz's post in anyway WUM like?
He deliberately ignored the Islamist (Radicalised Extremist) ie THE ENEMY, part, and turned it back to being an attack on the religion and law abiding Muslims. He ignored the true meaning and the substance of the post which is about killing the enemy before they can kill us. That is, Radicalised Extremists, who have been clearly identified by extensive intelligence and strong links to other terrorists and terrorist organisations, and where there is evidence of them plotting to commit a terrorist act. It's a tactic that Chizz uses regularly and very cleverly as ValleyGarry has astutely observed. Many other posters get taken in, but the ones who take the time to carefully read through a post, do not.
I hope eventually you'll see the glaring difference between murdering people whom we suspect of having beliefs different from our own and arresting, charging and prosecuting criminals.
I am never going to subscribe to your view that killing people prevents people being killed. I hope, however, you'll eventually come round to agreeing that the best way to deal with people who fall outside the law is to deal with them within the law.
How would this have worked during WWII? Excuse me Mr. German, would you mind popping down to the Old Bailey with us?
No. We need to eradicate our enemies when in conflict. If they are shooting at us. Shoot them. If they are in the act of carrying out an act of terrorism we shoot them. The distinction is that if we catch a suspected terrorist by any means and the key here is the word suspected. We must then use the due process of law to punish them and lock them away. We don't shoot them.
Bombing Raqqa must feel good and like I said earlier, who can blame the French for doing so.
Re. the Islamists living in France, they need to deport about 100,000 after shooting 400-500 of them to set an example, then take it from there IMO
If, and it's a big IF, they take my advice I reckon other European countries will follow suit and it will result in the eradication of this menace from Our society for ever. Here's hoping eh
Disgusting tbh.
He referred to Islamists, not law abiding muslims, there is a big difference. Islamists (radicalised extremists) are our enemy. Kill them before they kill us. I'd be surprised if there were 100,000 of them living in France, but it is highly likely that there would be 400 -500 of them.
Disgusting tbh
Kill the enemy, disgusting concept eh Chizz!
Calling for the extra-judicial round-up and murder of a group people, based on their religion and/or beliefs is disgusting, yes. It's happened before in Europe. It didn't end well then, either.
Classic Chizz wind-up tactics.
This guys worse than Colin.
What part of chizz's post in anyway WUM like?
He deliberately ignored the Islamist (Radicalised Extremist) ie THE ENEMY, part, and turned it back to being an attack on the religion and law abiding Muslims. He ignored the true meaning and the substance of the post which is about killing the enemy before they can kill us. That is, Radicalised Extremists, who have been clearly identified by extensive intelligence and strong links to other terrorists and terrorist organisations, and where there is evidence of them plotting to commit a terrorist act. It's a tactic that Chizz uses regularly and very cleverly as ValleyGarry has astutely observed. Many other posters get taken in, but the ones who take the time to carefully read through a post, do not.
I hope eventually you'll see the glaring difference between murdering people whom we suspect of having beliefs different from our own and arresting, charging and prosecuting criminals.
I am never going to subscribe to your view that killing people prevents people being killed. I hope, however, you'll eventually come round to agreeing that the best way to deal with people who fall outside the law is to deal with them within the law.
How would this have worked during WWII? Excuse me Mr. German, would you mind popping down to the Old Bailey with us?
There are two significant differences.
First, Britain was at war with Germany having declared war. So enemy combatants - ie German soldiers, seamen, pilots... - were, rightly, the target of British military action.
Second, the German shopkeepers who, like my Dad's local shopkeeper, were beaten up and had their businesses trashed, were the victims of idiotic people taking the law into their own hands.
What has been proposed on this thread is the type of action against those shopkeepers - and much, much worse - even though the country has not declared a war.
Comments
http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/16/anonymous-declares-war-on-isis-following-paris-attacks-5504289/
Then, I hope he's put away for a very, very long time.
It's a tactic that Chizz uses regularly and very cleverly as ValleyGarry has astutely observed. Many other posters get taken in, but the ones who take the time to carefully read through a post, do not.
I am never going to subscribe to your view that killing people prevents people being killed. I hope, however, you'll eventually come round to agreeing that the best way to deal with people who fall outside the law is to deal with them within the law.
As I've said, take these terrorists alive, let the effected families pay them a visit and then chuck them in room with no windows for the rest of their days, of course though this is just fiction as they've got their Human Rights and the fact they've just killed someone (taking away that persons rights) is irrelevant
Edit: Sorry I actually called them people for a second
However one thing I do not agree on is the free movement of people into Europe. There are plenty of 'Islamic' nations who have lots of room, and are also part of NATO. The integration of Islamic people into Western Society and Europe is not easy due to ongoing prejudices, and also their beliefs that drinking, music etc are ways of sinning.
History has proven and also from personal experiences living in a heavily populated Asian community that Islamic people don't integrate with so called Westerners. Whereas Sikhs and Hindu's dont seem to segregate themselves in the same way.
I'll happily admit it's not a perfect analogy, but it is the closest example of two sides in a conflict being of the same religion, but of violently incompatible versions of that same religion.
Going a bit off topic now so not going debate this particular point any more.
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/15788/how-the-forum-works-how-to-quote-do-links-and-whisper-properly/p1
**Not trying to be a dick here**
First, Britain was at war with Germany having declared war. So enemy combatants - ie German soldiers, seamen, pilots... - were, rightly, the target of British military action.
Second, the German shopkeepers who, like my Dad's local shopkeeper, were beaten up and had their businesses trashed, were the victims of idiotic people taking the law into their own hands.
What has been proposed on this thread is the type of action against those shopkeepers - and much, much worse - even though the country has not declared a war.