Jump to content

Three dead as woman beheaded in knife attack at French church


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 392
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Lets not let incidents like this distract everyone from France's commitment to diversity and inclusion, a powerful and ambitious approach to making France, and the world, a better, and safer, place. R

How many heads would have to get chopped off before you show any kind of resentment?    These are not lone wolf isolated incidents ,  as numerous people were involved in the teachers beheading 

What they are pushing for is for France to adopt a blasphemy law. You can always submit to the Muslim World, today for cartoons, tomorrow for gender equality,  may girls sit next to boys in class

Posted Images

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?! 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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,

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by simple1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by simple1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by pacovl46
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 -

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...