Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack

[angelo]

Are they? Moslems are permitted to lie if it furthers the cause. They say one thing in Arabic for Arabic ears, another for the Western pc brigades.
The grand mufti of Australia Ibrahim Abu Mohammed issued a statement soon after the attacks saying "Islamophobia was to blame for the attacks. Shifting the blame is this guys hallmark.

If only it was possible for non-Arabs to learn Arabic; It would only take a tiny handful of us, and their cunning ruse would become impossible.

But sadly, Arabic is incapable of being understood by non-Arabs, so they can get away with this darstadly trick.

Either that, or your assertion would be obviously COMPLETE BOLLOCKS.

His worship the grand mufti has been in Australia collecting welfare for 18 years,yet he claims to not speak English.
There are witnesses who say that's bollocks as they have heard the good mufti speak good English.

 

[bilby]

Western security measures don't require the interest or involvement of civilians. I am not suggesting that police anti-terrorism units should ignore them; just the general public.

All the public 'security' stuff is just there to make us feel like something is being done; It does more harm than good.

I imagine the pollies in Canberra disagree with that statement, when ASIO uncovered a plot to attack Parliament House

Only if they are so mind-bogglingly stupid as to that ASIO are civilians

Perhaps it would help you to come up with valid counters to my points if you actually read what I wrote?

 

[bilby]

If only it was possible for non-Arabs to learn Arabic; It would only take a tiny handful of us, and their cunning ruse would become impossible.

But sadly, Arabic is incapable of being understood by non-Arabs, so they can get away with this darstadly trick.

Either that, or your assertion would be obviously COMPLETE BOLLOCKS.

His worship the grand mufti has been in Australia collecting welfare for 18 years,yet he claims to not speak English.
There are witnesses who say that's bollocks as they have heard the good mufti speak good English.

Perhaps it would help you to come up with valid counters to my points if you actually read what I wrote?

 

[angelo]

His worship the grand mufti has been in Australia collecting welfare for 18 years,yet he claims to not speak English.
There are witnesses who say that's bollocks as they have heard the good mufti speak good English.

Perhaps it would help you to come up with valid counters to my points if you actually read what I wrote?

I never reply to sarcasm. Besides, why should anyone in the West have to learn to speak Arabic to understand what these backward ignorant followers of a paedophile are saying about us.

 

[Toni]

Perhaps it would help you to come up with valid counters to my points if you actually read what I wrote?

I never reply to sarcasm. Besides, why should anyone in the West have to learn to speak Arabic to understand what these backward ignorant followers of a paedophile are saying about us.

By all means: remain as ignorant as you can. It serves ISIS quite well.

 

[angelo]

I never reply to sarcasm. Besides, why should anyone in the West have to learn to speak Arabic to understand what these backward ignorant followers of a paedophile are saying about us.

By all means: remain as ignorant as you can. It serves ISIS quite well.

My point is that these economic migrants should learn English or the native tongue as a first priority upon arriving here and elsewhere they happen to migrate to.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps it would help you to come up with valid counters to my points if you actually read what I wrote?

I never reply to sarcasm.

You just did.

Besides, why should anyone in the West have to learn to speak Arabic to understand what these backward ignorant followers of a paedophile are saying about us.

Because if you don't learn somebody's language, complaining that you don't understand them is stupid, and claiming that they are saying one thing in Arabic and another in English (having just admitted that you cannot know that, as you don't understand Arabic) is both paranoid AND stupid.

 

[bilby]

By all means: remain as ignorant as you can. It serves ISIS quite well.

My point is that these economic migrants should learn English or the native tongue as a first priority upon arriving here and elsewhere they happen to migrate to.

Actually, that's only your current point. Basically, each post you have made in this thread has involved a goalpost shift; You say A; Someone points out that A is complete garbage, and you respond by saying B. A never gets another look-in.

I have long since forgotten what your original point was. But I can guarantee that if anyone wants to put in the effort to go back through the thread, they will find that this is the VERY FIRST mention you have made of economic migrants over here needing to learn English. The closest you have been to this particular point was a claim that some guy you apparently give a shit about can speak English, but claims not to be able to; and that was itself a derail of a derail from your claim that some undefined 'they' say one thing in Arabic and another in English; which was a derail from your claim that 'they' don't speak up against terrorism.

It's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. Can you please select a point, and either continue to defend it with facts and reason until it is accepted by others; or have the testicular fortitude to accept that it is soundly refuted, and never use it again? That's how discussions are meant to work. Not this great long list of non-sequiturs each of which allows you to pretend to yourself that the underlying idea you seek to express has some kind of evidentiary support, even though it in fact has none.

 

[maxparrish]

My point is that these economic migrants should learn English or the native tongue as a first priority upon arriving here and elsewhere they happen to migrate to.

Actually, that's only your current point. Basically, each post you have made in this thread has involved a goalpost shift; You say A; Someone points out that A is complete garbage, and you respond by saying B. A never gets another look-in.

I have long since forgotten what your original point was. But I can guarantee that if anyone wants to put in the effort to go back through the thread, they will find that this is the VERY FIRST mention you have made of economic migrants over here needing to learn English. The closest you have been to this particular point was a claim that some guy you apparently give a shit about can speak English, but claims not to be able to; and that was itself a derail of a derail from your claim that some undefined 'they' say one thing in Arabic and another in English; which was a derail from your claim that 'they' don't speak up against terrorism.

It's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. Can you please select a point, and either continue to defend it with facts and reason until it is accepted by others; or have the testicular fortitude to accept that it is soundly refuted, and never use it again? That's how discussions are meant to work. Not this great long list of non-sequiturs each of which allows you to pretend to yourself that the underlying idea you seek to express has some kind of evidentiary support, even though it in fact has none.

I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing the thread return to the original subject and closely related issues...the ISIS terrorist slaughter in Paris and actions or inactions in response.

 

[bilby]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXUZjyZVj6s[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Nice Squirrel]

A gun battle is reportedly taking place in Paris.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34853657

 

[angelo]

I never reply to sarcasm.

You just did.

Besides, why should anyone in the West have to learn to speak Arabic to understand what these backward ignorant followers of a paedophile are saying about us.

Because if you don't learn somebody's language, complaining that you don't understand them is stupid, and claiming that they are saying one thing in Arabic and another in English (having just admitted that you cannot know that, as you don't understand Arabic) is both paranoid AND stupid.

This turd who calls himself "grand mufti" has been criticized by the most Islamic leaders throughout the country. That his apologists are using the language barrier as an excuse for his statement is way beyond the pale.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, there is a long history of military invasions of many christian countries so they can't really be blamed.

You seem to confuse excusing ISIS with understanding why it exists.

Your eternal blaming the US is excusing ISIS.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That didn't help at all. I said show me the Muslims protesting en mass like they do when cartoons offend them. I don't expect Christians to protest ISIS because ISIS isn't besmirching Christ's message of peace and love. If self proclaimed John Lennon fans started murdering people I would expect Beatle fans to denounce the killers not Rolling Stones fans.

So, a Muslim who's offended enough to protest Salman Rushdie 26 years ago or Charlie Hebdo recently must also must march in the streets against IS and if they don't then...they approve of the attacks?

Do we know how many people regardless of background or religion are protesting IS and, out of those, how many of them are Muslim?

IOW, how do you know they're not protesting, other than there are not to your awareness exclusively western Muslim protests in sufficient numbers to offset those other demonstrations?

I don't think we need to track individual protesters.

However, the reaction to major events can tell us something of how people feel.

If Salmon Rushdie gets a bigger reaction than ISIS then obviously they care more about the book than the deaths.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are they? Moslems are permitted to lie if it furthers the cause. They say one thing in Arabic for Arabic ears, another for the Western pc brigades.
The grand mufti of Australia Ibrahim Abu Mohammed issued a statement soon after the attacks saying "Islamophobia was to blame for the attacks. Shifting the blame is this guys hallmark.

If only it was possible for non-Arabs to learn Arabic; It would only take a tiny handful of us, and their cunning ruse would become impossible.

But sadly, Arabic is incapable of being understood by non-Arabs, so they can get away with this darstadly trick.

Either that, or your assertion would be obviously COMPLETE BOLLOCKS.

When people do translate what they say you just stick you head in the sand and say the translations aren't accurate.

 

[bilby]

If only it was possible for non-Arabs to learn Arabic; It would only take a tiny handful of us, and their cunning ruse would become impossible.

But sadly, Arabic is incapable of being understood by non-Arabs, so they can get away with this darstadly trick.

Either that, or your assertion would be obviously COMPLETE BOLLOCKS.

When people do translate what they say you just stick you head in the sand and say the translations aren't accurate.

Really?

I presume that you can demonstrate that with a quote from me, questioning or denying the accuracy of a translation; And if you cannot, I very much hope that you will have the grace to apologise for this baseless allegation about my behaviour.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

By all means: remain as ignorant as you can. It serves ISIS quite well.

My point is that these economic migrants should learn English or the native tongue as a first priority upon arriving here and elsewhere they happen to migrate to.

Much easier said than done.

While I have no eye into the Arabic community I do have one into the Chinese community--another language that's very different than English and thus makes it extra hard (English is such a complex language that it's never easy to learn) for them to learn English. The population is quite clearly divided into two groups: Those who have learned a decent amount of English, enough to communicate with only very occasional references to the dictionary and those who have learned little English, they communicate with difficulty over anything not very basic.

The dividing line is pretty sharp and based on one thing: Who did they marry. If they had to learn English to communicate with their mate they learned it, if they could communicate with their mate without they didn't.

 

[maxparrish]

Waleed Aly is using an old propaganda canard, favored by journalists and opinion shapers because of its appearance of pseudo profundity. Like many superficial tropes, it's nonsense - along the lines that a victim ought to oppose an an action because, it is claimed, that action is what his enemy wants.

What absurdity in this line of so-called reasoning. You see, a targeted society does what is necessary to do to protect its security, whether or not it comports with the enemy's irrational, perverse, or self-defeating wants.

Japan and Germany wanted war in 1941, but only a fool would have blubbered that the US should have promptly offered a conditional surrender to 'deny' them their wants. Hitler wanted to dump German Jews on other non-European nations, but that does that mean the US (among others) were justified in not accepting "what Hitler wanted". Saddam did not want iraq to be invaded in either gulf war, but only a moron might think that somehow creates an argument to invade.

And ISIS had not hidden what they want behind fanciful sociological rationals - they want a return to a 7th century view of Islam and jihad - convert, obey, or be put to the sword. They want infidels dead. They want to behead anyone not converting, and anyone else (including children) that violates one of their religious injunctions. What about their wants don't you get?

There was a twitter message I read, along these lines, that exemplified the delusional excuse making mindset of the Western liberal:

ISIS: We want you to convert or die by beheading...your choice.
Liberal: Oh no, you just want to provoke a war.
ISIS: No, we want you to convert or die.
Liberal: Oh no, you really want is for us to punish Muslim refugees to provoke division.
ISIS: No, we just want you to convert or die. Have you seen the infidel heads on our stakes?
Liberal: I am sure you just want to drive a wedge between the West and the Muslim World.
ISIS: Actually, we just want to kill you by beheading, unless you convert.
LIberal: No...no...no. You're just frustrated by a lack of jobs and climate change...right?
ISIS: No, we want you to convert. So will you?
Liberal: Well, no because that's what you want.
ISIS: Okay, you die. (swipe).

Got it?

 

[bilby]

Waleed Aly is using an old propaganda canard, favored by journalists and opinion shapers because of its appearance of pseudo profundity. Like many superficial tropes, it's nonsense - along the lines that a victim ought to oppose an an action because, it is claimed, that action is what his enemy wants.

What absurdity in this line of so-called reasoning. You see, a targeted society does what is necessary to do to protect its security, whether or not it comports with the enemy's irrational, perverse, or self-defeating wants.

Japan and Germany wanted war in 1941, but only a fool would have blubbered that the US should have promptly offered a conditional surrender to 'deny' them their wants. Hitler wanted to dump German Jews on other non-European nations, but that does that mean the US (among others) were justified in not accepting "what Hitler wanted". Saddam did not want iraq to be invaded in either gulf war, but only a moron might think that somehow creates an argument to invade.

And ISIS had not hidden what they want behind fanciful sociological rationals - they want a return to a 7th century view of Islam and jihad - convert, obey, or be put to the sword. They want infidels dead. They want to behead anyone not converting, and anyone else (including children) that violates one of their religious injunctions. What about their wants don't you get?

There was a twitter message I read, along these lines, that exemplified the delusional excuse making mindset of the Western liberal:

ISIS: We want you to convert or die by beheading...your choice.
Liberal: Oh no, you just want to provoke a war.
ISIS: No, we want you to convert or die.
Liberal: Oh no, you really want is for us to punish Muslim refugees to provoke division.
ISIS: No, we just want you to convert or die. Have you seen the infidel heads on our stakes?
Liberal: I am sure you just want to drive a wedge between the West and the Muslim World.
ISIS: Actually, we just want to kill you by beheading, unless you convert.
LIberal: No...no...no. You're just frustrated by a lack of jobs and climate change...right?
ISIS: No, we want you to convert. So will you?
Liberal: Well, no because that's what you want.
ISIS: Okay, you die. (swipe).

Got it?

What a dreadful waste of words.

Your arguments are not improved by all the excess verbiage; quite the reverse.

And despite the death of a million pixels to bring us your ramblings, you are completely wrong; your position assumes, incorrectly, that Islam is a monobloc. That fighting ISIS and fighting Muslims are synonymous. But that's not the case.

ISIS want to provoke division between non-Muslims and Muslims; which would, if effective, divert us from the actually appropriate response, which is division between non-ISIS and ISIS.

Stupid people attacking Muslims are doing the work of ISIS for them. Smart people support attacks on ISIS, and NOT attacks on Muslims as a group.

I assume that you will fail to grasp this fairy obvious point; after all, you missed it when Waleed Aly made it. Or perhaps you just jumped straight to your inane 'gotcha' response without listening to what he actually said?

If you start from the false premise that 'ISIS' and 'Islam' are synonyms, and you are too busy trying to impress with rhetoric to apply logic, then that would be an easy (but embarrassing) mistake to make.

 

[bilby]

Oh, and by 1941, Japan had been at war for a decade, and Germany for nearly four years. Neither nation wanted war in 1941; they wanted land and resources. War was the means by which the allies (including, eventually, the USA) denied them what they wanted.