Attacks in Paris

[Malcador]

 

 

Interesting, apparently my views about allowing Syrian refugees who would want to train and form units for 'boots on the ground' to fight for their country is not that odd.

 

Seems like Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung defended Polish minister who claimed that perhaps Syrians should form their own forces in EU to go back to Syria, instead of just watchign and sipping coffee in our cities while our men fight THEIR war.

"Their" war? Remind me who helped create ISIS in the first place?

Well if they are trying to take their country it is their war regardless of the cause. Kind of lame to outsource a direct threat.

[Meshugger]

Brussels now under lock-down.

 

http://6abc.com/news/belgium-on-high-alert-hunting-heavily-armed-individuals/1094192/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/12010302/Brussels-Belgium-terror-alert-on-Sunday-as-Paris-manhunt-goes-on-live.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1448219671

[Malcador]

Russian strikes blamed for 400 Syrian civilian deaths :/

Eh, collateral damage. Bad as it is, who is going to discipline Russia

[BruceVC]

 

 

Interesting, apparently my views about allowing Syrian refugees who would want to train and form units for 'boots on the ground' to fight for their country is not that odd.

 

Seems like Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung defended Polish minister who claimed that perhaps Syrians should form their own forces in EU to go back to Syria, instead of just watchign and sipping coffee in our cities while our men fight THEIR war.

"Their" war? Remind me who helped create ISIS in the first place?

Well if they are trying to take their country it is their war regardless of the cause. Kind of lame to outsource a direct threat.

 

 

I have to say Darkpriest does raise a good point, I wonder at what point do  you give up believing your country can be saved from some kind of internal or external threat and effectively become a refugee?

 

Can we blame the Syrians, there circumstances are unique in the sense that they have received no meaningful military help from there Arab neighbors....I see this in Africa sometimes. The AU just ignores a conflict, yes certain countries will take in war refugee, and the result is millions of citizens as time goes on are forced to leave there country ..and become homeless

 

And if the AU had the political will and real interest they could have defeated the likes of Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab years ago.

 

I can see the ME has a similar issuse  

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Don't worry guys, we're heading in the right direction. Within a generation, we only have our thoughts private (maybe) and don't need to discuss these things at all: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

 

 

 

I can't help but notice that American millennials are still less likely to support it than Europe alles zusammen, and of course women and minorities are generally more okay with it than white men, who, let's face it, are far less likely to have experienced both sides of the issue.

[Darkpriest]

Nazi was always strong in EU

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Nazi was always strong in EU

 

I rather view this as a difference between the thoughtful and cultured Europeans and the loud-mouthed, barbaric Americans who are convinced they have an inalienable right to drown out every other voice in a conversation even when they have nothing of value to add 

 

(Cultural stereotyping is bad, mkay?)

Edited November 22, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

Always trust Euros to work their wrists over themselves. Or at least here, hah.

[Zoraptor]

Russian strikes blamed for 400 Syrian civilian deaths  :/

 

Meh, SOHR yet again. Literally a dude in a Coventry basement with a grandiosely named organisation ejecting a stream of asterisky statistics like an infamous off colour internet meme.

 

In this case I wouldn't actually be surprised if that figure is accurate, but it's still pretty misleading. Given that Russia has averaged about 100 strikes per day since October (fewer sorties, some sorties strike multiple targets) it's a rate of less than 1/10 of a civilian killed per strike. Hardly indiscriminate, certainly.

 

There's always some grim hilarity to be found picking his stats apart. Those 22,370 'barrel bombs' which are a tool for targeting civilians result in 6900 civilian deaths, meaning less than 1/3 of a civilian is killed per strike. That's some spectacularly poor quality deliberate targeting of civilians, manufacture the bomb, fly it off in a helicopter in order to kill 1/3 of a civilian per strike. It's almost as if they aren't actually targeting civilians... The drone program has a far worse rate of civilian death despite its somewhat questionable methodology of counting every male semi adult or up as a terrorist by default.

 

Seriously, SOHR is an utterly rubbish source, at least as bad in reverse as anything the syrian government puts out information wise. Most of the media love it though, as it actually does release stats and largely releases stats that they agree with.

[Darkpriest]

Hey, I am from EU, but in some countries, it's just stupid the point to which Political Correctness affects language and through that even data gathering.

 

As for refugees.

 

Yeah, the thing with Huns, it was not only them, but also some weather changes, right? Huns did induce some migration but they were not the only reason.

 

As for heroes dying etc. We live in countries with free speech, right to vote etc. because our grandfathers and their grandfathers shed blood for it. They believed in the idea that we can have a society that can decide its own fate without tyrants.

 

These people running from various ME and NAfrica regions are not even thinking of going back, fighting for their ideas and dreams so they can shape their world better there. No, they are here to reap benefits, but they will also improt with them the exact reasons why their societies did not build up better world for them there. Their beliefs, their grudges, their culture and way of life. Often those are vastly different from what we are used to and sooner or later it will casue even more clashes. If not in first generation, then it will in the next, as it did with all the immigrants from those regions that we already had in EU.

 

If all those guys between 20-45 running away without families do not want to fight for the better wellbeing of their families and for their idea of the countyr and nation, then perhaps they do not deserve to have one at all. Send them back, and take here only the ones, really qualifying for the status, women, children under 20 and people over 45yrs, plus real educated specialists from that 20-45 that can actually bring something here other than failed attempts at living for minimum wage and social benefits. Because those will only cause more frictions and more trouble to already EU in crisis with non-assimilating minorities... not to mention potential import of the active terrorists.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

You know what is most annoying in this? that these days young men run away leaving their families behind, whiel during the WW2 young men stayed and fought, even as guriiella, while only elderly women and children ran as refugees.

 

Compare vidoes from lets say Poland during Nazi invasion and compare todays video footage of those refugees...

 

What a bizarre thing to say. You do realize that the legal framework that allows for refugees to flow en masse to other countries without fear of being persecuted or immediately turned back was developed as a direct result of WWII, right? Not to mention the fact that during WWII, there weren't that many places to flee towards, it's called a world war for a reason.

 

And, oh, the levels of mobilization reached meant that conscription was at a level unseen before or since, thankfully. This was not the best and bravest gallantly fighting the good fight as much as it was an entire generation of men being thrown into the industrial meat grinder of WWII because there was simply no escaping it. Many others just accepted the fact that their countries had surrendered and tried to make the best of a ****ty situation under German rule.

 

And while we're discussing history: Germanic tribes pushed into a declining Roman Empire in large numbers because their lands were being overrun by the Huns. So yeah, basically war is bad news and if you're smart you'll try to avoid it as best you can. On the other hand, I hear disposable heroes are always in high demand...

 

 

You'r wrong. Much of WWII was a genuine ideological conflict, particularly on the Eastern front. Many young men threw themselves into the war, because they explicitly believed it a was a fight worth fighting, whatever their concrete reason was (for Hitler or against Nazism, protection of the "motherland" etc.). There was a lot of genuine zeal, even in the face of death. Even post WW1 german writers like Ernst Junger show no regrets for fighting even though he was personally wounded fourteen times and watched many of his friends and comrades die. He wrote Storm of Steel, and from what I read of it, he was proud of the fight to the end.  

 

And while we're on the subject of zeal, It is precisely this inability to concieve that ideas may be worth dying for or killing for, a result of Europe's war on religion, the nation state and any other form of belief modern man can attach value to (that great postmodern relativism) that impedes your (as in western) understanding of political Islam. 

 

Shuffling it all away as a socio-economic problem, some "extremists" being bonkers or whatever is a sort of willful stupidity and blindness that would be comical to watch from the sidelines if the results weren't so catastrophic. 

 

Islam is not going to accept the status of "one of many ineffectual religions we have in our society", like in the ridiculous American model. If you believe then it is the only religion, much as Christianity was in its own heyday, and it will fight for that status everyone else be damned. That's the nature of belief - only a closet atheist/secularist can profess to belong to a religion that explicitly considers itself the only valid one, while stating that "they're all equal" at the same time. That's illogical at best, schizophrenia at worst.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Ineth]

Progressive "respect for other cultures" being practised by EU officials:

 

[Qistina]

I'm misunderstanding something....are you saying you don't believe ISIS controls large amounts of territory in Syria and Iraq or are you saying you dont believe they want to create a caliphate ?

 

Serously, do you believe they are creating a country called "Islamic State"?

 

To run a country is not as easy as the media want you to believe, you cannot just make a band of hooligan with guns and they become the ministers of your new country handling economy, health, education, work force, security, and all those stuff. A new country need administrations, ministeries, not only that, just look at your own country...

 

It's a fantasy injecting in your mind....holding territories doesn't make a country, it's like gangsters or mafia holding their territories

 

Is this look like they're running a country to you?

 

[Ineth]

In this case I wouldn't actually be surprised if that figure is accurate, but it's still pretty misleading. Given that Russia has averaged about 100 strikes per day since October (fewer sorties, some sorties strike multiple targets) it's a rate of less than 1/10 of a civilian killed per strike. Hardly indiscriminate, certainly.

 

True. When I linked that statistic, I didn't mean to imply that Russia is bombing Syrian cities indiscriminately.

It's still tragic though.

 

Russia faces the same problem in Syria that NATO has faced in the Kosovo War, and that Israel has repeatedly faced in Gaza: Fighting a paramilitary organization which has entrenched itself inside inhabited cities.

 

No modern country has yet found a good way to carry out such battles without killing many civilians as well. The brutal truth is that "1 dead civilian per 1 dead enemy soldier" is considered an unusually 'good' ratio in such battles, by historical comparison.

 

[BruceVC]

 

I'm misunderstanding something....are you saying you don't believe ISIS controls large amounts of territory in Syria and Iraq or are you saying you dont believe they want to create a caliphate ?

 

Serously, do you believe they are creating a country called "Islamic State"?

 

To run a country is not as easy as the media want you to believe, you cannot just make a band of hooligan with guns and they become the ministers of your new country handling economy, health, education, work force, security, and all those stuff. A new country need administrations, ministeries, not only that, just look at your own country...

 

It's a fantasy injecting in your mind....holding territories doesn't make a country, it's like gangsters or mafia holding their territories

 

Is this look like they're running a country to you?

 

 

Yes you are correct, ISIS doesn't own a country. They have used there military superiority to effectively hijack and occupy land that is owned by other countries. ISIS will  never achieve there objective of a Caliphate in that region....I think this is common knowledge 

 

But that doesn't change the fact they do control territory, its not a land or a Caliphate. Resources in this territory are used to fuel there military campaign and they enforce a particular brutal and anachronistic interpretation of Sharia law 

 

So I know they will never achieve a Caliphate but that doesn't change the fact they need to  be destroyed in those areas of Iraq and Syria 

[Qistina]

 

Yes you are correct, ISIS doesn't own a country. They have used there military superiority to effectively hijack and occupy land that is owned by other countries. ISIS will  never achieve there objective of a Caliphate in that region....I think this is common knowledge 

 

But that doesn't change the fact they do control territory, its not a land or a Caliphate. Resources in this territory are used to fuel there military campaign and they enforce a particular brutal and anachronistic interpretation of Sharia law 

 

So I know they will never achieve a Caliphate but that doesn't change the fact they need to  be destroyed in those areas of Iraq and Syria 

 

 

Their purpose is to spread chaos, that is their job, making people busy, and overthrow Muslim regimes...they are Al Qaeda, FSA, and all those gang of hooligans, they are also criminals. Do you seriously believe they are religious? AlBaghdadi is said to be their caliph, it's a joke.

 

In hostory there was only 4 caliph, the first 4 after prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) passed away. The caliphate is ELECTED by majority, you can say it is quite democratic, not in the way of modern democracy but still democratic in a way. That's how a caliph is elected. A caliph is NOT ONLY for a country but to the WHOLE Muslims. That is what "Khalifah" mean.

 

Since the early era it was only Arabs, so the 4 caliph only managing the Arabs. But then when Islam spreading outside Arabia, there is a problem because non-Arabs don't want to be ruled by Arab caliph, that's the first break in Muslim politic, this break creating two sects as we know as Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah and Syiah. After the 4 caliph, there is no more caliph, Muslims are govern by own leaders, monarch of own regions...Umayyad, Abbasid, Andalus, Fatimid, Ottoman ect....all these are of different races and different territory

 

Umayyad - Syrian

Abbasid - Persian

Andalus - Spanish

Fatimid - Egyptian

Ottoman - Turk

 

During that time, Muslims agree that the most powerful and influential leader will become a patron of all others...example Ottoman become the patron for all existing Muslim countries (including Malay kingdoms), all pay respect and tributes. It is not a caliphate anymore but the title "Khalifah" is given to the leasder of the powerful country who being a patron is "just because" respect

 

Who elect AlBaghdadi to become a caliph of all Muslims? No one

Edited November 23, 2015 by Qistina

[BruceVC]

 

In this case I wouldn't actually be surprised if that figure is accurate, but it's still pretty misleading. Given that Russia has averaged about 100 strikes per day since October (fewer sorties, some sorties strike multiple targets) it's a rate of less than 1/10 of a civilian killed per strike. Hardly indiscriminate, certainly.

 

True. When I linked that statistic, I didn't mean to imply that Russia is bombing Syrian cities indiscriminately.

It's still tragic though.

 

Russia faces the same problem in Syria that NATO has faced in the Kosovo War, and that Israel has repeatedly faced in Gaza: Fighting a paramilitary organization which has entrenched itself inside inhabited cities.

 

No modern country has yet found a good way to carry out such battles without killing many civilians as well. The brutal truth is that "1 dead civilian per 1 dead enemy soldier" is considered an unusually 'good' ratio in such battles, by historical comparison.

 

I don't often disagree with you but on this post and the general point you making I do 

 

The West tries very hard to not kill civilians...in fact it gets heavily criticized when it does

 

Russia will now be facing the same scrutiny as the West faces  so I'm not going to say " hey Russia, its okay you not being more cautious with your bombing campaign and you killing civilians " 

 

I am sure that some of  the major military campaigns the Russians were involved in, Chechnya and Afghanistan, things like collateral damage and killing of civilians wasn't  a major consideration...that has now changed and Russia needs to be aware of this 

 

And Israel also can't get  a pass for its heavy handed retaliation attacks in Gaza and number of civilians killed but I blame Hamas more for this for actually launching attacks from civilian areas, Its clear that Hamas doesn't care at all about the plight of the Palestinians...its a digrace

 

But Israel isn't helping itself by how it retaliates ...for example how they destroy whole houses

 

And Israel is a friend to the West so the perception people have of it matters to me 

 

, 

[Qistina]

It is prophecied that in the end time, there will be a Khalifah at last...called Al Mahdi...all Muslims know this, it is prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prophecy. Al Mahdi will work with Jesus son of Mary, to against the Dajjal/Anti-Christ. Al Mahdi will be elected to lead Muslims against Dajjal.

 

So, EVERY real Muslims know this, there is no Khalifah until Al Mahdi come. Meaning there is no caliphate of any name until the end time. So how come this ISIS want to claim caliphate? Every real Muslims know they are fake

 

Acording to the prophecy, Al Mahdi will bring the Black Flag/banner, come from the EAST....this Black Flag is not Al Qaeda/ISIS flag, that's a FAKE flag lol, and Al Mahdi will come from the east, not from Middle East, but east...means ASIA region

 

This ISIS is a deception from Dajjal....to make gullible Muslims folowing them, thinking they are the army of Al Mahdi. But if Muslims really study the matter will simply know they are fake.

 

The age of deception already being prophecied by the prophet. Dajjal means "The Deceiver", but in context of western understanding he is the Anti-Christ.

 

There are strings of events before Al Mahdi will be ELECTED as Khalifah of ALL MUSLIMS.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Qistina

[BruceVC]

 

 

Yes you are correct, ISIS doesn't own a country. They have used there military superiority to effectively hijack and occupy land that is owned by other countries. ISIS will  never achieve there objective of a Caliphate in that region....I think this is common knowledge 

 

But that doesn't change the fact they do control territory, its not a land or a Caliphate. Resources in this territory are used to fuel there military campaign and they enforce a particular brutal and anachronistic interpretation of Sharia law 

 

So I know they will never achieve a Caliphate but that doesn't change the fact they need to  be destroyed in those areas of Iraq and Syria 

 

 

Their purpose is to spread chaos, that is their job, making people busy, and overthrow Muslim regimes...they are Al Qaeda, FSA, and all those gang of hooligans, they are also criminals. Do you seriously believe they are religious? AlBaghdadi is said to be their caliph, it's a joke.

 

In hostory there was only 4 caliph, the first 4 after prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) passed away. The caliphate is ELECTED by majority, you can say it is quite democratic, not in the way of modern democracy but still democratic in a way. That's how a caliph is elected. A caliph is NOT ONLY for a country but to the WHOLE Muslims. That is what "Khalifah" mean.

 

Since the early era it was only Arabs, so the 4 caliph only managing the Arabs. But then when Islam spreading outside Arabia, there is a problem because non-Arabs don't want to be ruled by Arab caliph, that's the first break in Muslim politic, this break creating two sects as we know as Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah and Syiah. After the 4 caliph, there is no more caliph, Muslims are govern by own leaders, monarch of own regions...Umayyad, Abbasid, Andalus, Fatimid, Ottoman ect....all these are of different races and different territory

 

Umayyad - Syrian

Abbasid - Persian

Andalus - Spanish

Fatimid - Egyptian

Ottoman - Turk

 

During that time, Muslims agree that the most powerful and influential leader will become a patron of all others...example Ottoman become the patron for all existing Muslim countries (including Malay kingdoms), all pay respect and tributes. It is not a caliphate anymore but the title "Khalifah" is given to the leasder of the powerful country who being a patron is "just because" respect

 

Who elect AlBaghdadi to become a caliph of all Muslims? No one

 

Yes but ISIS doens't care about the history of Islam, they are writing there own history based on there views and they think they can create a Caliphate

 

And even though its extremely difficult to calculate the exact numbers of people in  ISIS they are about 20,000 to 30,000 strong so we can't just say " no once cares what they think " 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/isis-by-the-numbers-how-big-strong-and-rich-the-militant-organization-may-be-1.2746332

[Qistina]

If you play Dragon Age : Origin, the prophecy is quite like that...consider The Warden is Al Mahdi, and Alistair is Jesus son of Mary

 

According to the prophecy, there will be Yakjuj Makjuj, there are debates about who is this Yakjuj and Makjuj, some say they are human, some say they are some sort of creatures. This Yakjuj and Makjuj in Bible called Gog and Magog. They will come out and kill everyone, brutal, no mercy...they are strong and many. So they are like Darkspawns

 

The Dajjal will lead them to against Al Mahdi and Jesus son of Mary. So the Dajjal is like the Archdemon

 

Al Mahdi will gather an army to against the Dajjal and these Yakjuj and Makjuj. Jesus son of Mary will be elected as spiritual leader, at first he will be elected as the leader himself but he will refuse. This is like the Landsmeet. Some Muslims will reject Al Mahdi, even hunting him down. So it is like Loghain hunting down The Warden. There are also civil wars and such.

 

Al Mahdi and Jesus son of Mary with an army will march toward Jerusalem, and there the final battle will happen. Much like The Warden and Alistair with Ferelden army marching toward Denerim...

 

What i am talking about here is just symbolic, David Gaider is a Jew, so he sure know this...he make Dragon Age : Origin exactly like islamic prophecy

 

Oh i forgot, before all above happen, there will be a death of a king...like King Cailan dead, that's why civil war happen...Muslims suspect it will the death of Saudi King

Edited November 23, 2015 by Qistina

[Barothmuk]

Progressive "respect for other cultures" being practised by EU officials:

 

 

 

[x] doubt

 

But I honestly wouldn't be surprised.

[BruceVC]

If you play Dragon Age : Origin, the prophecy is quite like that...consider The Warden is Al Mahdi, and Alistair is Jesus son of Mary

 

According to the prophecy, there will be Yakjuj Makjuj, there are debates about who is this Yakjuj and Makjuj, some say they are human, some say they are some sort of creatures. This Yakjuj and Makjuj in Bible called Gog and Magog. They will come out and kill everyone, brutal, no mercy...they are strong and many. So they are like Darkspawns

 

The Dajjal will lead them to against Al Mahdi and Jesus son of mary. So the Dajjal is like the Archdemon

 

Al Mahdi will gather an army to against the Dajjal and these Yakjuj and Makjuj. Jesus son of Mary will be elected as spiritual leader, at first he will be elected as the leader himself but he will refuse. This is like the Landsmeet. Some Muslims will reject Al Mahdi, even hunting him down. So it is like Loghain hunting down The Warden. There are also civil wars and such.

 

Al Mahdi and Jesus son of Mary with an army will march toward Jerusalem, and there the final battle will happen. Much like The Warden and Alistair with Ferelden army marching toward Denerim...

 

What i am talking about here is just symbolic, David Gaider is a Jew, so he sure know this...he make Dragon Age : Origin exactly like islamic prophecy

 

Oh i forgot, before all above happen, there will be a death of a king...like King Cailan dead, that's why civil war happen

Qistina I enjoy these debates with you but we need to be honest with each other about anything we don't understand 

 

 

I am an atheist so even though I   respect  all religions I don't believe in any religious scriptures

 

So when you make a post that is about religion as a reason for something you believe it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't mean to offend you and suggest what you should post but if you want  me to logically understand your point please use something outside of religion or I just wont get it

[BruceVC]

 

Progressive "respect for other cultures" being practised by EU officials:

 

 

 

[x] doubt

 

But I honestly wouldn't be surprised.

 

I definitely don't believe this ..its a scurrilous example of anti-Western propaganda 

[Qistina]

Qistina I enjoy these debates with you but we need to be honest with each other about anything we don't understand 

 

 

I am an atheist so even though I   respect  all religions I don't believe in any religious scriptures

 

So when you make a post that is about religion as a reason for something you believe it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't mean to offend you and suggest what you should post but if you want  me to logically understand your point please use something outside of religion or I just wont get it

 

 

It doesn't matter if you believe or not, but talk about this issue, you can't escape it. If you refuse to consider what i am talking about, you will be blind on what happening.

 

For example, why ISIS/Al qaeda and Muslim Terrorist using Black Flag, do you know? I already explained why they are using Black Flag.

 

Up to you to understand or just being an atheist jerk.

 

Oh i forgot that i already mention in earlier posts that atheists are deuchbags...

Edited November 23, 2015 by Qistina

[Barothmuk]

I definitely don't believe this ..its a scurrilous example of anti-Western propaganda

I took a Women's History course at uni and when the topic of foot-binding was brought up the majority agreed its a practice we have no business critiquing or judging as Westerners.

 

Thankfully the lecturer took the stance of "you're all ****ing stupid, foot-binding is barbaric".