Jump to content

The Killing Fields of France?


mint
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Saw it on the lunch time news, didn't post here because last time doing so on another forum just earned me a load of abuse and eventually the thread was locked, withthe abusive comments remaining.

 

France has been secretly guarding its églises since two were attacked in 2015, currently some 178 have a permanent armed guard and over 5000 others are patrolling other places of worship.

 

But they cant be everywhere all the time.

 

How long before we become immunised to what  is becoming a daily event? [:(]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current government is in "rabbit in the headlights" mode. It has run out of ideas to know what to do about the rising tide of Mooslim atrocities because of it's socialist principles.

When it gets to the point that a harmless old priest is butchered in the name of the mooslims sky fairy - and the french government just goes into another session of handwringing and condemnation, it is time to take down this current joke administration and replace it with another administration that is not afraid to do what is necessary to make France safe for the majority of the population-not just make concessions for the minority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting and excellent points.

But it's not just France is it ?   Germany, Sweden, the UK - see the connections ?   Anyone read 'The Gates of Vienna' ?

You write '...another admin (government) that is not afraid to do what is necessary...for the majority .'

The very first duty of an admin/government is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens.   Look around europe.   Do you honestly think any of them - any of those governments - have acted in the interests of their own citizens ?

Then the political elites wonder why the heck the ordinary people, the voters - are starting to support the 'populist' parties ?

The ordinary people have no option;  the admin/governments have ignored the warnings, ignored the views of their own citizens - and now they are in 'rabbit in headlight' mode.

While the Farages, 5Star in Italy, the FN et al - all get sneered at by the left-wing press - as being 'populist' (or more correctly reflecting the views of voters) - who the heck has pushed people into voting for 'populist' parties ?

Some european leaders ought to look in the mirror more - it's their fault.

As for your wish for an admin/government to act to make France more secure for the majority - I know what I'd suggest - but daren't...

What would you suggest ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody who is a sympathiser, active or not, with the terrorist tendency must be deported, to their country of ethnicity, their citizenship removed so that they cannot return, along with all their family, relatives, friends, and known associates.

No appeals, or lawyers allowed - martial law.

Word will soon get around that promoting, assisting or ignoring terrorism is not an option if you want to stay in your adopted country.

All that is needed is a government with the necessary moral courage to carry this out as an example for the rest of europe to follow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish there was a simple solution, as you seem to think.

The attacker was already known to the police, was on bail and wearing a police tag, which was switched off at the time as he was allowed out in the mornings. The prosecutors had asked for him to be detained rather than released on bail, but it was over ruled by a judge.

You can have all the procedures and policies in place you like, but if someone makes the wrong decision, or someone is completely unknown to all services then there isn't a lot you can do.

How do you identity someone who is a terrorist sympathizer, other than painstaking and expensive undercover work, and how do you deport someone who has no other nationality other than that of the country in which they were born? I can't see, for example, Jordan, being willing to admit someone with possible terrorist links on the grounds that their great grandfather was born in Jordan.

If you're seriously worried about your personal safety then remember that you are still more likely to die in a car accident than at the hands of a terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're seriously worried about your personal safety then remember

that you are still more likely to die in a car accident than at the

hands of a terrorist.

Ah but you see the person driving the car that kills you might be born and bred in the country, and might not even be of a different ethnicity [:-))]  so that is OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the ECHR was originally proposed by Winston Churchill to encourage the rule of law in postwar Europe. Don't be too quick to abolish our safeguards. You never know when you might need them. There are too many extremist politicians around to ignore the risk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you still haven't addressed how you would identify people who are threats to national security in a reliable way.

It has nothing to do with moral courage. There is nothing moral about victimising families and friends of people that one imagines to be terrorists. But then you knew that anyway..isn't this just what the terrorists themselves do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moral dilemma isn't it and a conversation I have just had with my Dad.

I'll be quite honest about my 'instant' anger about these things, my rage makes me think that whole families should be deported and if anyone is trying to get into Syria parachute their whole family in to follow them.

But that is instant anger and then I calm and reason says that we cannot do that because it is the slippery slope before the law is so interpreted that if a family member does wrong, the rest of the family would be to blame.

HOWEVER, IF the family was in anyway aware or simply chosing to ignore the obvious then what should we do with them then? Because doing nothing is as bad as doing the crime.

And this applies to all things doesn't it. Should we 'shop' a family member if they have committed a heinous crime or are about to? And if we do not are we not as culpable and made to suffer the consequences?

 And we are all entitled to black thoughts when upset and angry, that we would want society to change so much that these ideas became law is quite another thing.

The moral dilemma.

What I will say is that I do not like multiculturalism as it now is. We have laws and yet they are often not enforced because of the worry of seeming racist. Two examples on the news this week..... young girls are carted off to India or Pakistan to be married off to old men and others are taken to Africa to be mutilated.

Our rights were hard fought for, and should never be watered down by a fear of appearing racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="lindal1000"]But you still haven't addressed how you would identify people who are threats to national security in a reliable way.

It has nothing to do with moral courage. There is nothing moral about victimising families and friends of people that one imagines to be terrorists. But then you knew that anyway..isn't this just what the terrorists themselves do?[/quote]

"There is nothing moral about victimising families and friends of people that one imagines to be terrorists"

There is no "imagine" about it.

Did the poor priest "imagine" that he was going to be executed that morning?

Did the happy revellers in the Bataclan "imagine" that they were going to be blown up and killed that day?

My advice to you is to stop making excuses for the actual behaviour of these psychotic lunatics and start getting your mind right.

When you abandon your socialist mind-set and get your mind right you will see that what I have written is the only solution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we have now is NOT multiculti - it is paralell culti - with a group of incomers who seemingly do not like the western christian way of life - who chose, themselves, not to integrate - is that our fault ?

Those Islam followers who have tried to revise the Koran, to change it, to make it more suitable for 21st century life, rather than the 6th century ramblings of a paedo - do not get the support they should receive from governments, from followers of Islam;  instead they have been threatened and silenced.  A grocer in the north of England, wishes his customers 'Happy Easter';  he is a Muslim - one of the same 'faith' travels 200 miles to kill him because he was 'disrespectful to Allah' - when that happens you realise that there are huge problems with that 'faith'.    How many Catholics, Anglicans, Jews - go round the UK and Europe killing because of 'disrespect' ?

Those who wish to go to Syria - good luck - send them on their way.   I have never understood the 'detain and watch' approach - let them go - good riddance.   And watch the families - 'people of concern' - but don't automatically presume they are guilty...

As for being worried about making any comments that might be deemed rascist - ask yourself exactly WHO is deciding what is rascist.   Read some of George Orwell's comments about the self-loathing of the left who seem to put everyone and any religion/ideology above that of any white christian British citizen.   Some of his writings perfectly sum up the attitude by the self-loathers that every culture has to be better than anything represented by the white english.  

Commonsense criticism and concerns were silenced for far too long by the self-loathers - and people who are silenced, ignored, sneered at - will, one day, fight back.

During the WW2 weren't many non-British people interred on the Isle of Man;  rightly or wrongly, we shouldn't judge such decisions from today's viewpoint;  but the principle was sound, wasn't it ?   I'm not advocating that - but the political elites now seem grudgingly to accept the Islamic way of life and the ideology contained in the Koran does make for strains with western democracies, and women's lib, etc.   There have been comments in the papers from political leaders about 'we are at war with Islam';  read the 'Gates of Vienna'; look around the world - Islam gets very extreme where there are large numbers of followers of Islam - just look.

I read some posters in the Guardian yesterday;  a year ago they would have been 'modded' and banned - now even the Guardian is allowing rather more direct criticism of Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Harnser"][quote user="lindal1000"]But you still haven't addressed how you would identify people who are threats to national security in a reliable way.

It has nothing to do with moral courage. There is nothing moral about victimising families and friends of people that one imagines to be terrorists. But then you knew that anyway..isn't this just what the terrorists themselves do?[/quote]

"There is nothing moral about victimising families and friends of people that one imagines to be terrorists"

There is no "imagine" about it.

Did the poor priest "imagine" that he was going to be executed that morning?

Did the happy revellers in the Bataclan "imagine" that they were going to be blown up and killed that day?

My advice to you is to stop making excuses for the actual behaviour of these psychotic lunatics and start getting your mind right.

When you abandon your socialist mind-set and get your mind right you will see that what I have written is the only solution.[/quote]

Although I am not a socialist I would disagree that you have the only solution. A possible solution perhaps but one that could have unintended consequences. I believe in the rule of law and that people are innocent until proved guilty. This has been a basic principle of British law for centuries  and I believe it should not be sacrificed because of terrorists. That would be letting them win as well as betraying all those who gave their lives to defend our liberties in both world wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone got copies of the newspapers from the Middle and Near East from the 11th to 15th centuries?

Just interested in what they say about Christians invading their countries and being 'unpleasant' to those who would not take up the Christian faith.

Their turn now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would have thought that deporting the whole family because one member has become 'radicalised' (whatever that mean) would be very counter productive. Could well imagine a feeling of resentment felt by those who do not wish to return to the country that they came from and have started integrating into their 'new' country. With the resentment felt within the community of those left they would be far easier converts to extremist views.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="PaulT"]Anyone got copies of the newspapers from the Middle and Near East from the 11th to 15th centuries?

Just interested in what they say about Christians invading their countries and being 'unpleasant' to those who would not take up the Christian faith.

Their turn now.[/quote]

It would also be interesting to read Spanish newspapers of the period about the Moorish invasion of the Iberian peninsula and the subsequent expulsion of the Moors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harasser..just to clarify a few things.

I am not making excuses for murderers and terrorists. One of the men was so well known to the French police that he shouldn't have been out on the street. That is quite clear and in fact the prosecutors had requested that he remained behind bars.

It is your assertion that somehow all their friends and family are equally guilty that I find immoral.

A friend's grandson was radicalised and ended up being killed in Syria. They are white Canadians who live in France. Their mother only new there was a problem when the security services came to her door and told her they had been following her son for two years. He'd told her he'd gone traveling in Europe. You still haven't answered how you would identify those who should be detained. What degree of behaviour indicates someone is a risk? And how do you deport people who have no other nationality?

I also don't understand your link to socialism here? I would say my views are more akin to tolerance and liberalism than socialism, which is something rather different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is your assertion that somehow all their friends and family are equally guilty that I find immoral"

Jihadis are living within muslim communities - to encourage those communities to turn against these terrorists and give them up to the security forces, guilt by association leading to deportation is the only way.

Murder of innocent people is the height of immorality - these violent psychopaths are living and walking the streets next to you and me - get rid of them out of the country is the solution, if friends and associates are caught up in it - tough, the end justifies the means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Harnser"] 

Jihadis are living within muslim communities - to encourage those communities to turn against these terrorists and give them up to the security forces, guilt by association leading to deportation is the only way.

Murder of innocent people is the height of immorality - these violent psychopaths are living and walking the streets next to you and me - get rid of them out of the country is the solution, if friends and associates are caught up in it - tough, the end justifies the means.[/quote] That to me is the fatal flaw in your argument. By being so openly anti-muslim you will alienate the muslim community and encourage radicalisation. You will also drive it more underground and make it more difficult for intelligence agents to infiltrate and this will lead to more acts of terrorism. Remember not all muslim terrorists are immigrants or of middle-eastern origin. There have been some of british origin that were converts to islam and have attempted to blow up planes and other acts of terrorism.

It is my life experience that people tend to co-operate better with people they trust than as a result of threats. That's just one of the reasons I think your plan is not going to work.

The end does not always justify the means. Complex problems do not always have a simplistic solution - only in very very rare cases. Your plan would so radically change the character of this country that it would no longer be the country we know and love. Your plan would be doing Isis' work for it.

Link to comment
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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...