Paris attacks (18 Viewers)

[Maddy]

How is that any different than Islamic people committing terrorist attacks against nations they see as occupiers?

Islamic people as in European Muslims occupying areas of Syria and Iraq to create an Islamic State. Talk about imperialism in the Middle East? Take a close look at ISIS.

ISIS' attacks has very little to do with 'Western occupation'.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Post Ironic]

Islamic people as in European Muslims occupying areas of Syria and Iraq to create an Islamic State. Talk about imperialism in the Middle East? Take a close look at ISIS.

ISIS' attacks has very little to do with 'Western occupation'.

Oh c'mon. The entire underlying situation has been bred of discontent with what Western nations have been doing in the middle east for the last 100 years. You can ignore it all you want, and we can talk about Islam's shared responsibility for the current situation, but suggesting the hatred towards the west, and acts of terrorism against the West, are anything but a byproduct of decades of western occupation, oppression, and atrocities in various parts of the Middle East is very silly.

It takes decades for the kind of wounds inflicted to heal and for people to get over the disarray created by Western meddling in colonial territories. We may live in a "post-colonial" world, but the negative effects and legacy of colonialism are going to create problems for decades, if not centuries.

 

[Seven]

Oh c'mon. The entire underlying situation has been bred of discontent with what Western nations have been doing in the middle east for the last 100 years. You can ignore it all you want, and we can talk about Islam's shared responsibility for the current situation, but suggesting the hatred towards the west, and acts of terrorism against the West, are anything but a byproduct of decades of western occupation, oppression, and atrocities in various parts of the Middle East is very silly.

It takes decades for the kind of wounds inflicted to heal and for people to get over the disarray created by Western meddling in colonial territories. We may live in a "post-colonial" world, but the negative effects and legacy of colonialism are going to create problems for decades, if not centuries.

You know.. I disagree.

We see individuals who become terrorists because they feel like they have little going for them in their lives. Bilal Hadfi was 20. Even as late as 2014 his main hobby was football. This isn't some deeprooted frustration over a colonial past. This is as least as much about facebook as it is about the last 500 years. We can all bitch and moan about the responsibility of the West or the East or whatever.. But in the end these acts are committed by individiuals. And most of the time because they feel they have little going for them.

 

[IrishZebra]

Let's not even talk about history and moral obligations. The USA and all European states are member states to the Refugee Convention. It's as easy as that really.

The post wasn't made in that vein it was yet another 'the west are responsible' post it wasn't a legalistic reminder of the obligations of international human rights law.

Your own citizens committed "terrorist" attacks for years, against the British occupiers, and at times in the name of religion Catholic vs Protestant...

How is that any different than Islamic people committing terrorist attacks against nations they see as occupiers?

In order to explain the difference I need to know if you are referring to 1969-1998 or 1919-1921. If the former, PIRA was comprised mostly of british citizens and if you want to really get in to it, represents a situation where Terrorism was successfully used to defeat terrorism.

If you're referring to the later, it would be disingenuous to paint that as terrorism.


If you're referring to the roughly 4 centuries previous then acts under that would fall under the 'War of National Liberation' nomenclature and not 'Terrorism'.



I mean the simplest answer is that literal occupation and occupation through friendly regime or economic subjugation are not the same thing.

 

[Seven]

The post wasn't made in that vein it was yet another 'the west are responsible' post it wasn't a legalistic reminder of the obligations of international human rights law.

I know, but it was completely besides the point. Law derives from moral principles. Apparently we all agreed on the Refugee Convention. So you do have the obligation to offer refuge, whether or not your country might be 'responsible'.

And as for looking for culprits, we know way too little about international politics. It is an incredibly complex topic, with many individual actors who have their own agenda. I'm not sure Gavrilo Princip wanted WWI. And who knows what he would have thought about the Treaty of Versailles. Nevermind WWII and the Nuremberg trials.

 

[Post Ironic]

You know.. I disagree.

We see individuals who become terrorists because they feel like they have little going for them in their lives. Bilal Hadfi was 20. Even as late as 2014 his main hobby was football. This isn't some deeprooted frustration over a colonial past. This is as least as much about facebook as it is about the last 500 years. We can all bitch and moan about the responsibility of the West or the East or whatever.. But in the end these acts are committed by individiuals. And most of the time because they feel they have little going for them.

The problem is that they have little going for them often because of the lack of opportunities present thanks to the mess made over the last 100+ years. I grew just at the edge of a First Nations community here in Canada. Many of the kids I went to public school with were First Nations kids, and regardless of the fact those communities are allowed semi-autonomy, very little in the way of taxation, free Health care, free university, and great work place incentives now, that's not enough for these communities to overcome the disenfranchisement and crushing circumstance of both recent past. I don't know you well enough to know your circumstance, and what you overcame, but these kids coming out of war torn, oppressed regions, that grow up in a climate of watching their parents and community helpless against the onslaught, well that's traumatizing. In some cases it leads to alcoholism, drug abuse, crime... In other cases it leads to things like murder and terrorism in specific parts of the world.

Just because there are cases of people overcoming such circumstance and environment in upbringing doesn't mean every child is strong enough to overcome that growing up. And you know that. I've seen the devastating effects firsthand of disenfranchisement, loss of land, abuse in residential schools, and subsequent drug and alcohol abuse. It's fucking tragic, and worse is that the legacy lingers through several generations. So it's bullshit to say that it has nothing to do with the circumstance and environment these kids are raised in where they feel completely helpless in the face of such shit, and now when they watch their parents unable to cope with their own childhood tragedies and abuses.

It's not everything, but it pretty obviously is part of it, hence the anger and hatred towards western nations that is, in part, justified.

 

[IrishZebra]

I know, but it was completely besides the point. Law derives from moral principles. Apparently we all agreed on the Refugee Convention. So you do have the obligation to offer refuge, whether or not your country might be 'responsible'.

And as for looking for culprits, we know way too little about international politics. It is an incredibly complex topic, with many individual actors who have their own agenda. I'm not sure Gavrilo Princip wanted WWI. And who knows what he would have thought about the Treaty of Versailles. Nevermind WWII and the Nuremberg trials.

Ireland and the UK can shirk any real contribution by virtue of the Dublin convention which means you don't have to consider an asylum seeker outside of their first safe country, as far as I'm aware.



Then people need to stop propagating the 'West = Devil' myth in this thread.

 

[Post Ironic]

The post wasn't made in that vein it was yet another 'the west are responsible' post it wasn't a legalistic reminder of the obligations of international human rights law.





In order to explain the difference I need to know if you are referring to 1969-1998 or 1919-1921. If the former, PIRA was comprised mostly of british citizens and if you want to really get in to it, represents a situation where Terrorism was successfully used to defeat terrorism.

If you're referring to the later, it would be disingenuous to paint that as terrorism.


If you're referring to the roughly 4 centuries previous then acts under that would fall under the 'War of National Liberation' nomenclature and not 'Terrorism'.



I mean the simplest answer is that literal occupation and occupation through friendly regime or economic subjugation are not the same thing.

So Iraq and Afghanistan weren't literally occupied with what amounts to puppet governments installed? Right. You have to be kidding here.

 

[IrishZebra]

So Iraq and Afghanistan weren't literally occupied with what amounts to puppet governments installed? Right. You have to be kidding here.

I didn't say that, I'm asking you to clarify which of the several dozen Ireland conflicts you are referring to, and then I will be able to explain the difference between it and current Islamic terrorism, if such difference exists.

 

[Seven]

The problem is that they have little going for them often because of the lack of opportunities present thanks to the mess made over the last 100+ years. I grew just at the edge of a First Nations community here in Canada. Many of the kids I went to public school with were First Nations kids, and regardless of the fact those communities are allowed semi-autonomy, very little in the way of taxation, free Health care, free university, and great work place incentives now, that's not enough for these communities to overcome the disenfranchisement and crushing circumstance of both recent past. I don't know you well enough to know your circumstance, and what you overcame, but these kids coming out of war torn, oppressed regions, that grow up in a climate of watching their parents and community helpless against the onslaught, well that's traumatizing. In some cases it leads to alcoholism, drug abuse, crime... In other cases it leads to things like murder and terrorism in specific parts of the world.

Just because there are cases of people overcoming such circumstance and environment in upbringing doesn't mean every child is strong enough to overcome that growing up. And you know that. I've seen the devastating effects firsthand of disenfranchisement, loss of land, abuse in residential schools, and subsequent drug and alcohol abuse. It's fucking tragic, and worse is that the legacy lingers through several generations. So it's bullshit to say that it has nothing to do with the circumstance and environment these kids are raised in where they feel completely helpless in the face of such shit, and now when they watch their parents unable to cope with their own childhood tragedies and abuses.

It's not everything, but it pretty obviously is part of it, hence the anger and hatred towards western nations that is, in part, justified.

It's part of it, but my point is that a solution would be to try and fix their conditions right now, rather than focussing on who may or may not be to blame. If it would be at all possible to find a culprit anyway.

Ireland and the UK can shirk any real contribution by virtue of the Dublin convention which means you don't have to consider an asylum seeker outside of their first safe country, as far as I'm aware.

I am very well aware of the Dublin convention (regulation by now really) as I do sometimes help refugees during their asylum procedures. You and I both know it's a disgrace and it places an unfair burden on Spain, Italy and Greece, while allowing far richer and probably more competent countries to escape.

 

[Post Ironic]

I didn't say that, I'm asking you to clarify which of the several dozen Ireland conflicts you are referring to, and then I will be able to explain the difference between it.

What you don't seem to get is that if Ireland had failed to gain liberation they would have been viewed as terrorists permanently, it wouldn't be called a liberation.

The same deal in the Middle East. If these "terrorists" were to drive Foreign nations out and take power it will be seen as a war of liberation, a revolution. Much akin to past revolutions where any means necessary were used to win.

Of course there are contextual differences, but it all boils to down to the fact that many people think they have been occupied and believe strongly in driving out the occupiers. They view this as a war, regardless of what you think, judging them from a safe distance.

- - - Updated - - -

It's part of it, but my point is that a solution would be to try and fix their conditions right now, rather than focussing on who may or may not be to blame. If it would be at all possible to find a culprit anyway.



I am very well aware of the Dublin convention (regulation by now really) as I do sometimes help refugees during their asylum procedures. You and I both know it's a disgrace and it places an unfair burden on Spain, Italy and Greece, while allowing far richer and probably more competent countries to escape.

I 100% agree with you and others here Seven. My point is that it is bloody difficult to fix these things due to perceived victim status, justified or not, partially self-inflicted or not. These things are exceptionally difficult for people who live through them to get over and move on from, and the negatively effects the next generation and so on and so forth. So it's not quite so simple as throwing a bandaid on it and hoping the body heals its festering wound below.

 

[IrishZebra]

It's part of it, but my point is that a solution would be to try and fix their conditions right now, rather than focussing on who may or may not be to blame. If it would be at all possible to find a culprit anyway.



I am very well aware of the Dublin convention (regulation by now really) as I do sometimes help refugees during their asylum procedures. You and I both know it's a disgrace and it places an unfair burden on Spain, Italy and Greece, while allowing far richer and probably more competent countries to escape.

I personally think that the Dublin convention/regulation serves the national interest of my country in a horrible way that's probably going to lead to others suffering. It's a cops as criminals type of thing for me.

What you don't seem to get is that if Ireland had failed to gain liberation they would have been viewed as terrorists permanently, it wouldn't be called a liberation.

The same deal in the Middle East. If these "terrorists" were to drive Foreign nations out and take power it will be seen as a war of liberation, a revolution. Much akin to past revolutions where any means necessary were used to win.

Of course there are contextual differences, but it all boils to down to the fact that many people think they have been occupied and believe strongly in driving out the occupiers. They view this as a war, regardless of what you think, judging them from a safe distance.

I'm not saying they don't have a right to drive out any actual occupiers. In fact, as mentioned earlier I didn't think the Iraqi insurgency was a wholly terrorist force.

Parisians or Brummies in a pub are not occupiers, and aren't legitimate targets though, that's my entire point.

 

[Enron]

So how many of these guys turned out to be refugees?

 

[swag]

How can states say no?

Because they voted on not having Sharia law.

Way to go Cam.
I swear the USA is the most hypocritical piece of shit nation in the world, all the principles your exceptionalism is built on have long been abandoned, with marching pace your country is becoming the miserable drunk in the back if the bar shouting " I couldve been an astronat" while drinking up his child allowance. Fuj. Measured on responsibility the US should be taking in more of these poor souls than the rest of the world combined.

Actually all the Syrian refugees should be adopted by Dick Cheney.

they will destroy ISIS

Anally?

Actually, if you're gonna condemn zealots to an eternity of hell, gang raping the men would be a good start.

 

[Enron]

How can states say no?

They can, but it doesn't it mean anything. I'm pretty sure it's unconstitutional to say no to refugees. So there will probably be some sweet court battles.

EDIT: Looks like Ted Cruz is bringing a bill to ban them. First thing he's done since he's been a senator.

 

[Post Ironic]

I personally think that the Dublin convention/regulation serves the national interest of my country in a horrible way that's probably going to lead to others suffering. It's a cops as criminals type of thing for me.




I'm not saying they don't have a right to drive out any actual occupiers. In fact, as mentioned earlier I didn't think the Iraqi insurgency was a wholly terrorist force.

Parisians or Brummies in a pub are not occupiers, and aren't legitimate targets though, that's my entire point.

Was the IRA justified in attacking Pubs, hotels and train stations in London in the 70s with bombs?

 

[Enron]

Looks like Charlie Sheen got the HIV... another victory for ISIS.

 

[Seven]

Looks like Charlie Sheen got the HIV... another victory for ISIS.

I guess the timing is right, because in his downwards trajectory of sexual depravity he should be barebacking pretty much about now.

 

[Enron]

Actually all the Syrian refugees should be adopted by Dick Cheney.

Let's start a White House petition. Called it Dick's Kids!

 

[IrishZebra]

Was the IRA justified in attacking Pubs, hotels and train stations in London in the 70s with bombs?

Dude the last sentence of the post you quoted...

FYI a Brummie is somebody that lives in Birmingham