French Terrorist Attacks

[periere]

Meanwhile 122 Palestinians killed by the rogue State of Israel in the illegally occupied territory in the last 6 weeks.

Do you mind? 

2 Palestinians were involved in the bombing in Beirut. We all know about the bosnians chanting during the moments silence for Paris in the Aviva.

"The Brothers" need to understand that Europe is not the sympathetic audience it once was.

You are expressing the sentiments of a xenophobe.
Yes we all might know that 2 or 3 fans out of the thousands in the Bosnian end shouted out some slogans during the minutes' silence  and it was Irish fans who foolishly started  the loud chorus of booing in reaction.

No, I am expressing the thoughts of someone who has genuine concerns about my security. This is not an abstract internet debate anymore. Those "few" fans reflect a larger sentiment. To deny this is naïve and dangerous. Nobody is saying that ALL muslims support the extremists but there is , as Brendan O'Connor said, a "sneaking regard" among too many. As Irish people we should know this better than anyone. With the IRA/UVF it was always more than the actions of just a few. The general society itself was complicit despite the fact that , if challenged, everyone would tow the line with "I wish we  could all get along" platitudes.

[give her dixie]

Meanwhile 122 Palestinians killed by the rogue State of Israel in the illegally occupied territory in the last 6 weeks.

Do you mind? 

2 Palestinians were involved in the bombing in Beirut. We all know about the bosnians chanting during the moments silence for Paris in the Aviva.

"The Brothers" need to understand that Europe is not the sympathetic audience it once was.

To respond with that reply shows something about you as a newbie poster.

Yes 2 Palestinians were allegedly involved in the suicide bombings,
but many Palestinians were also killed and injured in the attacks.

As someone who follows the situation in Palestine closely, let me reassure you that Palestinians have no appetite
for ISIS and what they stand for. Your failure to reply to what was said and your reply speaks volumes about you as a
newbie poster.

[Main Street]

Meanwhile 122 Palestinians killed by the rogue State of Israel in the illegally occupied territory in the last 6 weeks.

Do you mind? 

2 Palestinians were involved in the bombing in Beirut. We all know about the bosnians chanting during the moments silence for Paris in the Aviva.

"The Brothers" need to understand that Europe is not the sympathetic audience it once was.

You are expressing the sentiments of a xenophobe.
Yes we all might know that 2 or 3 fans out of the thousands in the Bosnian end shouted out some slogans during the minutes' silence  and it was Irish fans who foolishly started  the loud chorus of booing in reaction.

No, I am expressing the thoughts of someone who has genuine concerns about my security. This is not an abstract internet debate anymore. Those "few" fans reflect a larger sentiment. To deny this is naïve and dangerous.Nobody is saying that ALL muslims support the extremists but there is , as Brendan O'Connor said, a "sneaking regard" among too many. As Irish people we should know this better than anyone. With the IRA/UVF it was always more than the actions of just a few. The general society itself was complicit despite the fact that , if challenged, everyone would tow the line with "I wish we  could all get along" platitudes.

Quite frankly, that is xenophobic and bigoted bullsh*t with pathetic excuses to support your opinions. You would be more amongst your kind with an Irish fascist discussion board and /or British national front, though perhaps there are a few idiots here who would agree with that poppycock.

[periere]

I'm not interested in childish name calling. Grow up.

[periere]

My ideas on the root cause differ from yours though. The socio-economic/Oil  argument is not tackling the root cause imo.

Throw in population growth and climate change driving desertification.

Islam works fine in Malaysia and elsewhere. It is not the root cause.

Yes but Malaysia is less theocratic. That's the point. Seperation of church and state is crucial imo. No point in sniggering and guffawing at bible thumpers in the US while tip-toeing around the elephant in the room in the ME.

[seafoid]

My ideas on the root cause differ from yours though. The socio-economic/Oil  argument is not tackling the root cause imo.

Throw in population growth and climate change driving desertification.

Islam works fine in Malaysia and elsewhere. It is not the root cause.

Yes but Malaysia is less theocratic. That's the point. Seperation of church and state is crucial imo. No point in sniggering and guffawing at bible thumpers in the US while tip-toeing around the elephant in the room in the ME.

Egypt is  a secular state. So is Syria. I don't think there is any Muslim majority state with a religious leadership, actually. So separation of church and state is a non sequitur.

That  secular Arab leadership model is broken as well. Too much corruption and ineptitude.

[periere]

Egypt is presently only a  "secular" state because the military launched a coup. The result of the democratic presidential election was a victory for the Muslim brotherhood whose aim is to run the country along Islamic principles so clearly the will of the majority is for an Islamic state...no ?

I agree the secular arab model is broken as well . I don't think they want secular democracy either though.

as for the "no muslim majority with a religious leadership" that is a non sequitor when discussing the Islamization of the state. Saudi, Quatar are absolute Monarchies so you can argue that they are not "religious leaders". That is sophistry. The Quaran is, effectively, their constitution.

[seafoid]

Egypt is presently only a  "secular" state because the military launched a coup. The result of the democratic presidential election was a victory for the Muslim brotherhood whose aim is to run the country along Islamic principles so clearly the will of the majority is for an Islamic state...no ?

I agree the secular arab model is broken as well . I don't think they want secular democracy either though.

as for the "no muslim majority with a religious leadership" that is a non sequitor when discussing the Islamization of the state. Saudi, Quatar are absolute Monarchies so you can argue that they are not "religious leaders". That is sophistry. The Quaran is, effectively, their constitution.

Actually one of the big problems in Modern Islam is the absence of a Caliph responsible for religious definitions and laws.

The Ottoman Emperor was the last of the breed and the institution was abandoned in 1918. Now you have chaos. The Mufti of al Azhar used to be very respected across the Muslim world but the Mubarak and Sadat regimes developed too much influence and then other places started to do their own thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University

The secular Arab dictator model is banjaxed as is the Royal Arab dictator model.

And the Deep State of Egypt has been secular since the 1950s. That is why they dumped Morsi. 
Also an excuse for a bit of umm Kulthum who was also secular in the 50s. She didn't wear the hijab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg2Mz_X7Bd8

Most armies in the Arab world are secular AFAIK.

[moysider]

Egypt is presently only a  "secular" state because the military launched a coup. The result of the democratic presidential election was a victory for the Muslim brotherhood whose aim is to run the country along Islamic principles so clearly the will of the majority is for an Islamic state...no ?

I agree the secular arab model is broken as well . I don't think they want secular democracy either though.

as for the "no muslim majority with a religious leadership" that is a non sequitor when discussing the Islamization of the state. Saudi, Quatar are absolute Monarchies so you can argue that they are not "religious leaders". That is sophistry. The Quaran is, effectively, their constitution.

Actually one of the big problems in Modern Islam is the absence of a Caliph responsible for religious definitions and laws.

The Ottoman Emperor was the last of the breed and the institution was abandoned in 1918. Now you have chaos. The Mufti of al Azhar used to be very respected across the Muslim world but the Mubarak and Sadat regimes developed too much influence and then other places started to do their own thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University

The secular Arab dictator model is banjaxed as is the Royal Arab dictator model.

And the Deep State of Egypt has been secular since the 1950s. That is why they dumped Morsi. 
Also an excuse for a bit of umm Kulthum who was also secular in the 50s. She didn't wear the hijab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg2Mz_X7Bd8

Most armies in the Arab world are secular AFAIK.

Not any more. al-Baghdadi is a Caliph with a state and clearly defined dogma/ laws/whatever.
He has followers beyond the state he controls from Sweden to Indonesia that recognise him as a legit Caliph and are prepared to act on his hateful religious manifesto.

I doubt you will ever see this monstrosity agonise over global warming, population growth and desertification Seafóid.

[seafoid]

Egypt is presently only a  "secular" state because the military launched a coup. The result of the democratic presidential election was a victory for the Muslim brotherhood whose aim is to run the country along Islamic principles so clearly the will of the majority is for an Islamic state...no ?

I agree the secular arab model is broken as well . I don't think they want secular democracy either though.

as for the "no muslim majority with a religious leadership" that is a non sequitor when discussing the Islamization of the state. Saudi, Quatar are absolute Monarchies so you can argue that they are not "religious leaders". That is sophistry. The Quaran is, effectively, their constitution.

Actually one of the big problems in Modern Islam is the absence of a Caliph responsible for religious definitions and laws.

The Ottoman Emperor was the last of the breed and the institution was abandoned in 1918. Now you have chaos. The Mufti of al Azhar used to be very respected across the Muslim world but the Mubarak and Sadat regimes developed too much influence and then other places started to do their own thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University

The secular Arab dictator model is banjaxed as is the Royal Arab dictator model.

And the Deep State of Egypt has been secular since the 1950s. That is why they dumped Morsi. 
Also an excuse for a bit of umm Kulthum who was also secular in the 50s. She didn't wear the hijab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg2Mz_X7Bd8

Most armies in the Arab world are secular AFAIK.

Not any more. al-Baghdadi is a Caliph with a state and clearly defined dogma/ laws/whatever.
He has followers beyond the state he controls from Sweden to Indonesia that recognise him as a legit Caliph and are prepared to act on his hateful religious manifesto.

I doubt you will ever see this monstrosity agonise over global warming, population growth and desertification Seafóid.

He is not recognised by any Sunni leaders, Moysider, any more than the INLA represented Ireland.
ISIS is not a state either. It's a new form of warfare .

[moysider]

Egypt is presently only a  "secular" state because the military launched a coup. The result of the democratic presidential election was a victory for the Muslim brotherhood whose aim is to run the country along Islamic principles so clearly the will of the majority is for an Islamic state...no ?

I agree the secular arab model is broken as well . I don't think they want secular democracy either though.

as for the "no muslim majority with a religious leadership" that is a non sequitor when discussing the Islamization of the state. Saudi, Quatar are absolute Monarchies so you can argue that they are not "religious leaders". That is sophistry. The Quaran is, effectively, their constitution.

Actually one of the big problems in Modern Islam is the absence of a Caliph responsible for religious definitions and laws.

The Ottoman Emperor was the last of the breed and the institution was abandoned in 1918. Now you have chaos. The Mufti of al Azhar used to be very respected across the Muslim world but the Mubarak and Sadat regimes developed too much influence and then other places started to do their own thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University

The secular Arab dictator model is banjaxed as is the Royal Arab dictator model.

And the Deep State of Egypt has been secular since the 1950s. That is why they dumped Morsi. 
Also an excuse for a bit of umm Kulthum who was also secular in the 50s. She didn't wear the hijab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg2Mz_X7Bd8

Most armies in the Arab world are secular AFAIK.

Not any more. al-Baghdadi is a Caliph with a state and clearly defined dogma/ laws/whatever.
He has followers beyond the state he controls from Sweden to Indonesia that recognise him as a legit Caliph and are prepared to act on his hateful religious manifesto.

I doubt you will ever see this monstrosity agonise over global warming, population growth and desertification Seafóid.

He is not recognised by any Sunni leaders, Moysider, any more than the INLA represented Ireland.
ISIS is not a state either. It's a new form of warfare .

It is a state though. A large area that has been taken over and controlled. They're are engaging in commerce to establish their control. History is full of states that were established by marauders and killers. Then you have states that were delineated by colonial engineers.

It's not a new form of warfare either. Not even their savagery is unprecedented.

Don t agree with the comparison with INLA. That stuff was local. Isis is global.
At least you recognise this as warfare - which it is. I agree with Periere. Take out the al- Baghdadis - I'm sure the moderate Sunnis wont mind.

Periere has go a bit of grief on here about Britain building a wall, even though he was talking metaphorically. He's right imo. Britain doesn t need  to build a wall obviously. Armada, Napoleon and Hitler could not land an army.

Alright, their colonialism past has come back to bite them in the arse but we are where we are. Anybody that went off to Syria should not be brought/allowed back. Radical Islamic preachers/recruiters (well known) should be deported to Syria and let them take their chances there.

[seafoid]

Egypt is presently only a  "secular" state because the military launched a coup. The result of the democratic presidential election was a victory for the Muslim brotherhood whose aim is to run the country along Islamic principles so clearly the will of the majority is for an Islamic state...no ?

I agree the secular arab model is broken as well . I don't think they want secular democracy either though.

as for the "no muslim majority with a religious leadership" that is a non sequitor when discussing the Islamization of the state. Saudi, Quatar are absolute Monarchies so you can argue that they are not "religious leaders". That is sophistry. The Quaran is, effectively, their constitution.

Actually one of the big problems in Modern Islam is the absence of a Caliph responsible for religious definitions and laws.

The Ottoman Emperor was the last of the breed and the institution was abandoned in 1918. Now you have chaos. The Mufti of al Azhar used to be very respected across the Muslim world but the Mubarak and Sadat regimes developed too much influence and then other places started to do their own thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University

The secular Arab dictator model is banjaxed as is the Royal Arab dictator model.

And the Deep State of Egypt has been secular since the 1950s. That is why they dumped Morsi. 
Also an excuse for a bit of umm Kulthum who was also secular in the 50s. She didn't wear the hijab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg2Mz_X7Bd8

Most armies in the Arab world are secular AFAIK.

Not any more. al-Baghdadi is a Caliph with a state and clearly defined dogma/ laws/whatever.
He has followers beyond the state he controls from Sweden to Indonesia that recognise him as a legit Caliph and are prepared to act on his hateful religious manifesto.

I doubt you will ever see this monstrosity agonise over global warming, population growth and desertification Seafóid.

He is not recognised by any Sunni leaders, Moysider, any more than the INLA represented Ireland.
ISIS is not a state either. It's a new form of warfare .

It is a state though. A large area that has been taken over and controlled. They're are engaging in commerce to establish their control. History is full of states that were established by marauders and killers. Then you have states that were delineated by colonial engineers.

It's not a new form of warfare either. Not even their savagery is unprecedented.

Don t agree with the comparison with INLA. That stuff was local. Isis is global.
At least you recognise this as warfare - which it is. I agree with Periere. Take out the al- Baghdadis - I'm sure the moderate Sunnis wont mind.

Periere has go a bit of grief on here about Britain building a wall, even though he was talking metaphorically. He's right imo. Britain doesn t need  to build a wall obviously. Armada, Napoleon and Hitler could not land an army.

Alright, their colonialism past has come back to bite them in the arse but we are where we are. Anybody that went off to Syria should not be brought/allowed back. Radical Islamic preachers/recruiters (well known) should be deported to Syria and let them take their chances there.

via ft
Both Russia and Isis pursue a strategy that has become known as "hybrid warfare", using a mixture of deception, coercion, corruption, subversion, ideology and third-party provocation to weaken targets in all corners of society. "Hybrid warfare" is now official Russian doctrine. As we saw in Crimea and Ukraine, Russia turns to military action last of all, when the battle is already largely won. The details are different, but Isis mirrors this hybrid approach.

[periere]

The Hybrid warfare of the kind theorized by the Financial times is not possible without the complicity of a significant portion of the population. Russia could not achieve its aims in Crimea or Ukraine without the aid of ethnic Russians. It is not, and never has been, about "only a few".

[seafoid]

The Hybrid warfare of the kind theorized by the Financial times is not possible without the complicity of a significant portion of the population. Russia could not achieve its aims in Crimea or Ukraine without the aid of ethnic Russians. It is not, and never has been, about "only a few".

yes re crimea no re syria n iraq.. Mosul does not want isis. Ukraine was hopelessly corrupt. Putin  played it like a violin.  Only laterl will rissian crimeans realise they were shafted

[periere]

Are you sure about Mosul ? I'm sure if you ask the simple question "do you desire/accept ISIS rule" many will say no. That does not mean that a significant section of the population do not desire "Sunni" majority rule. The question is to what extent are they willing to accept/participate in any military action/atrocities to achieve this ?

All society is a spectrum. These stupid debates about "only a few" are pointless. It is where the center lies that is important,