Jihadis: Who Are Their Targets?

• What "provocation" had the murdered priest, Father Jacques Hamel, provided?
  
• An enemy willing to slaughter the most rollicking secularists and the most devout priest, both in their places of work, is an enemy with the entirety of French civilisation and culture in its sights. It is an enemy -- extremist Islam -- clearly intent not on some kind of tributary offering or suit for peace, but rather an enemy which seeks its opponent's total and utter destruction.
  
• Should this not be the moment for the entirety of one of the greatest cultures on earth to unite as one, turn on this common enemy and destroy it first, in the name of civilisation?
  

It is now 18 months since two gunmen forced their way into the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris and set about murdering the staff of that magazine. The gunmen from al-Qaeda in Yemen called for the editor -- "Charb" -- by name before murdering him and most of his colleagues. In an interview shortly before his death, taking into account the threat to his life which entailed constant security protection, Stéphane Charbonnier had said, "I prefer to die standing than live on my knees." Charb did die standing, in the office of the magazine he edited.

In the 18 months since the attack on Charlie Hebdo and the massive demonstrations in solidarity on the streets of Paris, France has suffered a terrible set of further terrorist assaults The ISIS attack (which killed 130 people) last November on the Bataclan Theatre and other sites around Paris and the attack (which killed 84 people) in Nice on July 14 are the deadliest and most prominent. But other acts of terror -- including the murder last month in their home of two members of the police, carried out by a man pledging allegiance to ISIS --have gone on and almost become normal.

Yesterday's murder of an 84-year old priest, Father Jacques Hamel, while he was saying mass is shocking even by the standards of France during this period. Two men claiming allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS) entered the church and ritually murdered the priest by slitting his throat. A second victim is currently struggling to stay alive. It is hard to see any end in this sight of this horror, but these two atrocities across an 18-month gap are worth considering alongside each other -- not least because the reaction to them in France and outside may contain the tiniest glimmer of hope in a very dark time.

One of the striking things about the outrage after the murders at Charlie Hebdo was that it very nearly united France. There were those, including people who had been the victims of Charlie Hebdo's satire in the past, who were not able to lionise them. But across mainstream society in France, there was near unanimity around the idea that the magazine and its rude, irreverent and specifically anti-clerical style of satire was uniquely French. No one seemed surprised that so many people around the world had missed the point of the magazine -- people across the Muslim world in particular. The publication was recognised as a particularly French publication which as such stood for more than itself. In the days and weeks after January 7, 2015. the sense of the Republic itself having been attacked was especially strong.

An enemy willing to slaughter the most rollicking secularists and the most devout priest, both in their places of work, is an enemy with the entirety of French civilisation and culture in its sights. Left: Father Jacques Hamel, murdered yesterday in Rouen, France by an Islamic jihadist. Right: Stéphane Charbonnier, the editor and publisher of Charlie Hebdo, who was murdered in Paris on January 7, 2015, along with many of his colleagues, by Islamic jihadists.

The attacks did of course also give rise to a flush of virtual solidarity. The "Je Suis Charlie" ('I am Charlie') tag prevailed not only in demonstrations but also across Twitter and other social media. In the 18 months since then, the hashtag became repetitively and wearily wheeled out: "Je Suis Paris", "Je Suis Bruxelles" and so on after every attack. Perhaps some people learned subsequently that solidarity on social media -- while having the advantage of making people feel slightly better -- has no effect whatsoever on diminishing or ending the terror. Meanwhile, one of the most important acts of actual solidarity was sorely missing.

The Pope's intervention into the debate after the Charlie Hebdo attack was one of the most regrettable of the whole period. Speaking to journalists on his plane in the week after the attack, Pope Francis signalled to a Vatican official beside him and said, "If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch in the nose." Pretending to throw a punch, the Pope then said: "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."
Charb and his colleagues -- living and dead -- would have expected nothing more from the Pope whose church had been such a constant target of their pens.

Nevertheless, it was a painful intervention. Not only was the representative of a religion whose founder is known for peace now talking the language of violence, but the remark suggested an irreconcilable divide between the religious and the secular in an age of Islamic violence. Where alliances should have been easy, they looked suddenly fractious and impossible.

The brutal slaughter of Father Jacques Hamel opens up this question from the other end. What "provocation" had Father Hamel provided? If any good can come from an act of such savagery. it would be in the possibility of healing such a rift. Obviously the Pope has condemned the killing of a priest of his own church. But many other anti-clerical figures in France may well pause before the enormity of what the jihadists have once again done. You do not have to be religious to experience revulsion at such an act being done to a man of God in the act of celebrating the Eucharist. The usual debates in French life over the role of the church and its role in the state may be able at least to pause during this period, raising the possibility of a more suitable and lengthy pause in hostilities.

In these two attacks, eighteen months apart -- on a magazine office in Paris and a church in Rouen -- the nature of the enemy we all face stands clearly before us. An enemy willing to slaughter the most rollicking secularists and the most devout priest, both in their places of work, is an enemy with the entirety of French civilisation and culture in its sights. It is an enemy -- extremist Islam -- clearly intent not on some kind of tributary offering or suit for peace, but rather an enemy which seeks its opponent's total and utter destruction. Should this not be the moment for the entirety of one of the greatest cultures on earth to unite as one, turn on this common enemy and destroy it first, in the name of civilisation?


https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8562/jihadis-france-rouen

Hollande is starting to look like a very weak leader. He needs to stop wringing his hands and actually do something.

ohhh you cant do that...ask veya...

Well he's doing nothing! What is France actually doing?

This is what France is doing...


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/27/major-french-media-outlets-stop-publishing-names-p/

Why don't you brave fellows (finally) just come out with how you'd handle it?

well since the left has "thrown in the towel"...after all...i did give YOU the exact same challenge...which you ignored/side stepped....

Lord Foul wrote:well since the left has "thrown in the towel"...after all...i did give YOU the exact same challenge...which you ignored/side stepped....

I told you how I'd fight terrorism, which is to do what is currently being done everyday to prevent the majority of attacks.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:well since the left has "thrown in the towel"...after all...i did give YOU the exact same challenge...which you ignored/side stepped....

I told you how I'd fight terrorism, which is to do what is currently being done everyday to prevent the majority of attacks.

Which will at best only contain part of the problem, not solve the problem.

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:well since the left has "thrown in the towel"...after all...i did give YOU the exact same challenge...which you ignored/side stepped....

I told you how I'd fight terrorism, which is to do what is currently being done everyday to prevent the majority of attacks.

Which will at best only contain part of the problem, not solve the problem.

You can't solve terrorism any more than you can solve murder or infidelity. It's a feature, not a bug.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which will at best only contain part of the problem, not solve the problem.

You can't solve terrorism any more than you can solve murder or infidelity. It's a feature, not a bug.

Well that shows you did not read my previous post on absolute war, which is what we are facing now with this sort of terrorism.
So to say we cannot solve it is false. Its more a case of what are we prepared to do to stop it

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which will at best only contain part of the problem, not solve the problem.

You can't solve terrorism any more than you can solve murder or infidelity. It's a feature, not a bug.

Well that shows you did not read my previous post on absolute war, which is what we are facing now with this sort of terrorism.
So to say we cannot solve it is false. Its more a case of what are we prepared to do to stop it

Do you really find absolute war a tolerable option?

"We're so tired of people getting killed that we're going to get millions of people killed!!!"

Ben Reilly wrote:Why don't you brave fellows (finally) just come out with how you'd handle it?

Why don't you lefties start to admit the problems and the policy failures first instead of denying it all and trying to cover it up...!?

Ben Reilly wrote:"We're so tired of people getting killed that we're going to get millions of people killed!!!"

If that is what it takes
Again what did it take in WW2?

My earlier post to you

You need to look back when we faced such extremism before on a war scale


And yet extremism is growing whether we are involved in conflicts in the Middle east or not, because the fact is the naratives we use, play into the hands of the Islamists, of which Victor is right in pointing out. Where even worse our inaction during the Syrian civil war led to half a million dead, near 2 million wounded and 9 million displaced and the attacks are increasing, not diminishing.
People seem to forget where we faced such a threadt but on a grander scale where absolute war was fought.

This was against both the Germans and Japanese in WW2. In each case the allies increased the extreme methods they used to defeat both of them. The carpet bombings of German and Japanese cities did not have the tactical psychological effect during the conflict, but starved the enemy of their air forces over the battlesifleds, as they were constantly withdrawn to defend their homelands. The Japanese used also countless suicidal attacks and the war in the East with Russia and Germany, was Absolute war on a genocidal level by both sides. The fact is after dropping both Atom bombs which people wrongly claim were not needed based on the Japanese would son surrendered, neglects the fact that the psychological effect of the total devestation to Japan and also Germany being totally defeated and their industries obliterated. Left them so bowed into submission, we have never seen a rise again as a threat from both nations, so total was their defeat in the second world war. This is why Victor has a point. In order defeat this serious threat. We have to place our morals to one side in order to defeat an enemy that has no care for the sanctity of life. It means we then also to have to go to extremes and totally annihilate the threat. So much so that nothing will arise from the ashes of their total defeat.

That is NONSENSE, Didge. You let me know when ISIS conquers Poland and maybe I'll change my mind, but until then ...

Ben Reilly wrote:That is NONSENSE, Didge. You let me know when ISIS conquers Poland and maybe I'll change my mind, but until then ...

Well they have conquered plenty of Iraq and Syria and how many more hundreds of thousands arew going to have to die, before you act?
Each and everyday you hope the problem goes away, the death toll vastly increases

I will ask you a very important question Ben hypothetically.

What would you prefer and try to use empathtic intelligence here, which many of us will fail or struggle to do.

Imagine you are under control by ISIS and your younger siblings are constantly being raped by ISIS troops, as well as your mother and you are beaten daily as well as other unimaginable horrors.

Would you prefer to continue in this living hell or have wish the allies took out the whole area, even if it took all the innocent lives, along with all the jihadi's including your family, so you could escape this living hell?

I'll take your second option but remember, you have always had a huge problem with hypothetical questions Didge

It's a no-brainer; option two

so..what would you do...i find your "you will never defeat terrorism" somewhat defeatist

I dont suppose you will ever be able to stop the odd nutter...but this is NOT what islamic terrorism is about...
it is a different fish altogether ....coordinated (and often trained) nutters....

remember when i said anyone returning from going all jihad abroad should be automatically jailed on return...

that border controls should be upgraded to facilitate this

you kicked off....

remember when i said we NEED the introduction of secure biometric ID cards...containing encoded DNA data iris scan and fingerprints

there were ructions

NO-one should be allowed into the country that cant 100% be identified and their entire history cross checked

we should...without exception be able to deport, without any ifs or buts anyone found in any way no matter how slight to be involved in terroristic activities of any kind

and if they are "home grown" be able to jail them for ever in some forgotten forsaken jail on some isolated benighted and lonely island, guarded by packs of hungry rottweillers and grumpy, angry marines


See even when i suggest you remove all posibility of islamic rites on burial you whinge...and go off into some wierd duality of yes they are no they are not "real" Muslims

eddie wrote:I'll take your second option but remember, you have always had a huge problem with hypothetical questions Didge

It's a no-brainer; option two

I have never had a problem with reasoned hypothetical questions and have presented countless, guess you were not listening

Okay so that is one for option 2

Any others

Didge wrote:I will ask you a very important question Ben hypothetically.

What would you prefer and try to use empathtic intelligence here, which many of us will fail or struggle to do.

Imagine you are under control by ISIS and your younger siblings are constantly being raped by ISIS troops, as well as your mother and you are beaten daily as well as other unimaginable horrors.

Would you prefer to continue in this living hell or have wish the allies took out the whole area, even if it took all the innocent lives, along with all the jihadi's including your family, so you could escape this living hell?

I would rather my family not die, even if they had to go through something horrible. Surviving means a chance at happiness.

Lord Foul wrote:so..what would you do...i find your "you will never defeat terrorism" somewhat defeatist

I dont suppose you will ever be able to stop the odd nutter...but this is NOT what islamic terrorism is about...
it is a different fish altogether ....coordinated (and often trained)  nutters....

remember when i said anyone returning from going all jihad abroad should be automatically jailed on return...

that border controls should be upgraded to facilitate this

you kicked off....

remember when i said we NEED the introduction of secure biometric ID cards...containing encoded DNA data iris scan and fingerprints

there were ructions

NO-one should be allowed into the country that cant 100% be identified and their entire history cross checked

we should...without exception be able to deport, without any ifs or buts anyone found in any way no matter how slight to be involved in terroristic activities of any kind

and if they are "home grown" be able to jail them for ever in some forgotten forsaken jail on some isolated benighted and lonely island, guarded by packs of hungry rottweillers and grumpy, angry marines


See even when i suggest you remove all posibility of islamic rites on burial you whinge...and go off into some wierd duality of yes they are no they are not "real" Muslims

Hey, maybe while we're at that, we could invent a machine that makes terrorists glow red! I bet just a few sprinkles of fairy dust, click your heels a few times and wish upon a star, and Bob's your uncle ...

And no, Islamic terrorism isn't unique at all -- the world is riddled with extremist movements, religious or otherwise. They can't be eradicated because anyone can join up and they can look like anything.

The world has violent people in it, and to stop that, we'd have to stop being what we currently define as "human."

Or, we could accept that this is part of human nature and do our best to contain it. Actually, there is one thing we've stumbled across that makes populations much more peaceful -- legal abortion!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:I will ask you a very important question Ben hypothetically.

What would you prefer and try to use empathtic intelligence here, which many of us will fail or struggle to do.

Imagine you are under control by ISIS and your younger siblings are constantly being raped by ISIS troops, as well as your mother and you are beaten daily as well as other unimaginable horrors.

Would you prefer to continue in this living hell or have wish the allies took out the whole area, even if it took all the innocent lives, along with all the jihadi's including your family, so you could escape this living hell?

I would rather my family not die, even if they had to go through something horrible. Surviving means a chance at happiness.

Bit of history for you.

Should the Allies have heeded calls to bomb Auschwitz when they learnt the full horror of the Nazi Holocaust?
It is one of the enduring controversies of World War II.
By the summer of 1944, detailed information about the true nature of the death camps had reached the West, but it was not until months later that Auschwitz was finally liberated by the advancing Red Army.
During that time, thousands more had perished in the gas chambers.

Whether a precision strike was militarily possible or would have been effective in halting the killings is still hotly contested.

But many - including survivors of the camp - say the Allies should have acted whatever the mission's chances of success.

The debate also leads to wider questions of why more was not done around the world to save the Jews from Nazi persecution.

Information about Auschwitz reached new levels of detail following the escapes of two prisoners in April 1944, and two more a month later.

Their combined testimonies formed the basis of documents known as the Auschwitz Protocols.

By June 1944, Jewish groups were imploring both US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill to bomb the rail lines or the gas chambers in order to put a stop to the killing.

But arguments rumbled on throughout the summer.

Military commanders said a precision strike had almost no chance of success. However, no thorough study of the issue was made.

Proposals to drop weapons into the camp to enable a rebellion were briefly considered but abandoned.

Recently published reconnaissance images show the British photographed the camp from the air in August that year - suggesting that by 1944 the RAF had the capability to reach Auschwitz with bombers.

However, with Allied troops moving through Normandy after D-Day and the Red Army at the gates of Warsaw in 1944, some believed the best way to destroy the death camps was to use all military resources to crush the enemy.



Double standards?

Laurence Rees - writer and producer of the BBC's Auschwitz series - says the lack of proper consideration given to bombing the camp and a "dismissive tone" in some of the documents of the time give the sense that "no-one was bothered enough to make bombing Auschwitz a priority".

"If they were exterminating British prisoners of war do we seriously think that we wouldn't have done all we could to stop it?" he asks.

But Rees also says that dwelling on the bombing of Auschwitz, where the killings stopped in November 1944, is a distraction from the "far more important question" of why the Allies failed to do more to save the Jews from Nazi persecution.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) - named after a death camp survivor who became a Nazi-hunter - says the Allies failed to take practical steps that could have helped many of Hitler's victims.

Lessons of the past

The SWC says the UK and the US could have relaxed stringent immigration policies to allow refugees a safe haven, and sent frequent and unequivocal warnings to Germany that its leaders would be held accountable.

But while no-one blames anyone other than the Nazis for the horrors of the Holocaust, the debate over what could or should have been done seems certain to continue.

In the words of Auschwitz survivor Kitty Hart-Moxon: "Being the worst example, the Holocaust is central to understanding the causes of the genocides that have occurred in many parts of the world since the end of the World War II."

Now the point is Ben as seen people living a nightmare, and would have taken such a call to destroy at least the faciliies if not more, if you actually read accounts from survivors. The fact is we have precision bombing today, so the chances of staying alive would be greater but as seen people would choose deathg over that living hell.
The point is daily genocide is happenning in Syria and Iraq with ISIS and some of the worst human rights abuses are going on.
Do you want to make the same mistake again and repeat history where again we can do something to stop this madness?

typical lefty gibberings...

so you fail to see that there ARE things, perfectly reasonable things we can do to reduce, even if not eliminate the problem...and yet you refuse to discuss/argue them

I would go so far as making sure that vehicle ownership/use was subject to the SAME strict rules as gun ownwrship (after all.....it is open for anyone to get a shotgun or even a rifle over here ...if they have a clean record, no mental issues and good reason...and are of "temperate" nature) THEN make it so that the vehicle will ONLY work in conjunction with your ID card and a "pin number/fingerprint

that would largely prevent a vehicular attack as we have seen in france

(it would also have the vast benefit of a:- virtually stopping car theft and
b:- reducing the toll of road casualties)

you said you have no problem folks protecting them selves

so we should be allowed to carry hand guns ?? concealed carry?
or maybe something a bit less lethat...stasers/tasers and mace/pepper sprays
firearms modified to shoot mace pellets?
(again under strict licencing) but non the less permitted??

perhaps we should be encouraging more (controlled and trained) aggression in our youngsters...teach them how to focus and use it?

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:I will ask you a very important question Ben hypothetically.

What would you prefer and try to use empathtic intelligence here, which many of us will fail or struggle to do.

Imagine you are under control by ISIS and your younger siblings are constantly being raped by ISIS troops, as well as your mother and you are beaten daily as well as other unimaginable horrors.

Would you prefer to continue in this living hell or have wish the allies took out the whole area, even if it took all the innocent lives, along with all the jihadi's including your family, so you could escape this living hell?

I would rather my family not die, even if they had to go through something horrible. Surviving means a chance at happiness.

Bit of history for you.

Should the Allies have heeded calls to bomb Auschwitz when they learnt the full horror of the Nazi Holocaust?
It is one of the enduring controversies of World War II.
By the summer of 1944, detailed information about the true nature of the death camps had reached the West, but it was not until months later that Auschwitz was finally liberated by the advancing Red Army.
During that time, thousands more had perished in the gas chambers.

Whether a precision strike was militarily possible or would have been effective in halting the killings is still hotly contested.

But many - including survivors of the camp - say the Allies should have acted whatever the mission's chances of success.

The debate also leads to wider questions of why more was not done around the world to save the Jews from Nazi persecution.

Information about Auschwitz reached new levels of detail following the escapes of two prisoners in April 1944, and two more a month later.

Their combined testimonies formed the basis of documents known as the Auschwitz Protocols.

By June 1944, Jewish groups were imploring both US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill to bomb the rail lines or the gas chambers in order to put a stop to the killing.

But arguments rumbled on throughout the summer.

Military commanders said a precision strike had almost no chance of success. However, no thorough study of the issue was made.

Proposals to drop weapons into the camp to enable a rebellion were briefly considered but abandoned.

Recently published reconnaissance images show the British photographed the camp from the air in August that year - suggesting that by 1944 the RAF had the capability to reach Auschwitz with bombers.

However, with Allied troops moving through Normandy after D-Day and the Red Army at the gates of Warsaw in 1944, some believed the best way to destroy the death camps was to use all military resources to crush the enemy.



Double standards?

Laurence Rees - writer and producer of the BBC's Auschwitz series - says the lack of proper consideration given to bombing the camp and a "dismissive tone" in some of the documents of the time give the sense that "no-one was bothered enough to make bombing Auschwitz a priority".

"If they were exterminating British prisoners of war do we seriously think that we wouldn't have done all we could to stop it?" he asks.

But Rees also says that dwelling on the bombing of Auschwitz, where the killings stopped in November 1944, is a distraction from the "far more important question" of why the Allies failed to do more to save the Jews from Nazi persecution.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) - named after a death camp survivor who became a Nazi-hunter - says the Allies failed to take practical steps that could have helped many of Hitler's victims.

Lessons of the past

The SWC says the UK and the US could have relaxed stringent immigration policies to allow refugees a safe haven, and sent frequent and unequivocal warnings to Germany that its leaders would be held accountable.

But while no-one blames anyone other than the Nazis for the horrors of the Holocaust, the debate over what could or should have been done seems certain to continue.

In the words of Auschwitz survivor Kitty Hart-Moxon: "Being the worst example, the Holocaust is central to understanding the causes of the genocides that have occurred in many parts of the world since the end of the World War II."

Now the point is Ben as seen people living a nightmare, and would have taken such a call to destroy at least the faciliies if not more, if you actually read accounts from survivors. The fact is we have precision bombing today, so the chances of staying alive would be greater but as seen people would choose deathg over that living hell.
The point is daily genocide is happenning in Syria and Iraq with ISIS and some of the worst human rights abuses are going on.
Do you want to make the same mistake again and repeat history where again we can do something to stop this madness?

The point is, would the Auschwitz survivors rather be dead?

Lord Foul wrote:typical lefty gibberings...

so you fail to see that there ARE things, perfectly reasonable things we can do to reduce, even if not eliminate the problem...and yet you refuse to discuss/argue them

I would go so far as making sure that vehicle ownership/use was subject to the SAME strict rules as gun ownwrship (after all.....it is open for anyone to get a shotgun or even a rifle over here ...if they have a clean record, no mental issues and good reason...and are of "temperate" nature) THEN make it so that the vehicle will ONLY work in conjunction with your ID card and a "pin number/fingerprint

that would largely prevent a vehicular attack as we have seen in france

(it would also have the vast benefit of a:- virtually stopping car theft and
b:- reducing the toll of road casualties)

you said you have no problem folks protecting them selves

so we should be allowed to carry hand guns ?? concealed carry?
or maybe something a bit less lethat...stasers/tasers and mace/pepper sprays
firearms modified to shoot mace pellets?
(again under strict licencing) but non the less permitted??

perhaps we should be encouraging more (controlled and trained) aggression in our youngsters...teach them how to focus and use it?

I believe in policies that suit the context. In France, Germany? Hell yes, let them carry at least non-lethal weapons, maybe even fully lethal ones. There have been a lot of attacks lately -- though I doubt that poor priest would have been able to defend himself.

You should try to understand, I'm a gun owner. I don't believe in disarming the people, I believe in not letting the people have the types of weapons that are used in mass killings -- extended clips, explosives, etc.

You have the right to protect your person and your home, and that position isn't the sole property of conservatism. If "liberals" in Europe say otherwise, they're fucking stupid and should be disregarded.

In the U.S., we have liberals teaching women how to mace the shit out of anybody trying to rape them.

Why do people always have to make it into an issue of you either being entirely for or entirely against something? That's simplistic, childish bullshit.

Like TPP. I haven't read it but I bet there are some good ideas in it. But no, you have to declare your tribe -- "for" or "against." There can never be any, "Well, this part I like, but can we change/get rid of this part?"

People are fucking morons, I swear. I hate you. I HATE ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:



Bit of history for you.





Now the point is Ben as seen people living a nightmare, and would have taken such a call to destroy at least the faciliies if not more, if you actually read accounts from survivors. The fact is we have precision bombing today, so the chances of staying alive would be greater but as seen people would choose deathg over that living hell.
The point is daily genocide is happenning in Syria and Iraq with ISIS and some of the worst human rights abuses are going on.
Do you want to make the same mistake again and repeat history where again we can do something to stop this madness?

The point is, would the Auschwitz survivors rather be dead?

What did you fail to grasp from the following?

But many - including survivors of the camp - say the Allies should have acted whatever the mission's chances of success.

Ben Reilly wrote:Why do people always have to make it into an issue of you either being entirely for or entirely against something? That's simplistic, childish bullshit.

Like TPP. I haven't read it but I bet there are some good ideas in it. But no, you have to declare your tribe -- "for" or "against." There can never be any, "Well, this part I like, but can we change/get rid of this part?"

People are fucking morons, I swear. I hate you. I HATE ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!

So being entirely against Nazism is childish bullshit now?

Based on what?

Again you are saying ideologies should have proptection, when they do not

You keep making the same errors in your counters.

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Why do people always have to make it into an issue of you either being entirely for or entirely against something? That's simplistic, childish bullshit.

Like TPP. I haven't read it but I bet there are some good ideas in it. But no, you have to declare your tribe -- "for" or "against." There can never be any, "Well, this part I like, but can we change/get rid of this part?"

People are fucking morons, I swear. I hate you. I HATE ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!

So being entirely against Nazism is childish bullshit now?

Based on what?

Again you are saying ideologies should have proptection, when they do not

You keep making the same errors in your counters.

I never said any ideology should be free from criticism. Nazism as we all know is the exception to the rule; to my knowledge, there was nothing good in that ideology.

I just get tired of being boxed in to where I supposedly have to take one extreme position or the opposite extreme position. It's all just people messing with your head, don't you get that? You're not supposed to see where the other side may have some good points, otherwise killing them isn't as satisfying.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


So being entirely against Nazism is childish bullshit now?

Based on what?

Again you are saying ideologies should have proptection, when they do not

You keep making the same errors in your counters.

I never said any ideology should be free from criticism. Nazism as we all know is the exception to the rule; to my knowledge, there was nothing good in that ideology.

I just get tired of being boxed in to where I supposedly have to take one extreme position or the opposite extreme position. It's all just people messing with your head, don't you get that? You're not supposed to see where the other side may have some good points, otherwise killing them isn't as satisfying.

No its not the exception to the rule, where did you decide upon this being the case?
There is nothing good in Islamism, maybe you can point out what is within Islamism, which is a salasfist polictical Islam, based on doctrines like wahhabism?
Well I am sure some will argue that Hitler had some good points, like his love of animals.
Your reasoning is again based on a weakness to do what is right.
Islamism is different from Islam, you seem to fail to grasp this everytime

it sort of is though.
it is a point in time political party that no longer exists to view it as something to be entirely against is childish bullshit as it is Historical and not something that you can currentyl support or not.

the Ideals would be Facsim and Nationalism and we see plenty of support for that posted on this very forum, let alone globally. Half the Forum Agreed with Nicko Saying he was a Nationalist that cared not for rigth or worng simple that it was his nation.

So who was Entirely Against Nazism? not most people that post here that is for sure. ohhh did You meant you Only have ZERO tolerance for ideals that aren't yours?

veya_victaous wrote:it sort of is though.
it is a point in time political party that no longer exists to view it as something to be entirely against is childish bullshit as it is Historical and not something that you can currentyl support or not.

the Ideals would be Facsim and Nationalism and we see plenty of support for that posted on this very forum, let alone globally. Half the Forum Agreed with Nicko Saying he was a Nationalist that cared not for rigth or worng simple that it was his nation.

So who was Entirely Against Nazism? not most people that post here that is for sure.  ohhh did You meant you Only have ZERO tolerance for ideals that aren't yours?

Nazism does still exist in many different forms and that avoids the issue whether you should be entirely against something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neo-Nazi_organizations

In other words you are trying to avoid the issue

I have seen zero support for fascism, which is word wrongly thrown around by lefties failing to understand what it means.

Well the Russians were entirely against Nazism, so was the Polish, so was the Jews etc.

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


So being entirely against Nazism is childish bullshit now?

Based on what?

Again you are saying ideologies should have proptection, when they do not

You keep making the same errors in your counters.

I never said any ideology should be free from criticism. Nazism as we all know is the exception to the rule; to my knowledge, there was nothing good in that ideology.

I just get tired of being boxed in to where I supposedly have to take one extreme position or the opposite extreme position. It's all just people messing with your head, don't you get that? You're not supposed to see where the other side may have some good points, otherwise killing them isn't as satisfying.

No its not the exception to the rule, where did you decide upon this being the case?
There is nothing good in Islamism, maybe you can point out what is within Islamism, which is a salasfist polictical Islam, based on doctrines like wahhabism?
Well I am sure some will argue that Hitler had some good points, like his love of animals.
Your reasoning is again based on a weakness to do what is right.
Islamism is different from Islam, you seem to fail to grasp this everytime

Dude, I know that Islam is not Islamism, it's what I try to emphasize practically every day here.

For the record, because I guess I have to say this because


DDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

... I would fight anybody trying to impose any ideology on me or mine against my/our free will.

Let me break this down for the two lefties here.

Islamism is against homosexuality and the punishment is death

Now I am entirely against Islamism.

Its based on the worst prejudices not only of homosexuals, non-Muslims, women etc but conflicts with the very principles we stand for. Which means it clashes with our very way of life.

This is why liberals will always fail when faced with a geuine threat tnat needs to be neutralized. They will be conflicted due to a failure to act against a geuine threat. RW people like other animal species will look to defend its herd, family etc from any form of attack. The liberal will continue to deither whilst his head is being taken off by a jihadi. It will be too late when you are dead

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


No its not the exception to the rule, where did you decide upon this being the case?
There is nothing good in Islamism, maybe you can point out what is within Islamism, which is a salasfist polictical Islam, based on doctrines like wahhabism?
Well I am sure some will argue that Hitler had some good points, like his love of animals.
Your reasoning is again based on a weakness to do what is right.
Islamism is different from Islam, you seem to fail to grasp this everytime

Dude, I know that Islam is not Islamism, it's what I try to emphasize practically every day here.

For the record, because I guess I have to say this because


DDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

... I would fight anybody trying to impose any ideology on me or mine against my/our free will.

But you do not do that in yuur replies and often end up defending Islam, itself from critcism.

Sorry I also do not buy you would defend, but would actually submit

Didge wrote:Let me break this down for the two lefties here.

Islamism is against homosexuality and the punishment is death

Now I am entirely against Islamism.

Its based on the worst prejudices not only of homosexuals, non-Muslims, women etc but conflicts with the very principles we stand for. Which means it clashes with our very way of life.

This is why liberals will always fail when faced with a geuine threat tnat needs to be neutralized. They will be conflicted due to a failure to act against a geuine threat. RW people like other animal species will look to defend its herd, family etc from any form of attack. The liberal will continue to deither whilst his head is being taken off by a jihadi. It will be too late when you are dead

I am against Islamism and Christianism (look it up). Any -ism that seeks to impose an unreasonable set of laws upon others whether they agree or not. And as one of the two "lefties," put that in the fucking record

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


No its not the exception to the rule, where did you decide upon this being the case?
There is nothing good in Islamism, maybe you can point out what is within Islamism, which is a salasfist polictical Islam, based on doctrines like wahhabism?
Well I am sure some will argue that Hitler had some good points, like his love of animals.
Your reasoning is again based on a weakness to do what is right.
Islamism is different from Islam, you seem to fail to grasp this everytime

Dude, I know that Islam is not Islamism, it's what I try to emphasize practically every day here.

For the record, because I guess I have to say this because


DDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

... I would fight anybody trying to impose any ideology on me or mine against my/our free will.

But you do not do that in yuur replies and often end up defending Islam, itself from critcism.

Sorry I also do not buy you would defend, but would actually submit

Bullshit, Didge! I defend Muslims, not their ignorant-ass belief system. I defend people who believe in any crazy stupid thing, so long as they don't commit violence.

I was hoping you could follow that particular thread. Now I'm starting to think you're one of the several here who will use anything I say against me ...

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Let me break this down for the two lefties here.

Islamism is against homosexuality and the punishment is death

Now I am entirely against Islamism.

Its based on the worst prejudices not only of homosexuals, non-Muslims, women etc but conflicts with the very principles we stand for. Which means it clashes with our very way of life.

This is why liberals will always fail when faced with a geuine threat tnat needs to be neutralized. They will be conflicted due to a failure to act against a geuine threat. RW people like other animal species will look to defend its herd, family etc from any form of attack. The liberal will continue to deither whilst his head is being taken off by a jihadi. It will be too late when you are dead

I am against Islamism and Christianism (look it up). Any -ism that seeks to impose an unreasonable set of laws upon others whether they agree or not. And as one of the two "lefties," put that in the fucking record

So you would then have contradicted yourself on at least two other -ism's from Nazism, that you are against entirely?
So you would back then any measures to stop anyone with such extreme views entering the country, whether political or religious that conflict with the well being and equality of others in the US?

Lets have that on record also.

Whilst you are at it I suggest you listen to the following

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


But you do not do that in yuur replies and often end up defending Islam, itself from critcism.

Sorry I also do not buy you would defend, but would actually submit

Bullshit, Didge! I defend Muslims, not their ignorant-ass belief system. I defend people who believe in any crazy stupid thing, so long as they don't commit violence.

I was hoping you could follow that particular thread. Now I'm starting to think you're one of the several here who will use anything I say against me ...

So its okay though it they spout hate, its only violence that is wrong to you, verbal hate is not a problem to you then and homosexuals, women, Jews etc, should just except hate directed at them and the spread of this hate to cotninue then?
Well you keep making many errors Ben, and you are far from convincing me.
So do you defend Islamist Muslims?
Do you defend a Muslim that says all Homosexuals should be executed?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:typical lefty gibberings...

so you fail to see that there ARE things, perfectly reasonable things we can do to reduce, even if not eliminate the problem...and yet you refuse to discuss/argue them

I would go so far as making sure that vehicle ownership/use was subject to the SAME strict rules as gun ownwrship (after all.....it is open for anyone to get a shotgun or even a rifle over here ...if they have a clean record, no mental issues and good reason...and are of "temperate" nature) THEN make it so that the vehicle will ONLY work in conjunction with your ID card and a "pin number/fingerprint

that would largely prevent a vehicular attack as we have seen in france

(it would also have the vast benefit of a:- virtually stopping car theft and
b:- reducing the toll of road casualties)

you said you have no problem folks protecting them selves

so we should be allowed to carry hand guns ?? concealed carry?
or maybe something a bit less lethat...stasers/tasers and mace/pepper sprays
firearms modified to shoot mace pellets?
(again under strict licencing) but non the less permitted??

perhaps we should be encouraging more (controlled and trained) aggression in our youngsters...teach them how to focus and use it?

I believe in policies that suit the context. In France, Germany? Hell yes, let them carry at least non-lethal weapons, maybe even fully lethal ones. There have been a lot of attacks lately -- though I doubt that poor priest would have been able to defend himself.

You should try to understand, I'm a gun owner. I don't believe in disarming the people, I believe in not letting the people have the types of weapons that are used in mass killings -- extended clips, explosives, etc.

You have the right to protect your person and your home, and that position isn't the sole property of conservatism. If "liberals" in Europe say otherwise, they're fucking stupid and should be disregarded.

In the U.S., we have liberals teaching women how to mace the shit out of anybody trying to rape them.

NOW ya got it.....at last

Ben Reilly wrote:Why do people always have to make it into an issue of you either being entirely for or entirely against something? That's simplistic, childish bullshit.

Like TPP. I haven't read it but I bet there are some good ideas in it. But no, you have to declare your tribe -- "for" or "against." There can never be any, "Well, this part I like, but can we change/get rid of this part?"

People are fucking morons, I swear. I hate you. I HATE ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!

Have a fucking green from this moron