Syrian asylum-seeker with machete kills woman in southern Germany

[carlzeiss]

The Independent newspaper .

How Angela Merkel’s open-door immigration policy protects Germany from terrorism in the long-run

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-from-terrorism-in-the-long-run-a7156756.html

 

[The Clamp]

Except in this case the Muslims aren't the Jews. They are the Germans attacking the general population because of a warped ideology.

How did that philosophy of trying to appease the Germans and not offend them by others of the world theatre work out?




The trouble is the teachings the moderates follow are still the same teachings of a tyrant named Muhammad.

Doesn't seem to take much to turn a moderate into an extremist in Islam would be the most glaring thing.

You're also assuming that just because many Muslims have grievances with other Muslims they won't put aside those grievances to attack what they percieve as a common enemy.

The Russians in WW2 are a prime example of that.

What a load of poorly researched cobblers.
To address some of your "points":

Nobody tried the "philosophy" (I think you mean policy) of "not to offend" the Nazi party. Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler in order to avoid all out war. He was right to try. He was wrong to give so much leeway.

Nobody is trying to appease IS or any other extremists. Very much the opposite in fact. They are given no shrift whatsoever.
Your daft assumption, designed to provoke fear, that other moderate Muslims would somehow jump in and join the fight has simply not proven to be true has it. The moderate Muslims that were attacked by IS in Nice and Paris didn't see IS were there to kill and suddenly join in did they. They were murdered along with the rest.

God supposedly wiped out the population, save two of the ENTIRE human race , very few Christians wish the same. If they tried, they'd be shot. As would a Muslim.

Honestly, your above post really is a prime example of someone who knows nothing letting his mind run away with him.

 

[JCL666]

Way to miss the point.

The point being that just because one extreme element of a population might be wreaking the worst kind of havoc doesn't mean the rank and file person who is not carrying out those acts doesn't silently support their ideology.

You think that because active IRA members were only a tiny % of the actual population that there wasn't a far larger % of people not actively taking part in the violence who still supported the ideology behind it?

I didn't miss the point you're trying to make, using the SS as a comparison is ridiculous as is the IRA.



There's a big difference between wanting a united Ireland and running a bombing campaign, just as there is in following Islam and killing priests. For that matter the majority of German people didn't subscribe to genocide or massacring POWs.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The Independent newspaper .

How Angela Merkel’s open-door immigration policy protects Germany from terrorism in the long-run

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-from-terrorism-in-the-long-run-a7156756.html

Unbelievable that any supposedly serious respected journalist could write such deluded nonsense.

Look forward to his next article, Islamic teaching is the future for feminism.

 

[The Clamp]

I didn't miss the point you're trying to make, using the SS as a comparison is ridiculous as is the IRA.



There's a big difference between wanting a united Ireland and running a bombing campaign, just as there is in following Islam and killing priests. For that matter the majority of German people didn't subscribe to genocide or massacring POWs.

He's fallen into the trap of treating all types of evil as the same. With the same causes, the same M.O and the same ways to be dealt with. It's an over simplification born in fear. Which is where most intolerance and anger comes from. It's understandable but it gets us nowhere. In fact it's very much part of the problem.

 

[Hastings gull]

Doesn't meant they are either. I didn't spend the 80's terrified of every Irish voice i heard and I won't be terrified of everyone i meet with brown skin on the off chance that they are a terrorist sympathizer.

Your comparison with the IRA and the SS is way off. To me it looks closer to the paranoia and fear mongering of the 'Reds under the bed' rhetoric or the vilification and demonising of the Jews in prewar Germany

Assuming that 1.6 billion people world wide may have terrorist sympathies is illogical and paranoid in my opinion. especially as many of those 1.6 billion are living in fear of the very same terrorists we are meant to assume they are supporting.

For me this is not a fight between Islam and the west it is a fight between extremists and moderates.

Your first para is an absurd over-statement, designed, presumably, to lend a bit of credence, as is your exaggerated comment about others assuming 1.6 billion have potential terrorist sympathies. Of course other muslims also live in fear of the fanatics, and yet again, you dwell on the misconception that others think that all muslims are terrorists - they do not. But TB's point is valid about how the terrorists reply on support from others, who may be comparatively moderate in that they disapprove of the methods, but not the aims. When my brother, as a young soldier, was patrolling the streets on Belfast, there were plenty of IRA sympathisers who banged their dustbin lids on the ground as a warning to gunmen that the Army was approaching. I have just been watching BBC News and a French journalist has just said that, in defence of the security forces there, there are 11,000 people in France with varying degrees of sympathy with IS, and they cannot keep tabs on them all. And these are the ones they know about.

 

[Hastings gull]

Unbelievable that any supposedly serious respected journalist could write such deluded nonsense.

Look forward to his next article, Islamic teaching is the future for feminism.

Yes, this is massively optimistic and really quite naïve. The difference is that millions of muslims have lived in France for ages, whereas this is a relatively new phenomenon, certainly in terms of numbers, for Germany. Clearly, many young muslims have not integrated well, or at all, into French society, and with the best will in the world, it is very hard to assimilate such numbers when their arrival is so uncontrolled. One suspects also, that some will have no intention, anyway.
To think that the fanatics will bear Merkel's generosity in mind, and respect this, is sheer folly, as we have already seen. Indeed, I would suggest that the opposite is the case -attacks in Germany will cause much public resentment due to their largesse, and produce the polarisation of views which the fanatics want.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Unbelievable that any supposedly serious respected journalist could write such deluded nonsense.

Look forward to his next article, Islamic teaching is the future for feminism.

Why is it deluded? Because it doesn't fit your 'opinion'. The article makes a point that cannot be denied, that Intelligence Services greatest weapon against these attacks is information from the communities themselves. Alienate or isolate those communities, and you won't get the intel. Yes, you can monitor internet traffic etc. but there is no greater resource to intelligence than someone coming forward. I was expecting some flowery liberal fantasy, but it was just a reasonable argument put forward that could be disagreed with sure, but far from deluded. It's like some people are so entrenched in their opinion that anything contrary to it is 'deluded' or 'apologist' or whatever else you'd like to say. It's almost, dare I say it, religious like.

 

[The Clamp]

That article is deluded in that it puts forward the argument that ISIS will somehow give a country a break if they were nice to Muslims. ISIS don't give a toss, they want all non extremists, non believers dead. Simple.

It is spot on with the argument that having Muslims who feel part of a community are more likely to give information and less likely to become radicalised.

 

[Bold Seagull]

To think that the fanatics will bear Merkel's generosity in mind, and respect this, is sheer folly, as we have already seen.

That is not what the article states at all. The piece says that if Muslim communities feel the generosity, or kindness or belonging to the society they are in, then they are more likely to speak out to point out potential fanatics to the Intelligence Services. It goes onto say that potentially young people are less likely to be radicalised in a community they feel they belong, whether muslim or otherwise. It never once says it will stop fanatics already radicalised other than informants helping to stop them.

 

[Hastings gull]

Why is it deluded? Because it doesn't fit your 'opinion'. The article makes a point that cannot be denied, that Intelligence Services greatest weapon against these attacks is information from the communities themselves. Alienate or isolate those communities, and you won't get the intel. Yes, you can monitor internet traffic etc. but there is no greater resource to intelligence than someone coming forward. I was expecting some flowery liberal fantasy, but it was just a reasonable argument put forward that could be disagreed with sure, but far from deluded. It's like some people are so entrenched in their opinion that anything contrary to it is 'deluded' or 'apologist' or whatever else you'd like to say. It's almost, dare I say it, religious like.

You are quite right in that it is entirely desirable that information comes from within the groups themselves, and of course the aim should be to avoid alienating any community. You cannot expect anyone to feel discriminated against AND loyal. The problem is that the fanatical wing and their followers' jobs have been so much easier with Merkel's decision to allow them in, and one can be quite sure that they will not respect the thrust of the argument in the article namely that allowing them in shows there is no animosity towards Islam in Germany, as we have already seen, and surely will continue to do so.

 

[Hastings gull]

That article is deluded in that it puts forward the argument that ISIS will somehow give a country a break if they were nice to Muslims. ISIS don't give a toss, they want all non extremists, non believers dead. Simple.

It is spot on with the argument that having Muslims who feel part of a community are more likely to give information and less likely to become radicalised.

Goodness me, we agree totally -much more of this and people will start talking . .

 

[The Clamp]

That is not what the article states at all. The piece says that if Muslim communities feel the generosity, or kindness or belonging to the society they are in, then they are more likely to speak out to point out potential fanatics to the Intelligence Services. It goes onto say that potentially young people are less likely to be radicalised in a community they feel they belong, whether muslim or otherwise. It never once says it will stop fanatics already radicalised other than informants helping to stop them.

Sorry, but it does infer that if you don't speak out against extremist Muslims you won't get attacked. That is unacceptable.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Sorry, but it does infer that if you don't speak out against Muslims you won't get attacked. That is unacceptable.

You have inferred that because that is how you subjectively read it. I didn't read that at all.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You are quite right in that it is entirely desirable that information comes from within the groups themselves, and of course the aim should be to avoid alienating any community. You cannot expect anyone to feel discriminated against AND loyal. The problem is that the fanatical wing and their followers' jobs have been so much easier with Merkel's decision to allow them in, and one can be quite sure that they will not respect the thrust of the argument in the article namely that allowing them in shows there is no animosity towards Islam in Germany, as we have already seen, and surely will continue to do so.

It is hypothetical that this policy has made it easier. This asylum seeker was in the country before the policy happened. Neither you or I know whether those given a home in Germany will feel an affection for the country and help root out extremism within their communities, or whether it will harbour them. The 2 incidents in Germany were a bizarre right wing inspired German national and an asylum seeker who'd been their some time. So one can't be quite sure at all.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

What a load of poorly researched cobblers.
To address some of your "points":

Nobody tried the "philosophy" (I think you mean policy) of "not to offend" the Nazi party. Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler in order to avoid all out war. He was right to try. He was wrong to give so much leeway.

No he was wrong to try that, it showed he was happy to gamble innocent peoples lives to appease a moronic ideology.

Giving Hitler a semblence of legitimacy was tant amount to selling out the Jews and anyone else who was seen as undesirable or the opposition.

Nobody is trying to appease IS or any other extremists. Very much the opposite in fact. They are given no shrift whatsoever.
Your daft assumption, designed to provoke fear, that other moderate Muslims would somehow jump in and join the fight has simply not proven to be true has it. The moderate Muslims that were attacked by IS in Nice and Paris didn't see IS were there to kill and suddenly join in did they. They were murdered along with the rest.

There's thouands of cases of Muslims who were apparently "moderate" and have jumped up and joined in the fight. Open your ears and eyes. Stop being a white knight to a ****ed up ideology.

Just because a Muslim dies in a terror act by other Muslims doesn't mean the person who died was a moderate muslim. The whole term modferate muslim in itself is peverse. A "moderate" Muslim will still hold views that aren't considered moderate in any sense of the word when compared to others groups or socieities views.

I've seen more than enough of these "moderate muslims" in interviews to know that if they are the moderates, then Islam is one messed up ideology.

Go and ask all these moderate Muslims about Apostasy and what the punishment for it is. That normally has them try and go on some other tangent to avoid the question.

God supposedly wiped out the population, save two of the ENTIRE human race , very few Christians wish the same. If they tried, they'd be shot. As would a Muslim.

Honestly, your above post really is a prime example of someone who knows nothing letting his mind run away with him.

Seriously Mr "Islam is a race" best not to say others know nothing when you're a prime example of your own words.

 

[The Clamp]

You have inferred that because that is how you subjectively read it. I didn't read that at all.

François Hollande has frequently announced that he is at war with Isis. For many Muslims who feel they have become criminalised by their religion the French President might as well be declaring war on them.

The truth is that foreign policy does play a vital role in the radicalisation and incentivisation of terrorists. It is a lesson that France benefitted from during the Iraq war when its government vehemently opposed that conflict. During this period France was free from terrorist attacks, whereas Britain who instigated and waged war against Saddam Hussein, suffered the London bomb attacks of 7/7. Spain too, a high profile supporter of the war, faced the Madrid train bombings in 2004.

 

[The Clamp]

No he was wrong to try that, it showed he was happy to gamble innocent peoples lives to appease a moronic ideology.

Giving Hitler a semblence of legitimacy was tant amount to selling out the Jews and anyone else who was seen as undesirable or the opposition.



There's thouands of cases of Muslims who were apparently "moderate" and have jumped up and joined in the fight. Open your ears and eyes. Stop being a white knight to a ****ed up ideology.

Just because a Muslim dies in a terror act by other Muslims doesn't mean the person who died was a moderate muslim. The whole term modferate muslim in itself is peverse. A "moderate" Muslim will still hold views that aren't considered moderate in any sense of the word when compared to others groups or socieities views.

I've seen more than enough of these "moderate muslims" in interviews to know that if they are the moderates, then Islam is one messed up ideology.

Go and ask all these moderate Muslims about Apostasy and what the punishment for it is. That normally has them try and go on some other tangent to avoid the question.





Seriously Mr "Islam is a race" best not to say others know nothing when you're a prime example of your own words.

Chamberlain was wrong, history tells us that, he did gamble with lives. Any process like that is a gamble. A gamble he lost. Its incomparable to how we deal with Muslim extremists. You are wrong on this point.

This does a good job of explaining why appeasement seemed good at the time. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/ir1/chamberlainandappeasementrev1.shtml

Point of fact I have never said, typed or believed "Islam is a race". I did accuse a poster of racism when I should have accused them of religious intolerance instead. BIG difference.

The rest of your response is just plain ignorant and I cant be arsed to break it down. It's just a repetitive, ill informed, poorly written, uneducated shambles.

Although I would be interested in you citing these thousands of moderate Muslims who have turned to extremism. I don't doubt there are cases, just curious as to how you know it's thousands and where you got this figure from?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Why is it deluded? Because it doesn't fit your 'opinion'. The article makes a point that cannot be denied, that Intelligence Services greatest weapon against these attacks is information from the communities themselves. Alienate or isolate those communities, and you won't get the intel. Yes, you can monitor internet traffic etc. but there is no greater resource to intelligence than someone coming forward. I was expecting some flowery liberal fantasy, but it was just a reasonable argument put forward that could be disagreed with sure, but far from deluded. It's like some people are so entrenched in their opinion that anything contrary to it is 'deluded' or 'apologist' or whatever else you'd like to say. It's almost, dare I say it, religious like.

It's delusional because it doesn't fit with reality.

"the recent flow of refugees from war zones into Europe has not increased the risk of terrorism."

Isil exploiting migrant routes to smuggle jihadists back to Britain using fake documents

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...acks-British-intelligence-officials-fear.html

Warning Of 'Up To 5,000 Jihadists In Europe'
The Europol boss says Europe faces its biggest terror threat in over 10 years and warns of large-scale attacks by IS and others.

Paris Killers 'Used Refugee Crisis To Slip In'

http://news.sky.com/story/warning-of-up-to-5000-jihadists-in-europe-10173976

It's like some people are so desperate to avoid confronting the truth that they do resemble delusional apologists.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I didn't miss the point you're trying to make, using the SS as a comparison is ridiculous as is the IRA.

There's a big difference between wanting a united Ireland and running a bombing campaign, just as there is in following Islam and killing priests. For that matter the majority of German people didn't subscribe to genocide or massacring POWs.

Once again you're missing the point. Saying a tiny % of Muslims commit the crimes does not mean that a far larger % don't support their ideology and actions.

And really? The ordinary Germans knew all about the hatred of the Jews (because it was printed in newspapers...) and they still supported Hitler. You know how we know this? Because there were a few dissidents who spoke out against it. So if they knew, the majoirty of Germans did.