pongo Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Unfortunately like other countries in Europe they have had decades of stupid liberal government. But the people murdered yesterday are assumed to have been killed for their strident defence of liberalism. They were leftist republicans - the paper grew out of the 1960s protests which were partly a reaction to the fallout of the Algerian war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yes, but they are not at all fussy who they kill. Watch out even if you are the wrong kind of Muslim. Once you have this kind of cancer with a foothold among your society you are in extremely deep trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yes, but they are not at all fussy who they kill. It makes no sense to argue against liberalism when you are simultaneously arguing that liberalism should be defended. It would surely make more sense to argue for a more strident defence of liberalism. And FWIW I think that will begin to be the theme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 So what do you think should/could have happened decades ago (instead of "stupid liberal" govt) to prevent this from happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Exactly, woolley. It seems that the policeman killed yesterday, even though injured and harmless, wasn't the 'right' sort of Muslim in the twisted minds of these brain rotted creatures. We're so very safe here and protected from all this (lots of my French friends aren't so lucky) and it's very easy for our own local idiots to play the hard man - anonymously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yes, but they are not at all fussy who they kill. It is makes no sense to argue against liberalism when you are simultaneously arguing that liberalism should be defended. It would surely make more sense to argue for a more strident defence of liberalism. And FWIW I think that will begin to be the theme. Probably. Presume that will mean more immigration and more people who despise Western society. It's a blind alley. It does actually make sense to defend liberalism in our own societies whilst recognising that we cannot extend such privileges and hospitality to those who would destroy it and us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 So what do you think should/could have happened decades ago (instead of "stupid liberal" govt) to prevent this from happening? Well if I start on that I'll be here for a month so I'll pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Its about time these cowardly cunts were eradicated. The French? I know they are cheese eating surrender monkeys but have some compassion! no way,they are vichy collaberators through and through,they could'nt fight their way out of a paper bag. I haven't posted for a long time - but this shit sickened me. France has been prepared to defy the extremists; to make laws that the cowards in Westminster would not dare to consider. They have paid a price for allowing a freedom of speech that no one in the UK has the guts to use. As for calling them the names you two have - it is easy when you are able to stand aside and watch - or even easier when you allow your allies and friends to take all the pain. The British tradition may not be to surrender - but it certainally is to abandon the battle field and to retreat and leave others to suffer the losses. They don't really defy. France has collaborated with murderous middle eastern regimes for decades to try to keep the lid on things at home. Yes, they banned the veil and other such wondow dressing but they are still likely to be the first major Western European country with a Muslim majority and the Muslims are working towards that. Paris as we knew it in the '60s and '70s is no more. I am as appalled by this as everyone else. But Woolley, you are playing the same old tune. What is your solution? Root out the cancer? How will you identify the diseased tissue, and when you think you have, do you not think that previously healthy tissue might be turned cancerous by the trauma of the surgery? OK, enough of that silly metaphor. You can't solve this through aggressive measures, a war, so to speak, against muslims. All that the western democracies can do is ensure that immigrant communities are integrated and have a fair stake in society. That is how radicalisation can best be countered, and it also happens to be what any humanitarian man or woman should favour. Spell it out, what would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Making any decisions based on, say, a 2000 year old book rather than logical decision making paths is truly ludicrous. The issue is not religion but dogmatic ideas in general. Millions died in the name of what was termed scientific-Marxism. Marxists generally believed that their ideas were logical, empirical and objective. Today we understand better that objectivity is a dogmatic delusion. Logical people can be just as arrogant and potentially dangerous. The media is reporting that one of the people being hunted became radicalised partly because of Abu Ghraib. Obviously that does not make it okay. But liberal-democracy has to do better to win. The issue here is religion. Without the ideological crutch that Islam provides to disgruntled Middle-Easterns the present conflict would not be nearly as heated as it is. There has been some good analysis of Islam's role in what is going on right now, and it is clear that it acts as a point around which disparate social and political causes can rally – an ideological beacon lit by the intense fire of religious fervour. Without its influence would we still have people murdering cartoonists while crying God is great, do you think? What sets apart religious dogma from the same in other ideologies is its supposed divine source. This means that those who believe it are filled with the sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, the promise of dozens of ripe, wet virgins, or whatever other fabulous prizes their doctrine offers those who lay down their lives for it. They believe with an intensity that is comparable perhaps to romantic love in as much as both have biological basis which is not fully understood. Another difference is one we have established ourselves, in Britain at least, which is that criticism of religion is limited by law and also by social conventions. We may not say certain things about religioun lest we invoke some of the oppressive laws designed to keep the differences between the multitudes of culturally different people on a small, crowded island from turning into warfare. These circumstances have also engendered a culture of politeness and avoidance of conflict where criticism of religion is taboo. These tendencies have been nurtured under the wing of political correctness. We can freely criticise political ideologies, satirise them, lampoon them, even be offensive about them in a way that is not deemed acceptable with religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 So what do you think should/could have happened decades ago (instead of "stupid liberal" govt) to prevent this from happening? Well if I start on that I'll be here for a month so I'll pass. Thought you might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Presume that will mean more immigration and more people who despise Western society. It's a blind alley. It does actually make sense to defend liberalism in our own societies whilst recognising that we cannot extend such privileges and hospitality to those who would destroy it and us. I don't think it will mean that. Also - you talk about the Paris of the 60s and 70s as if that were some belle époque. But there were terrible terrorist incidents in Paris during the 60s, 70s and 80s. Just as terrible as what happened yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 So what do you think should/could have happened decades ago (instead of "stupid liberal" govt) to prevent this from happening? Well if I start on that I'll be here for a month so I'll pass. Thought you might. Doesn't mean I don't know. Sure there are plenty here who do. Just don't see the point. The die is cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Presume that will mean more immigration and more people who despise Western society. It's a blind alley. It does actually make sense to defend liberalism in our own societies whilst recognising that we cannot extend such privileges and hospitality to those who would destroy it and us. I don't think it will mean that. Also - you talk about the Paris of the 60s and 70s as if that were some belle époque. But there were terrible terrorist incidents in Paris during the 60s, 70s and 80s. Just as terrible as what happened yesterday. Nothing on the scale of what they face now and in the future. The end of their state as they know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Its about time these cowardly cunts were eradicated. The French? I know they are cheese eating surrender monkeys but have some compassion! no way,they are vichy collaberators through and through,they could'nt fight their way out of a paper bag. I haven't posted for a long time - but this shit sickened me. France has been prepared to defy the extremists; to make laws that the cowards in Westminster would not dare to consider. They have paid a price for allowing a freedom of speech that no one in the UK has the guts to use. As for calling them the names you two have - it is easy when you are able to stand aside and watch - or even easier when you allow your allies and friends to take all the pain. The British tradition may not be to surrender - but it certainally is to abandon the battle field and to retreat and leave others to suffer the losses. They don't really defy. France has collaborated with murderous middle eastern regimes for decades to try to keep the lid on things at home. Yes, they banned the veil and other such wondow dressing but they are still likely to be the first major Western European country with a Muslim majority and the Muslims are working towards that. Paris as we knew it in the '60s and '70s is no more. I am as appalled by this as everyone else. But Woolley, you are playing the same old tune. What is your solution? Root out the cancer? How will you identify the diseased tissue, and when you think you have, do you not think that previously healthy tissue might be turned cancerous by the trauma of the surgery? OK, enough of that silly metaphor. You can't solve this through aggressive measures, a war, so to speak, against muslims. All that the western democracies can do is ensure that immigrant communities are integrated and have a fair stake in society. That is how radicalisation can best be countered, and it also happens to be what any humanitarian man or woman should favour. Spell it out, what would you do? You can't solve it by an aggressive war of course because the enemy is within as well as without. Do you really think that it is possible to integrate some of these people? Surely their ideas are well beyond hope of that. I think we have this state of affairs now ad infinitum, hence my wrath for those who brought it about through their negligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The population of France does deserve sympathy. They have had nothing to do with turning their cities into middle eastern hell holes. Anyone who disputes that description should go and take a look at parts of Marseilles. Unfortunately like other countries in Europe they have had decades of stupid liberal government. Couldn't agree more. Left-wing elitists have been pushing all this social engineering on us. It makes no sense at all unless they are truly wanting to destroy western civilisation. It really opens up questions as to their true agenda. I believe the long-term plan is to break down the nation state as a unit as well as national identity, to privatise everything and eventually push for a continental sized super state. Nation states and national governments are the one thing standing in the way of the elites having total power. If they can diminish them and push for more corporations and privatisation, it means power is transfered out of the hands of the nations and to the corporations through which they operate. All the open borders stuff is to drag down wages and destroy national identities. I don't think they give two hoots about diversity and open mindedness, as they claim when they call critics of the social engineering "racists"; I think they're calculated sociopaths who are totally racist and just using mass immigration as a means to an end. They're also deindustrialising us, as well as developing nations. They seem to be deliberately moving manufacturing overseas. What exactly are they up to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.