It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: France ejects 12 Islamic 'preachers of hate'

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
You must think I want to see these violent morons left alone. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where you and I differ on this topic is how you go about shutting these evil men up. You think expelling them will work, I dont. I think we should imprison them.


Well that sure was a fast flip flop if you have felt that way all along you should not have said we should use a balanced approach by listening to them.




Also where exactly could we expell British citizens to? Which country is going to accept them? I think any country that accepted them would probably be labelled part of the Axis of Evil and bombed by a scant coalition the following spring



Well in the case of people who entered Britian or lets say the US for example you would banish/deport them back to their country of origin or the one they claimed they were from on their papers.

I have never heard of banishment in the US I believe that was a British practice from years ago when queens and kings banished their relatives or people they did not like or ones that tried to over throw them. Just where did then banish them in the past?

If no country will accept them then you can throw them in jail for treason after all they are trying to overthrow the government are they not?


Here we just deport them, but I would be all for throwing them in jail for treason if need be.



[edit on 7/30/2005 by shots]




posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
MemoryShock seems like he's been down in the muck associated with implementing such things, so I tend to want to go along with his tempered comments.


What an astute observation, Astronomer68.........no details though...



Originally posted by jsobecky
Some here are too concerned with the second part of this statement, alienation, without addressing the first part, them launching vicious attacks.[my emphasis]


Them. That's the key word; and that's the exact point I'm attempting to illustrate.

Who exactly is 'them'? Them are a group of people who invariably have been shown to be multi-national and Muslim. 'Them' are a group of people that oddly enough blend in with the rest of us. 'Them' is a group of people that for all intents and purposes are a part of us until something happens......and then everything that our society holds in the form of logic and freedom goes right out the window because there is an urgent need to define 'Them.'

'Them', in this case, represent the people responsible for the atrocity. The action initiated by the French Government is a blanket generalization that happens to hold too many loose ends that allow the possibility of innocent people getting the shaft. My arguement does not necessitate the acknowledgement of the problem......it's a given. My arguement is centered on the solution, which is inadequate and opens the arena even more in a system ripe with corruption.....not to say that corruption is an issue here, but that the wording communicated as the motivation for the expulsions centers on the indistinct........"hate" and the incitation of it is too broad a definition.......if I wanted to derail this thread,I could make a case for how the very nature of capitalism necessitates the incitation of subtle hate......

Too summarize the above.........Them who commited the crime need to be punished. Them who are subject to the binds of this precedent are not necassarily guilty of anything........I'm merely advocating a bi-lateral thought process here.


Originally posted by jsobecky
The youth that are carrying out these attacks have chosen to be disenfranchised; many of them refuse to become assimilated into our society. In fact, many of them believe that it is a tenet of their faith to attack us at every turn.


Contradiction there.....do you see it?

Let's start with the 'why they believe what they believe.' At an early age the only thing emphasized was the deprivation caused by anyoner who didn't think, look, or believe as they do. This point gets emphasized and cultivated to the point of 1+1=2.....it becomes natural. They were taught to discriminate at an early age. I won't get into the more detailed aspects of this which consider heavily the sociology of their situation, but suffice to say I seriously doubt that the y chose more than they were manipulated.......it's basic cultural identification.



Originally posted by shotsWell that sure was a fast flip flop if you have felt that way all along you should not have said we should use a balanced approach by listening to them.



Originally posted by subz
We have to approach this problem in a balanced manner.


I'm calling you on this one, shots.

You stated that subz wanted to listen to them, which I'll interpret as meaning those guilty. Subz was calling for a balanced approach to the situation......completely different. The situation as it stands has the potential to effect far more than the war on terror......if we allow loose definitions founded on emotional reactions to dictate our course of action, than are we truly evolved?

A balanced approach is called for and, with all due respect, everyone here who is beaming at the resolve of the French Government are completely missing the point......this law will still be in effect after the cause for it has long died away....do we want to leave a reality for the next generation that ignores the subjectivity of an individual in favor of broad 'isms' that have met with the majorities approval?


[edit on 30-7-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by shotsWell that sure was a fast flip flop if you have felt that way all along you should not have said we should use a balanced approach by listening to them.



Originally posted by subz
We have to approach this problem in a balanced manner.


I'm calling you on this one, shots.

You stated that subz wanted to listen to them, which I'll interpret as meaning those guilty. Subz was calling for a balanced approach to the situation......completely different. The situation as it stands has the potential to effect far more than the war on terror......if we allow loose definitions founded on emotional reactions to dictate our course of action, than are we truly evolved?

[edit on 30-7-2005 by MemoryShock]


No there was no mention of them being guilty here were his exact words


Subz said
This involves giving them a role to play in their communities. If you can do this you will not see the same people blowing up their fellow citizens.

This involves listening to any greivances they may have. They dont like whats happening to the Palestinians? Then listen to it and clearly make an effort to address their concerns. They are citizens of this country too and our politicians do work for them. They should listen to what they have to say.


Do you think giving people who want to overthrow our way of life a role to play, or listening to their grivances is the way to go about it? If so you need to read the link I posted earlier that shows what they are teaching those idiots first before you jump to conclusions.

Here are just a few passages from the report



He reads:


“Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”




The books give him detailed instructions on how to build a “wall of resentment” between himself and the infidel: Never greet the Christian or Jew first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never befriend an infidel unless it is to convert him. Never imitate the infidel. Never work for an infidel. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel.


I really got a chuckle out the never work for an infidel because we all know that some of those that come here take jobs just so they can look normal to others.

In all fairness you have to read the actual document yourself taking only parts out is not the proper way to show how hateful it is. What I may find as hate you may not so I suggest you read at least some of it yourself.

www.freedomhouse.org...



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
No there was no mention of them being guilty here were his exact words


There's the important distinction.....qualified by this next quote....


Originally posted by subz
OR with a balanced approach you can continue to stomp on those terrorists and those who incite violence against us WHILST providing alternatives to the reason these people are resorting to violence in the first place.


The balanced approach, subz correct me if I'm wrong, was referring to is evident as a pre-emptive condition.......if you take into account the motivations for past terrorist activity, you can address the issues of future terrorists.......exporting them is just going to transfer their base of operations.

Which is the heart of this issue.....sending people away who seriously have a problem with how the situation stands is merely putting a band-aid on the tumor......soon, the band-aid will wear out and reveal that the tumor is still prevalent........because the tumor is an internal problem and the band-aid is an external solution. Looks good for awhile and assuages immediate concerns, but ultimately accomplishes nothing. That is what we are witnessing at present.......short term fixes that aren't really addressing the problem but appear as if there is forward progress.


Originally posted by shots
Do you think giving people who want to overthrow our way of life a role to play, or listening to their grivances is the way to go about it?


No. I think that that once the action has been accomplished there is little room for movement on the matter. However, I do think that the same philoshophy that provoked the action in the first place will become more persuasive if these knee-jerk reactions continue to be the modus operandi......hence the balanced approach. By addressing the personal issues you can affect the person. By threatening generalized consequence, you're going to be inciting on a very subtle level......I could go more into the last sentence, and it is very relevant to the situation......



He reads:


“Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”


The above quote supports my response to jsobecky and further highlights the need to change the motivations of those teaching these discrimanatory concepts.....


Originally posted by shots
In all fairness you have to read the actual document yourself taking only parts out is not the proper way to show how hateful it is. What I may find as hate you may not so I suggest you read at least some of it yourself.


Rest assured.....the document is hateful......

I want to stress that my position on this topic, and that of others, is one thath is difficult to implement. I'm asking for factors to be considered that aren't relevant to the perpetuation of an ego-centric reality. Thusly, my contentions may seem implausible for implementation....that fact is not lost on me. I will continue to insist, however, that different and plentiful details be observed in the creation of a course of action.

Deportation in this case is analogous to chemo-therapy in cancer treatments......it's not really a cure.....



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   
MemoryShock - The banishment of hate-mongers is certainly not a long-term solution to the problem of locally grown terrorists, but it is a means to slow the spread of the infection (at home). Ultimately that approach is not a solution at all (as you, Subz, and others have pointed out), since all it really does is export the problem elsewhere--probably in a more virulent form.

It appears to me that two parallel lines of attack have to be taken. One the one hand, the root causes of the susceptibility of these young people to being receptive to the messages of the hate-mongers must be rooted out and dealt with--and that is not going to be easy. On the other hand, the quality of life in places such as Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Palestine?, and a few others must be raised substantially from where it is now--and that won't be easy either.

What the coallition is attempting to do in Afganistan and Iraq will, if successful, provide a stark contrast to the conditions in surrounding countries and serve as a model for breaking the status-quo. Concurrently, we should continue to pursue terrorists, wherever they may hide, as a real & visible reminder to potential terrorists that along that path lies disaster and death. As of now all the world seems to see is the violent pursuit path. Much more needs to be done and done quickly about the first two paths.

One thing that would help tremendously would be a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Another would be the transition of Saudi Arabia into some representative form of government. Both of these would only be aids however. The other approaches would still be needed to eradicate the terrorist problem. Ultimately the solution to the terrorist problem must come from within the various Islamic nations. All we in the West can do is assist such countries in every way possible.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Well that sure was a fast flip flop if you have felt that way all along you should not have said we should use a balanced approach by listening to them.

What are you talking about shots?


Originally posted by subz
We should quite rightly gag preachers of hate (both secular and religious). The UK is quite capable of doing this legally with the religious and racial hatred laws we have/will have. We dont need to expel any one, which to me is counter productive because ones expelled they will preach even more hate and with renewed vigour.

Just how exactly did I flip-flop? That was from my first post in this thread. I have always maintained that the preachers of hate should be legally delt with i.e. jailed under the UK's proposed religious and racial hatred laws.

I think you have misinterpreted my balanced approach idea. When I say we should allow them to air their greivances I was talking about the disenfranchised youth of this nation. Not existing terrorists or even preachers of hate. I do wish you'd take the time to read what I say before falsely accusing me.


Originally posted by subz
We should work to give disenfranchised youth (of all origins) a well defined choice and stake in our countries. We have problems with yob culture which is probably more destructive in lives/property terms than terrorism is.

We should clearly show a path whereby a youth can get involved with their community and have a stake in its future. Then the attractiveness of martydom reduces.

I was talking about prospective terrorists here. Removing the breeding ground for terrorists whilst simultaneously stomping on actual terrorists. This is the long term view we HAVE to take. Im sorry but I cannot be any clearer in my posts here. You need to learn the difference between prospective terrorists (pulled from the disenfranchised muslim youth) and actual terrorists.


Originally posted by shots
Well in the case of people who entered Britian or lets say the US for example you would banish/deport them back to their country of origin or the one they claimed they were from on their papers.

Fine, so you've got some where to deport them to. Still wont stop them from wanting to kill us now will it?


Originally posted by shots
I have never heard of banishment in the US I believe that was a British practice from years ago when queens and kings banished their relatives or people they did not like or ones that tried to over throw them. Just where did then banish them in the past?

You're term not mine. Is this relevant or just a cultural jibe?


Originally posted by shots
If no country will accept them then you can throw them in jail for treason after all they are trying to overthrow the government are they not?

Why is so important to shift them to another country? The cost of jailing them locally? Im sure it will be cheaper in the long run to jail them here than to launch an attack of cruise missiles to take out the terrorist base they set up some where.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
You stated that subz wanted to listen to them, which I'll interpret as meaning those guilty. Subz was calling for a balanced approach to the situation......completely different. The situation as it stands has the potential to effect far more than the war on terror......if we allow loose definitions founded on emotional reactions to dictate our course of action, than are we truly evolved?

A balanced approach is called for and, with all due respect, everyone here who is beaming at the resolve of the French Government are completely missing the point......this law will still be in effect after the cause for it has long died away....do we want to leave a reality for the next generation that ignores the subjectivity of an individual in favor of broad 'isms' that have met with the majorities approval?

Spot on there MemoryShock. I never once said we should allow preachers of violence to continue. I never once said we should not arrest and jail actual terrorists.

My balanced approach allows for the jailing and dismantling of terror networks whilst simultaneously drying up their recruitment pool.

Its no good hearding all muslims into a figurative hold pen, stomping on terrorists and crossing your fingers that other muslims will accept the practice and not take revenge for their mistreatment.


Originally posted by shots
Do you think giving people who want to overthrow our way of life a role to play, or listening to their grivances is the way to go about it? If so you need to read the link I posted earlier that shows what they are teaching those idiots first before you jump to conclusions.

Again you got the wrong end of the stick here shots. Its the disenfranchised muslim youth that the terrorists are exploiting that we should be listening to and giving them a stake in their community. If we successfully turn them from "disenfranchised youth" to stable member of the community they wont be any more terrorists to fill the boots of those we arrest and capture.


Originally posted by shots
In all fairness you have to read the actual document yourself taking only parts out is not the proper way to show how hateful it is. What I may find as hate you may not so I suggest you read at least some of it yourself.

Not reading anything properly and only taking out parts of what some one says will always show the wrong thing



Originally posted by MemoryShock
The balanced approach, subz correct me if I'm wrong, was referring to is evident as a pre-emptive condition.......if you take into account the motivations for past terrorist activity, you can address the issues of future terrorists.......exporting them is just going to transfer their base of operations.

Bingo again! Although im loathed to associate with the word "pre-emptive" I guess in this case its a good idea. Yes, you are correct, I was calling for pre-emptively taking muslim youth out of a vulnerable mental condition BEFORE terrorists can get to them.

Balanced approach here, shots:

Stomping on terrorists and violent immams (arrest or kill them)

AND

Removing terrorist recruitment pools by remedying the source of muslim discontent and animity to the West (give them a voice and roll to play in our Western societies)

[edit on 31/7/05 by subz]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
What is the sunny side of 25 Subz? Me, I'm pushing 70 real hard and I'm afraid I lost most of my youthful idealism years ago. What replaced it was a mixture of skepticism, apathy, optimism, and a fairly strong belief in the basic decency of humanity. I'll have to say my apathy has receeded somewhat in the years since my first great-grandson was born--I'de just like to see him grow up in a better world than I faced. Whoops, just remembered I turned 70 on July 13th.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
What is the sunny side of 25 Subz?

It means im 24.

Happy birthday for two weeks ago



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   

subz says
Balanced approach here, shots:

Stomping on terrorists and violent immams (arrest or kill them)

AND

Removing terrorist recruitment pools by remedying the source of muslim discontent and animity to the West (give them a voice and roll to play in our Western societies)


Part one is where I saw what I perceived to be a flip flop. Earlier yesterday I saw no disclaimer where you stated I prefer to see them stomped and or arrested, what I saw was what you said in part two with no mention of part one. Hope that makes sense?


-----

Astronomer68
nice to see ATS has other members in my age group, 66 here.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Thanks for the good wishes gentlemen. Wonder if I can change my ID to Astronomer70?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
MemoryShock writes:

Contradiction there.....do you see it?

Let's start with the 'why they believe what they believe.' At an early age the only thing emphasized was the deprivation caused by anyoner who didn't think, look, or believe as they do. This point gets emphasized and cultivated to the point of 1+1=2.....it becomes natural. They were taught to discriminate at an early age. I won't get into the more detailed aspects of this which consider heavily the sociology of their situation, but suffice to say I seriously doubt that the y chose more than they were manipulated.......it's basic cultural identification.

quote:
He reads:


“Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”

The above quote supports my response to jsobecky and further highlights the need to change the motivations of those teaching these discrimanatory concepts.....

I agree that nurture plays a large role in the actions of the youth, but I also believe that one can cast away the prejudices he has learned if one chooses to think clearly. And becoming assimiliated into one's host culture is a good way of learning to think clearly. If you only associate with like minds, yours will never change.

Sometimes, it is only necessary to break one link in the chain of violence to put an end to it. The French took a step in this direction by deporting radical imams. But this culture of suicide bomber violence is so ingrained that it will take the neutralization of two generations: those teaching, and those learning and carrying out the attacks.

And we cannot do it alone. We need the assistance of other muslims that abhor the violence to step up and loudly decry the killings.



new topics




 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join