Andrew Neil talking about jihadist losers

Does it really matter how devout (or otherwise) a Muslim he was? He was certainly a terrorist, which is all that concerns most people.

Well, not Trump, for instance, and not the NF in France and the UK, the EDL, and so many other groups. Trump is calling for all Muslims to be listed on a special register and even carry armbands!!!

And now this story is emerging:

'Boulahcen is reported to have shouted: 'Help me, help me, I am on fire,' prior to the explosion in Saint-Denis

Hasna Ait Boulahcen, the woman labelled "Europe's first woman suicide bomber" did not blow herself up during a police raid on an apartment building in Saint-Denis, new reports have claimed.

Despite French prosecutors initially saying she had detonated an explosives vest and died during the assault on Wednesday, a police source reportedly told Agence France-Presse​ news agency the suicide bomber who blew themselves up was a man, not a woman.'

the point of those posts is to show that there are just so many unknowns out there- making it so difficult to decide what to do.

But I agree, well done Andrew Neil.

OK Granjura I was doing you the compliment of excusing what I found a pair of off -thread posts as your opinion which you are entitled to express. (As opposed to irrelevancies). The numbers and percentages of jihadists/soi-disant "moderate" Muslms is irrelevant. Listen to thatbags's link. Faffing around with blather about 00000.000% is meaningless, as is indeed whether the perpetrators were "devout" or not. Criminal record? Smoking joints? Et alors?
It excuses nothing, it explains nothing, it is neither of comfort nor explanation to the bereaved.

sadly not- but just shows just how complex the issues are, and that anyone who comes up with easy solutions. put them on a list and monitor them- bomb them out of existence, etc- is just not going to help. I wish there were, but the reality shows there isn't. Won't continue to discuss this with you- as it will get us nowhere. Your anger against me is palpable in every word- and makes any discussion impossible. A pity.

Not mine I'm afraid, even though I wish I had written this instead of a friend:

Firstly, your source is Brigitte Gabriel? Very impartial.
Secondly, your source claims her source is 'most intelligence services'. Not an actual source, just hearsay.

Now, her favourite phrase in that video is 'The peaceful majority were irrelevant'. She says this about the Germans, the Chinese, and the Japanese.

So lets follow that.

The KKK killed and lynched black people. The peaceful majority, are irrelevant. Thus, all white Christians should be considered party to their actions.

The Black Panthers killed white people. The peaceful majority, are irrelevant. Thus, all blacks should be considered party to their actions.

A small number of Hindus killed muslims in india. But the peaceful majority are irrelevant. Thus, all hindus must be party to those murders.

A small group of Sikhs assassinated Indira Ghnadi. But the peaceful majority are irrelevant. Thus, all Sikhs share the responsibility for her murder.

British troops killed 24 unarmed villagers in Malaysia. The peaceful majority are irrelevant. Thus, all brits should be considered party to that massacre.

American Soldiers killed Vietnamese civilians at My Lai. the peaceful majority are irrelevant. Thus, all americans should be considered party to that war crime.

Israeli soldiers killed an inordinate number of Palestinian children. The peaceful majority are irrelevant. Thus, all Israelis should be considered party to their actions.

Do you see how stupid that argument is? If you discount the majority, and then use a minority as a base for an opinion on the majority, guess what, every single human being is a terrorist, murderer, evil-sympathiser, raper, pillager, and all-round arsehole. Including the person who makes the opinion.

It's the terrorists themselves who are dragging religion into this. Their murderous attacks are justified by twisting the Muslim faith and using it as justification to kill westerners and our way of life.
The link thatbags provided explained it so well.

If you discount the majority, and then use a minority as a base for an opinion on the majority
Is anyone doing that? apart from people like Trump?

I have been reading about the families of the terrorists and how ashamed they are of them and how bewildered that a member of their family should behave in that way.

And new information today indicates that their leader was a) not a practising Muslim at all, a ling-term criminal and drug user. That is not an 'opinion' but new and very relevant information which changes a lot of perceptions and opinions voiced since the attacks

Are you talking of the leader of the whole thing,or the Paris leader?

And I ask again, what does it matter whether he was a practising Muslim or not? He was a terrorist.

You seem to be the only one banging on about the Muslim aspect of this whole terrible situation, granjura.

I think it matters actually.

If the overall leader is a muslim leader who is twisting the Koran[apparently he is both], and if as people say, it is being taught in some mosques, it fuels recruits.

As ever, granjura, I found your post interesting and relevant.
Alea, are you the official 'off thread monitor'?
One of the strengths of online threads is that they wander off the beaten track in sometimes unexpected directions. They're not trains on tracks, surely!

jura, that is not what irrelevant means. You are twisting, or misunderstanding what Brigitte Gabriel said. I do not know anything about her. I'm not talking about her or her imparitality or otherwise. I'm talking about what she said. It makes sense to me and to others. She is saying that there was nothing the peaceful majority could do about the examples she gives, not that they were in part responsible.

What's important is what is said, not who said it. Play the ball, not the man.

soontobe how do you know the 'overall leader' is a muslim who is twisting the Koran? Do you know who that leader is?

I am only going by the book I linked to on another thread, and what the author was saying when he was interviewed on Fox News yesterday. So it must be right
I think I will be able to find the leaders name, but it will have to be tomorrow.

No Elrel I do not regard myself as the "thread police" and hope everybody feels free to express their opinions. The way a thread develops and meanders can be one of the strengths of the forum, but to change the subject six posts into the thread might be construed as a premature change of direction. However, I made no comment at the time., as I said, respecting what I took to be GJ's opinions, so please don't get snippy at me.
I didn't think it did put anything "into perspective" and have given my reasons for that opinion.
This is not an "ad hominem" argument as has been unworthily suggested, and do not think I was alone in not following the relevance of the introduction of GJ's friend's argument/quote.
I believe I am entitled to hold and to express my opinion?

www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/09/10-isis-baghdadi-family-tree-mccants

The author does seem quite reputable though.

Yes, puts hands up, it was me who asked why the thread was being taken off from the OP before it had hardly begun. Threads do meander but it was somewhat high jacked. IMO.

Perhaps some of you have not come across Brigitte Gabriel before. She is a Fox News reporter- and a really nasty, aggressive and very vociferously anti-Islam person. Fox News and the Tea Party, extreme right are renowned for their anti Islam stance- and are supporters of Trump and co and very anti Obama. It is all linked- my comments are not 'opinions' and are totally relevant to this thread on Brigitte Gabriel and her ilk at Fox News- whether you like it or not, or believe it or not.

Alea- I can assure you that many here have clearly noticed your attitude to me and anything I say. Yes the thread is jumping about- because ase news come through, what many held as the reality turns out to be very different. So those terrorists are turning out to be homegrown, and not illegal immigrants. Turn out not to be Muslims, and not to have been radicalised by the Imans at the Mosques - but sick long-term druggies and criminals.
People should know.

Listen to her- she just rants and raves- and is a nasty piece of work

youtu.be/rZKqxxoUoYs

Ah well, that makes at least two of us JamJar1 But muggins here is quite happy to take the flak ( again, as happened when I was accused of saying something rosesarered said yesterday. )

It's true that the terrorists appear to be non practicing muslims but surely they are the puppets not the puppet masters and it's the puppet masters that we need to understand and fear.

It's whoever is financing Isis I think. I'm told that captured Isis fighters express no particular religious fervour but say they joined because there is money for their wives and children and some kind of a pension if they die. Sounds very organised, someone's behind it.

granjura. For reasons I wont go into, I see quite a lot of Fox News. In no way would I say that Fox News are anti Islam.
I cant say about the Tea Party.
They are definitely pro Republicans[I wouldnt say they are pro Trump more than the other Republican nominees]. I would say they are very anti Obama.

Personally I havent seen Brigitte Gabriel. I will take your word for her.

No Jamjar, it was the prefectorial condescending tone that led to my 'snip'!