Yes, but these groups suppress and threaten their women. Who knows what the men said they’d do behind the scenes if she didn’t do whatever it was she was told to carry out. This is a man-led group where women do what they’re told or else.
While that is true, it is also true that at least some women have bought into the idea that their role is to be subservient to men. When dealing with terrorist groups you have to keep in mind that these people do not think the way we do. Large groups in Islam do not accept reason as a guiding principle in life. The Allies had the same problem dealing with the Japanese in WWII. We never learned to understand the kamikazes, we just had to kill as many of them as we could before they killed us.
That’s not what it sounded like with the San Bernardino shooter. By all accounts the wife may have been the more radicalized of the two and the driving force behind the attack. Now maybe someone back home was driving her to this before she came to the US, but that doesn’t negate that she was a big threat even if something outside, say back in Pakistan, was also driving her.
How so? What would a state militia accomplish in a situation like this that local law enforcement and if needed the national guard, don’t already cover?
Not all states have monolithic cultures or one homogenous culture. Canada, for instance, is a multi-cultural and multi-lingual federation. The Quebecois are a distinct cultural group of French-speakers within that nation.
“Europe” is not an empty term. Before the nation-states of modern Europe existed, Medieval Christendom existed.
England and Scotland are both part of the United Kingdom, so far. They did not unite easily from mutual consent, nor did French and English speaking Canada. Union required military conquest. There are periodic movements to separate in both countries, which I am sure you know.
Exactly right and this was said somewhat in the debate last night, you have children that carry bombs, you have woman who carry out terrorist attacks and if a man tells them to do that, that really is beside the point.
Until I see how the system can be abused, I don’t see this as a negative.
A certain controversial Russian politician said recently to a bunch of journalists that ISIL were made up mainly of mercenaries - which is normally a male thing. There may be others who are part of the organisation that are theocratic radicals. The thing is, is that if people, especially women, have been surpressed and brain-washed throughout their lives since when very young then it can be difficult to unbrainwash so I think it is correct that you say a different mindset. That is for certain. How does one battle with anti-reason? A plague of the mind that runs deep to the point of murder - we are talking about psychopathic actions. So staggering that this mental disturbance can affect so many people at the same time. Makes me wonder whether many of these terrorists are mercenaries. Also, to butcher in such a barbaric way also gives rise to the idea that certain texts invigorate physical terror - like an evil rhythm. There are some very barbaric ‘customs’ that were the norm a few thousand years ago - such as stoning etc…though ISIL take things past that even…that it seems to me that certain cultures have been living in an ancient heathen (for want of a better word) ritualistic culture possibly thanks to texts that enslave by keeping them in such a static mindset.
Maybe some do. But the men set the example. If women didn’t want to do these things then they’d be the worse for it. No one is excusing evil action but it is most definitely a man-run organisation. Like AL-Q was. Respectfully, this is pretty well known. Women are and have been surpressed for years in such cultures. There are plenty of films and books about it that speak the truth. Everything is fear-based in such cultures. And the most vulnerable get hit the worst. No wonder refugees are treated so badly when men in the West (not saying you don’t; I mean generally speaking) can’t even feel some empathy for the women who suffer these ordeals and live under such extreme surpression. Let alone the children. I get that women can be devious and violent too, and it would be sexist to think otherwise, but the culture we speak of is one that is law-of-the-jungle, strongest first, and in these set-ups are almost inevitably run by power-seeking and violent bloody-minded men. You probably do get physically dangerous women but they are not the majority. Male Imams radicalise to extremes the young people by taking advantage of their sadness and bitterness at political oppression and invigorating their aspirations with manipulative dreams of having ‘brothers’ looking out for them. Women Imams would be unheard of in such radically theocratic cultures. Women are trapped, in an enslaving radically theocratic nightmare, from birth. Their second-class citizenship after men is fed into them as normal at such a young age that the risk is oneday they begin to feed from the enslavement without questioning their own personal reason for being.
I am Scottish. Coming from a small ethno-cultural group with its distinctive culture within a larger state, I should think I do know what I’m talking about
I think it’s the “elephant in the room” of European integration. None can deny that a transnational society bound together by supranational canon law, ecclesiastical canon law, customs, pilgrimages, the Holy See (which acted as the highest court in Europe) and the Holy Roman Empire, existed throughout the Middle Ages and until the Treaty of Westphalia was signed in 1648, creating the modern international system of sovereign states.
And:
ISIS stated they would use the refugee system to infiltrate Europe, the Paris terrorists apparently at the very least, used the refugee system to move about.The Syrians who flee are mostly fleeing Assad and barrel bombs.
Killing is killing, whether a man, woman, teenage girl did it. I doubt if we are as concerned with the social implications, it does not lessen the risk.
Hi. Thanks for the responses. I see in your pasted text that you’ve used Fox News; first, in relation to your source, I can think of more reliable ones.
Hi again. Let’s not blow this way out of perspective. Take the number of people who have made it to other countries and look at how many terrorist activities have actually been committed by refugees. Considering the fact that most refugees are poor, starving, beaten, and ravaged by ill healthy, I hardly think they are in a fit state to commit horrid atrocities. Going by figures, you’ll probably find there are more shootings by people with severe mental issues who are born and bred Western, than ex-members of terrorist organisations. However,t he danger is real, true. So, instead of adding to the problem of divides and discord, why don’t (real) politicians talk about dialogue. Obama was right in that sense. He did want this. He wanted dialogue and education in certain communities. That was actually a good idea. Dialogue and room for people to express themselves constructively leads to happiness. Inner conflict combined with external pressures can lead many a man to an awful stage. This is not excusing terror but trying to find real remedial long-term action other than more hate, more divide, more ‘them and us’, more ’ we are right and they are wrong’. We need to see refugees as people not terrorists. With decent border controls and education etc…these things can be handled. Let’s not blame every facet of ill-thinking in the world on the Middle East. The problems are also evident in our own countries already. When we are able to be good example as leading countries THEN we can talk righteously, but until then, much of the stuff coming from political directions is self-righteous.
Constitutional theorists debate ad nauseum precisely how the EU should be classed as an entity under international law. The rough consensus seems to be that it is presently in a category all of its own, the world’s only example of a “Supranational Union” that lies somewhere between a federal state and an international organization.
So the EU cannot usefully be compared with the UN. It is an entirely different “beast”, so to speak.
Does one actually have a comment on the Border Force Plan by the EU?
Since you attack Fox News as reliable yet, seem to lack knowledge on basic details if not even engaging in the principle conversation, I do take offense at singling out a news source for this mudslinging and a deflection. Attack the message and not the messenger iow. Prove it wrong or maybe we can set up a thread somewhere else to debate if Fox is so much worse than other outlets. Let’s see the citations.
The border force plan is linked to the reach of the EU and the vexed question of member state sovereignty, hence why others have been discussing the constitutional nature of the EU’s structure and I have responded to their comments.