Again provide something anything at all to back your bias confirmation because simply rehashing your same lines doesnāt cut it. The FACT the undeniable fact that you simply cannot grasp is that the majority of these attacks have not occurred just before an election so for you to simply assume it was the motivator for this particular attack is baseless. The French attacks didnāt see Le Pen elected so why is it assumed to have been the motivator? As was pointed out the latest attacks have seen support for Corbyn rise so maybe the real motivation is to support the left who so eagerly bend for Islam. Why canāt simply hatred of the west be the motivator, desire to murder innocent people & cause as much terror as possible. Do we really think that people stupid & crazed enough to carry out these attacks have to have some complex motivator stronger than religion? Maybe as others have suggested religious significance like Ramadan may be the motivator for the timing. The point is you donāt frigging know what the motivation was so its silly to pontificate that your assumption is correct & the only possible answer. The only thing we know that ties all of these attacks together is ISLAM - maybe thatās where you should at least open your eyes & start looking for answers.
Again, Iāve already accepted that I probably got it wrong re. the relationship between the latest attack & the UK election.
It is a fact that the French attacks were widely expected to favour Le Pen (you would have had to have been asleep not to know this). It was widely assumed this was the intent, and this is not unreasonable given voting for the likes of Le Pen plays directly into ISISās hands.
Meanwhile, you happily assume, speculate & pontificate as well as anyone.
So lets leave it at that, cos this is getting silly.
Lol. So a bunch of lefties jump to the same baseless conclusion about the French attacks that you did about this latest attack and you think thatās some confirmation of what motivated the terrorists. Ffs I will give you a clue - not one single report from any attack has even claimed the terrorists mentioned the election let alone their preferred winner. What was reported in just about every attack is the terrorists invoking Allah, ISIS or some other Islamic motivator. There is as much evidence that the attacks were designed to help Macron as there is that they were in any way motivated to help Le Pen.
Yep. Religion was one of the very first Political control systems.
Kings bowed to & obeyed the Pope, until Henry wanted Catherine out of the marital bed, and even then, he announced that he, as King, was now the head of a new Church/religious entity.
In historical terms, itās not that long ago that they actually separated church & state.
We have fighting the English for hundreds of years, and the modern war started after the Easter uprising in 1916.
My family came to Australia just after that and sent back support with most of the local Irish Community for a very long time. Many born in Australia went and fought with the IRA.
There is a difference between IRA and ISIS, but tell that to the dead and their families.
Interesting you point out that most of the local Irish community supported the IRA & sent them money & fighters - this is exactly what I believe is the case with many local muslims & their support for ISIS & other radical groups. Given you have seen this support for foreign terrorism 1st hand do you thinks it maybe something not confined to the Irish?
The IRA were a little before my time but Iād be interested in your take on the differences between them & ISIS. I know the claim has been that the IRA always sent warnings before attacks & it might be arguable that they didnāt simply set out to kill as many civilians as possible but on the surface it looks like both used the same means to an end. Both had legitimate grievances but Iām just not sure how terrorism can ever be justified against civilian targets.
I was only a kid during the early 1960ās and can only recall the functions at the Emerald Hall in South Melbourne where there was much drinking, dancing, fighting and raising money for āneedy causesā in Ireland. There were many Irish Priests who were the organisers, or so it seemed to me.
I went to Ireland in the 1970ās and visited the North and Belfast which looked like a war zone, and it probably was. The South seemed very normal and there was little discussion of the troubles with me, as while I had family ties, I was an outsider and I didnāt want to be involved.
The IRA argued that they never targeted civilians, and showed regret if there were civilians casualties. That said the PIRA were ruthless and trained in Libya with others terrorist groups.
I am sure you can draw comparisons between IRA and ISIS, except that while the IRA were almost entirely Catholic, it was never a religious conflict and nothing to do with any religious ideology, unlike ISIS it seems. The parallels are perhaps about economics and freedom. Both attack political targets, but they use different methods. IRA has massive support in USA, ISIS has massive support from Saudis it is alleged. I have no idea if Australian with ties to Syria, Lebanon, Iraq etc send money to ISIS, but enough evidence to show many young Australians have gone to fight and die.
In my view, as someone who studied the Irish conflict and the Irish people, there always was a push for a peaceful outcome in Ireland, as has happened. Seemingly no chance of the same with ISIS, unless there is peace in the Middle East, and this means the destruction of Israel.