Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 14 2015, 06:20 AM

I don't want to enter into a discussion on this, not yet. But I merely want to express my deepest sorrow to the people of both Paris and of France in general and to anyone caught up in the utter horror of last night's events. Bonne nuit mes amis. Je suis de tout cœur avec toi.

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 14 2015, 01:28 PM

It really is shocking.
That was the area I liked.
Le Marais.
We would take a train on birthdays for lunch.

It does seem we have a problem as well.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 14 2015, 06:17 PM

Nothing you can say really. Its just a matter of time before it is London.

I won't "pray for Paris" though as "religion" is the reason all the people died.

Let's knock all the churches, mosques, synagogues, temple's down.

Amazing that in the 21st century where we have literally all the knowledge that our forefathers could not even comprehend to understand that people still believe in a "supreme being"

Anyone who still has this point of view deserves to be treated for a mild form of psychosis.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 14 2015, 06:34 PM

Yep! That'll do it; why don't we shove all the immigrants inside as well before the bulldozer starts as well?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 14 2015, 06:47 PM

Let's not, not today.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 14 2015, 07:45 PM

Why not? The world could have been ending last night but the BBC would have still been showing CIN..

Posted by: newres Nov 14 2015, 08:15 PM

Saying that religions is the cause is just plain inaccurate.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 14 2015, 08:18 PM

How many people in history have been killed because of differing religious beliefs? All extreme versions of religion are bad news.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 14 2015, 08:47 PM

Actually, in reality wars are caused and continued by hot headed people.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 14 2015, 08:55 PM

Are you really calling suicide vest wearing ISLAMIC fundamentalists "hot headed"?

I guess they were just misguided. I'm just waiting for the Islam is a peaceful religion diatribe to start. It's a bit like saying all Catholic priests are innocent of paedophillia.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 14 2015, 10:39 PM

Frankly, you are simply displaying exactly the same dogmatic attitude as those you criticise. Were World War 1 or World War 2 started for religious reasons? I suspect Gordon Brown would have have had a bad press day if ever he'd met you! (Deleted)

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 14 2015, 11:56 PM

Not sure this topic has a in it. Sad.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 15 2015, 01:06 AM

NO! It does not. Try to give the deaths of 130 people at least 24 hours before trying to score petty keyboard points please.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 15 2015, 07:52 AM

I apologise, but can we please not respond to blind intolerant hatred with yet more blind intolerant hatred.

Posted by: newres Nov 15 2015, 08:23 AM

The difference in religious beliefs is usually just coincidental. The attacks in Paris weren't because we're Christian an they're Muslims. It's to do with Israel and Palestine, the Gulf wars, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and air at racks in Syria. And those invasions were largely because of oil, not because the inhabitants were muslims. It's a whole range of reasons.

Basically, you are just wrong.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 15 2015, 08:50 AM

What was the name of the terrorist outfit that carried out the attack?

Posted by: user23 Nov 15 2015, 09:06 AM

Disappointing that the other terrorist attacks this week have received hardly any coverage in the mainstream media.

Posted by: newres Nov 15 2015, 12:01 PM

If you will persist in your simplified and ignorant view there's not much point in debating. Let's be honest, anyone that takes the view that a believer in God is psychotic is beyond help. I speak as an atheist incidentally.

Posted by: newres Nov 15 2015, 12:03 PM

It can't be helped that they are geographically far away and terrorist attacks much less newsworthy there. I do take your point though.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 15 2015, 12:48 PM

You have a right to an opinion. So do I. Calling me beyond help and simple and ignorant is in my opinion quite wrong.

Sometimes the answers are simple.
You did not answer the question.

Posted by: newres Nov 15 2015, 04:26 PM

Because it was a daft question. Obviously their aim is to have an Islamic state, but that is not the cause of the attack on France. Why are France launching air attacks on them? Is it because the French are Catholics and the terrorists are muslims?

Posted by: GMR Nov 15 2015, 05:09 PM

I fear this isn't the last attacks. Push people far enough (i.e. the people of the countries) and they will rise up. The question is, against who?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 15 2015, 06:26 PM

Not particularly. This "version" of Islam means they think of people like you as nothing more than a cockroach on the face of the globe and that you should be exterminated.

The Islamic state want to bring about the end of day's and an apocalypse. This is a stated end game.
People like you are Infidel scum. Obviously, you could drop in on them and try and "negotiate" on behalf of the free western world. Good luck with that.

Unfortunately an attack of this nature is going to happen in London.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 15 2015, 06:33 PM

It's this level of either, malevolent trolling or sheer stupidity that makes me wanna scratch my sometimes.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 15 2015, 06:38 PM

And is why so many people have left this forum. I very rarely visit these days. I used to be an active poster.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 15 2015, 07:38 PM

Well, there seems no point in your visiting as you are clearly unwilling to listen, let alone adjust your views. That's not good.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 15 2015, 07:40 PM

I don't think I'll be alone in wondering what this means, it makes little sense.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 15 2015, 07:45 PM

My way or the highway. Eh? Adjust my views to accommodate yours? What a preposterous and egotistical person you are.

ARROGANCE

1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.

2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others

Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 15 2015, 07:58 PM

This is really not the place or time for a row, but I must say blaming and cast aspersions on the religious people is quite offensive.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 15 2015, 08:02 PM

It's OK, keep calm. I won't disturb you anymore. Peace.

Posted by: newres Nov 15 2015, 08:07 PM

Please explain.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 15 2015, 08:08 PM

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. But then you would know that. You know everything.

Posted by: The Hatter Nov 15 2015, 09:50 PM

I agree with this, OK, I'm a church goer.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 15 2015, 11:43 PM

http://www.channel4.com/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-daesh-bbc-cameron-grayling
That's what they should be called. Separate them from the 'Islam' identity which the majority of peaceful (?) muslims claim they do not represent. And separate them from the word 'State' as we should be doing everything in our power to ensure such an evil doctrine can never hope to claim a piece of this planet and plant their flag on it and it ever be recognised.

'Daesh' is the derogatory term and the ISIS term should be ditched.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 16 2015, 12:31 AM

Saying "it's not" is just plunging your head in the sand.... Their stated intention is for their jihadists to rid the world of zionists and other non islamic faiths by extreme measures. Their followers are strapping on suicide vests and carrying copies of the Qur'an with the sole intent and ultimate belief that they are martyrs for their faith and will be met and rewarded with 72 virgins and the prospect of everlasting happiness....


The attacks in Paris were not completely random. Fair enough, if the Stade de France attack had been successful there would have been huge loss of life and with no specific religious correlation, but the attack on the Bataclan theatre was (presumably) chosen as a main assault target due to it's Jewish owners rather than because Daesh hate the 'death metal' music genre... This theatre has been the focus of a number of anti-Israel activists in Paris for quite some time due to it's owners pro-Israel events.

Sadly for those who attended the music event and were part of this tragedy they may have been saved if only those who planned this attack had kept themselves abreast on whether this was still a 'Jewish target'. In September 2015 the Jewish owners Pascal and Joel Laloux sold the place after 40 years and emigrated to Israel......


Conventional thinking on what constitutes a 'war' should be set aside when dealing with Daesh. We in the western world may think there's a set pattern for a war. No such pattern is in place in the minds of these pseudo-religious sadists.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 16 2015, 12:56 AM

Which one? This tw@t?


...this one?


.......or this one?

Posted by: newres Nov 16 2015, 02:14 AM

There's a lot of inconsistencies and muddle in there. First, Bataclan was targeted because it's owners were Jewish. Then you concede that the Stade de France attack was not because of Jewish owners because it doesn't have Jewish owners, then later you say that Bataclan doesn't actually have Jewish owners any more. We're the restaurants Kosher?

Without doubt the attackers were religious zealots, but their religion isn't the "cause" of the attacks any more than USA invading Iraq was because Iraq is a Muslim country. It's coincidental. The causes lay in geopolitical matters. It is naive to blame religion.

It was regularly argued by the ignorant the "The Troubles" were because of religion, but again the fact that the natives were Catholic and the settlers were Protestant was largely coincidental. Arguably if the settlers were Catholic they would have been more readily assimilated into the population and perhaps the inequalities in the North that led to civil unrest may not have happened, but ultimately the cause was not religious differences.

Anyway, this all "kicked off" because someone said that anyone who believed in God was psychotic proving that you don't have to be religious to be intoleratnt.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 16 2015, 10:35 AM

Current thinking is that IS is aided by rebel Chechnya Muslim elements, now, what is their speciality? Yup, attacking theatres. It would also tie in with the bomb on a Russian airliner.

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 16 2015, 10:39 AM

You rarely believe in God when you end up in the arctic looking for cod.
This is Dad's view.
You are 16, had to give up school,Father died,sister died both from TB.
And your younger brother is a commie trade unionist.
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 16 2015, 10:42 AM

OOps Je suis Charlie...I am off to a theatre on Wednesday. North London. I won't say where.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 16 2015, 11:00 AM

This is simply tosh!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2015, 12:17 PM

I don't see religion as the cause, but it is the excuse. It seems to me that most atrocities are prosecuted by impressionable young men in their 20s. Perhaps that has something to do with it too.

A big problem is information technology: it is too easy to organise with people of a similar perversion. Another problem is the Schengen Agreement: it makes it easier to transport weapons.

However, even if religion was the cause, it is not as if we can suddenly uninvent it, or just stop people believing all of a sudden. So if religion is for peace, then it is incumbent on them to deal with this issue more effectively.

Posted by: newres Nov 16 2015, 12:42 PM

Ok, so they killed 100 odd people in France just because they are Muslims and don't like Catholics. Nothing to do with the fact that France are bombing them.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 16 2015, 06:47 PM

Don't drag the papists into your argument... These people were attacked because, unlike the attackers, they were not Sunni Muslim zealots. Nothing to do with the Holy Father and all that mumbo jumbo. They couldn't care less if they gunned down a theatre full of atheists or if the place was jammed full of Shia's....

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 16 2015, 07:30 PM

I think if we sft the evidence carefully and look at every aspect I think a viable clue can be found in the name, ISLAMIC state! Gear Dog but some people are slow. You're a dull boy newres, a dull boy. look, I used a smiley!!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 16 2015, 07:33 PM

Unless I have misunderstood newres their comment was tongue-in-cheek - point being it's not about religion, it's about France's role in Syria.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2015, 09:10 PM

One difference between these nutters and France is if these chaps had a nuclear weapon they would use it. France do and won't. I despair at the number of people that always look for an excuse for what is just plain cold blooded murder.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2015, 09:40 PM

I'm not sure anyone is is trying to excuse murder, but they might be trying to understand what might drive people to commit atrocities.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2015, 09:56 PM

I understand that. As an aside I'd be quite happy to let them get on with it. Not sure the human rights brigade would be happy though with the child brides, women being 2nd class citizens, public executions, throwing the disabled and homosexuals off tall buildings etc etc. You can't have it both way's and you cannot educate a cult.

Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 16 2015, 09:59 PM

Please think about what you are actually saying, you sound just as dangerous.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2015, 10:00 PM

Ideas anyone?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2015, 10:01 PM

Why? Does this not happen?

Posted by: newres Nov 16 2015, 10:18 PM

Most of those things happen in Saudi Arabia, yet we happily sell weapons to them. You are as brainwashed as those you castigate.

https://www.facebook.com/Mediamatters/videos/10152410206006167/?pnref=story

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2015, 10:30 PM

I agree with the Saudi Arabia link. This is where this branch of Islam has its stronghold. And no we should not be selling arms to them. 99.9999% of Moslems are completely innocent people. This branch of Islam is akin to the old KKK. Prejudice has no place.

Apologies if I have caused any offence. I certainly don't want to castigate anyone. This is a forum. We may have differing views buy that's what makes a sound democracy.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 16 2015, 11:20 PM

I think it's wonderful when people form opinions based on Facebook! What a wonderful world this is.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 16 2015, 11:28 PM

And Corbyn (true to form) vetos all Syrians airstrikes and grandly announces that under his leadership, the police will not be allowed a shoot to kill. No matter what. So, we have a crazed Syrian jihadist letting loose with an ak47 in Trafalgar Square and the police will be effectively helpless. What are they supposed to do? Find a Halal butcher, buy some lamb, starts barbie and invite him to have a chat over some lunch? Is that the plan? Said it before and I'll say it again, the man's bloody dangerous.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2015, 11:41 PM

It doesn't say that here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34832023 Do you have another source?

Everyone has a right to self-defence and to defend, and one may break the law if it is to prevent a greater breach of law (evil) from taking place. In these cases, one may kill another but must justify it. I suspect what Corbin is thinking about is state assassinations.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 12:12 AM

I watched the interview tonight. And no, he said the police would not have permission to shoot to kill. Bet the Federation loves that!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 12:15 AM

This from the Guardian
Jeremy Corbyn has said he is not happy with police or military being ordered to “shoot to kill” on British streets, a measure which Downing Street has approved in the event of Paris-style terror attacks in the UK.

The Labour leader made the remarks after it emerged the government ordered special forces to “take swift action to neutralise terrorists, rather than to cordon and negotiate”, because of the evolving tactics of Islamic Stateterrorists.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 01:19 AM

I didn't see the interview you watched, but I cannot see anywhere where he is reported to have said: 'announces that under his leadership, the police will not be allowed a shoot to kill. No matter what.' or words to that effect.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 01:31 AM

In an interview with the BBC, Corbyn was asked whether as prime minister he would be happy to order police or military to follow such a “shoot to kill” policyHe said: “I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons, where they can. There are various degrees of doing things as we know … but the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that’s got to be the priority.”

Read into that what you will.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 01:36 AM

I'm sorry, but that doesn't say or even imply: 'announces that under his leadership, the police will not be allowed a shoot to kill. No matter what.'

Posted by: newres Nov 17 2015, 06:24 AM

I think it's wonderful when people read something and completely fail to understand what's said.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 17 2015, 07:37 AM

Well no, don't read into that what you will, read what the man is saying. He's simply saying that exra-judicial state execution is generally a bad thing and I tend to agree with him. He's not ruling it out in extremis, but it shouldn't be the first option - the case of Jean Charles de Menezes is one obvious reason why you should resist shoot-to-kill, but the position is more profound than that because the state shouldn't as a matter of policy be killing anyone, even people you hate. Of course that position is easily distorted by haters and as a society we do rather glory in the execution of people we hate - Thatcher ordered the execution of one of the Iranian Embassy hostage takers and we all thought that was fantastic - point is that yes, sometimes the state must take life to preserve security, but in general killing people only escalates the hatred and a better, more difficult option is to promote peace.

Posted by: newres Nov 17 2015, 08:08 AM

Absolutely. I would also argue that the police will very rarely accept responsibility when things go wrong and that they should always understand that taking a life is an absolute last resort. I believe I am right in saying that the US police have killed more people that Al Qaeda killed on 9/11. We don't want that here.

I didn't know that about the Iranian Embassy hostage siege. I remember the siege, but was a teenager. Thatcher made a habit of deploying violence unnecessarily and for political ends. Unfortunately so have most PMs since.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 08:15 AM

I believe the police and the scurity services should be allowed to do the job as they see fit under current law and without political interference. This isn't out of sympathy for the perpetrators, but for practical reasons.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 17 2015, 08:50 AM

A sense of perspective would be useful at this point, seeing as you typed such rubbish.

On a SINGLE DAY Al Queda MURDERED thousands of people.

Over a 'period of time' there have been several thousands killed, in a country the size of Europe where the Right to Bear Arms is written into their law and in some states there is law to permit 'Open carry' (where you can walk down the street and go off shopping with an assault rifle slung over your shoulder). This in a vaste country with a massive population and where their police and Marshalls and state troopers and every form of law enforcer down to our equivalent of PCSOs and Neighbourhood Warden is armed. And where the baddies all carry weapons.

No argument that people are killed by the police but comparing that to 9/11 is crass

(1,000 people have been killed in the US by the police so far in 2015)

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 10:26 AM

For a start, that's from the Guardian, I watched the interview. Myself. I saw and heard what he said. When asked "if you where in power and there was a Paris style incident in London, would you allow the police to implement shoot to kill?" He was asked that question three times and he would not give a direct answer. The best the commie terrorist loving **** would say was broadly what was reported in the Guardian. What you can't see was the expression on his face or hear the weaseling in his voice. Sickening. This man seriously wants people to try to negotiate with terrorists as they are cutting your head of. Mad loon. This pathetic excuse for a leader has exposed himself as a week man, and, should he ever gain power our enemies, who can spot a weak leader from 50 paces will be in the back door before the weasel left can say "Comrade".

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 10:28 AM

No! He didn't say that at all! Wake up! Get your head out from between your legs and smell the compost!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 10:30 AM

**** right! Otherwise let the politicians stand in the front line, hobbled and powerless, see how they manage.

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 17 2015, 10:42 AM

And if you think that's bad, in 2015 year to date, there have been 325 mass shootings. Where a mass shooting is defined as an incident where four OR MORE people are shot or killed in a single incident. The police are swamped, and in an incident where they know they may come under semi automatic fire at any time its no wonder they use their sidearms. Its what happens when you can walk into a Walmart and buy an AR 15 off the rack. Any this Mr newres is under a leader who pledged to control gun ownership.

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 17 2015, 10:54 AM

Meanwhile, it would appear as if the Labour party does not fully support its leadership over this issue, from today's press,
Divisions at the heart of the shadow cabinet have been highlighted after Hilary Benn said he could not speak for Jeremy Corbyn on whether he supports a shoot-to-kill policy against terrorists.

In the clearest public signal yet that senior Labour figures are at odds over Syria and the response to Islamic State, the shadow foreign secretary also defended the killing last week of Mohammed Emwazi, contradicting Corbyn’s position."

"Shadow foreign secretary backs use of ‘lethal force’ against terrorists during a Paris-style attack in interview that highlights divisions with Labour leader"

"The Labour leader was openly challenged at the PLP over his comments in a BBC interview that he was not happy with a policy of “shoot to kill” against terrorists on UK streets. Corbyn also questioned the legality of the drone strike that killed Emwazi."

It would appear to the casual observer that Mr Corbyn may not be speaking for the party as a whole. I wonder how long he will last as he seems to be a bit of a dinosaur to me.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 11:18 AM

That might be true, but it seems a hard nose approach hasn't worked either.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 11:21 AM

He might be a dinosaur and he might be naive, but he could also be a new visionary.

It doesn't matter anyway, Corbyn has no chance of wining an election.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 11:22 AM

What do you call hard nosed?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 11:23 AM

Terrorists usually lose when they lose financial support. That's where the battle should be.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 11:25 AM

Iraq invasion, Afghanistan invasion(s), Russia and France bombing Syria, Russian zero tolerance on terrorists, etc.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 11:35 AM

Ah yes, bombing Syria. How many missions over Syria in a roughly six week period? About 790. Over the same period over Bosnia (remember that?) 38000! Oh, and just how much tolerance should terrorists get? Is that on a measurable scale? Say, one shooting equals a talking to? One grenade attack equals withdrawal of library ticket?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 01:37 PM

What are you on about? Russia have a 'zero tolerance' of terrorists, yet still suffer atrocities (remember the school hostage taking).

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 03:38 PM

So, offer them a cuppa tea and a biscuit then! Lots of arguments from you but little in the way of solutions. As usual. Look a smiley!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 03:49 PM

This

"Jeremy Corbyn has said that he would authorise the use of lethal force against terrorists in a Paris-style attack, marking a dramatic reversal of his earlier opposition to David Cameron's shoot-to-kill policy."

Weak! Dangerous and unsupported!

Posted by: newres Nov 17 2015, 04:04 PM

The US population is about 6 times the size of the UK's. Our police have killed 55 in 24 years. The US police killed 59 in the first 24 days of this year. Somewhat disproportionate wouldn't you say?

It maybe crass (I don't care), but for a large part of the US population, they are far more at risk from their police than terrorists. As you say, a sense of perspective is required.

Anyway, back on topic, IS targeted Paris because France are carrying our air raids against them. NOT because they are nutty muslims who don't like Christians (which may or may not be the case).

Posted by: On the edge Nov 17 2015, 04:09 PM

I must admit I hadn't realised that the World's leading military strategists lived round here and if what's been said here is a sample of their output I sincerely wish they didn't.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 04:16 PM

If ANYBODY had a 'solution' to this, I doubt they would be on this board discussing things with twerps like you and me.

The point I make is that we have got where we are today because of hard nose tactics and it hasn't worked. Just because I might not have a solution doesn't mean I am not entitled to challenge opinions of those that think they do, does it?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 04:20 PM

Except from what I have read, this is bowlax. He might have been 'persuaded' to change his mind, but at the end of the day he didn't say he would not authorise.

To me it looks like more media strawman bovine excrement.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 04:30 PM

Right or wrong, here's the link,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12000003/Jeremy-Corbyn-savaged-by-Labour-MPs-over-shoot-to-kill-opposition.html

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 17 2015, 04:34 PM

I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 04:41 PM

Ask yourselves this question, why are Paris style attacks not carried out in USA? Could it be that all the police are armed? Not to mention Darleen and Bubba, everyones favourite gun totin rednecks?

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 17 2015, 04:44 PM

The NRA's attitude is, "the best defense against a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun" It's certainly a point of view.

Posted by: newres Nov 17 2015, 05:00 PM

Your knowledge of France obviously doesn't stretch beyond your user name. The French police are armed with the exception of the municipal police.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 17 2015, 05:26 PM

16 July this year, Chattanooga.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 05:36 PM

For Corbyn to enact a no kill policy, he would have to change the law. To express a reservation about a shoot-out on the streets of the UK is a reasonable position in my view.

This is more about sensationalism and media strawman twaddle than anything else.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 05:38 PM

They reserve much 'bigger' events for the US.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 17 2015, 07:21 PM

I see Putin taking the lead in Syria. He has all the ammunition he needs now. A weak USA. A plane full of Russian holidaymakers blown out of the sky by a bomb.
The knowledge that the west won't really give a sh*t if he kills hundreds of thousands.
Putin is going to destroy what remains of Syria. And soon.

Posted by: newres Nov 17 2015, 07:46 PM

A highly restricted briefing document on Syria…...

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin (who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm…might have a point…) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good/bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

I hope that clears all this up for you !!!

Posted by: newres Nov 17 2015, 08:12 PM

If he is stupid enough to get sucked into another Afghanistan, then more fool him. The western world cannot defeat these countries. They don't place the same value on human life and they know how to fight the long game. The US has learnt its lesson and dare not put troops on the ground and the odd "terrorist atrocity" simply gives them more support in drone attacks. We see now Cameron again seeking airstrikes and doubtless the public will now be supportive. We (Bush & Blair) have created an unholy mess there.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 17 2015, 08:15 PM

Yep - Bet they all wished they had left Mr Gadaffi and Mr Hussein well alone. Still all career politicians want a legacy. Bush and Blair have. A legacy of death and destruction.

I cannot see troops on the ground by Russia. I can see them unleashing some biological or chemical attack or even a tactical NW.

Putin is one angry man.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 08:41 PM

Yes. It seems there was a reason they were so 'brutal'.

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 17 2015, 09:44 PM

The French have now invoked 42.7 what will be the UK response?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 17 2015, 09:48 PM

Its a difficult one. Cameron will feel compelled to join in the bombing in the full knowledge we have a lot of wannabe jihadi's in this country waiting for an excuse to martyr themselves in the belief they are going to a better place. Do nothing and you are letting them win. Do something and you put the public at even more risk.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 10:22 PM

We need the UN to give us the resolution, we don't then need to go for a vote, is that right? I think that's the way it works. I hope so, if you have a wasps nest in your porch you don't wait to get stung! What disturbs me is that in the theatre they made them stand on the stage and then machine gunned them. If they were using AK's with a standard magazine and assuming three were firing, they must have all had to stop, change mags and continue firing, several times, at young men and women. What possible ****head justification can they have had. Its beyond humanity. These people are not Muslims, they're beasts sick beasts who need rooting out of their lairs and exposed to the light and hopefully appropriate Justice. But what really burns is that a human rights lawyer will try to get them off!

Nuff said.

Posted by: x2lls Nov 17 2015, 10:25 PM

As did happen in the Canadian parliament!

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 17 2015, 10:39 PM

Personally, I wouldn't trust most of their members with a piece of string, let alone a firearm. Still, they seem to enjoy it! Bless!

Posted by: x2lls Nov 17 2015, 10:41 PM

That is simply adherence to due process. No lawyer = no fair trial.
And as regards a wasp nest, the analogy is wrong. Wasps don't just attack with no good reason. IScum do.

Posted by: x2lls Nov 17 2015, 10:43 PM

Who?

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 17 2015, 10:44 PM

For example

https://youtu.be/W66TPHy5lJw

Posted by: x2lls Nov 17 2015, 11:03 PM

I ask again, members of what?

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 17 2015, 11:22 PM

Of this

Posted by: x2lls Nov 17 2015, 11:26 PM

In the actual words, I see no problem with that.

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 17 2015, 11:32 PM

A lot, I guess, depends on your point of view. In theory it sounds great! However how well would it work in practice. Bearing in mind the shear number of guns in circulation in the US.

Posted by: x2lls Nov 17 2015, 11:39 PM

What has the total number of guns and people got to do with that?
The quote is in the singular. The options are, run away, stay and confront, with two possible outcomes. You live and prevent further death, or die trying.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 18 2015, 08:18 AM

There are no depths of depravity they aren't prepared to reach out for. Lining prisoners up on a road, shackled and in orange jumpsuits, and to the accompaniment of an Islamic backing vocal and in HD they film as a 60 ton tank lumbers slowly towards them and crushes each poor soul beneath it's tracks. There are things you cannot unsee.... but once you see, you know you are dealing with a rabid beast that needs to be shown no pity, no mercy....

Posted by: On the edge Nov 18 2015, 10:08 AM

Quite so, and then perfectly illustrates why we need to deal with only the facts and forget the histrionics and hysteria. A hundred years ago, the media storm whipped up by newspapers such as the Daily Mail, did such damage elaborating stories of German bestiality that at first, no one quite believed what was being reported from placed like Belsen etc. At the end of WW2. We also ought to remember that this level of depravity isn't only an attribute of this regime, it's an uncomfortable truth, but it's been rather too common even in recent times in other places. Yes, this scourge needs to be completely eradicated and wiped out - but we won't achieve that simply by whipping up the crowds to screech at it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 11:35 AM

Interesting speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXOciOnoxlU

And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfXmpJRZPYI

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 18 2015, 03:24 PM

There's hope for us all.
https://youtu.be/xkM-SDNoI_8

Posted by: spartacus Nov 18 2015, 09:47 PM

....well I would put a link to the video showing the tank episode but it's not the sort of thing I would want anyone to see.... quite disgusting and I truly wish I hadn't seen it... 'histrionics and hysteria' is far from the truth. It's a fact. From the same director who so skilfully created the short film of the Jordanian fighter pilot burned alive and numerous other warped acts of evil evil torture. The uncomfortable truth is we cannot consider these individuals to be human. They are alien and need to be eradicated.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 09:50 PM

I have difficulty in disagreeing. I too have seen videos that are truly harrowing. The dodgy bit is trying to avoid collateral damage, as I fear it is that which helps 'breed' replacements.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 09:57 PM

Perhaps this is just the evolution of man and we are moving into a new phase.

It is all very well thinking we have it sussed, but while 'some' feel repressed, it arms the extremists.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2015, 08:13 AM

...much the same was done by and said about the Japanese in 1945.

Posted by: newres Nov 19 2015, 08:54 AM

I suspect both sides are carrying out the same sort of atrocities. That's how these things work. Yet we'll still fund those that fulfil our political objectives. Who were the worst in WW2. the Russians or the Germans?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 19 2015, 10:21 AM

Very true, would you mind hazarding a guess at what sort of atrocities the women of Sinjar may of committed?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/12000148/Islamic-State-sex-slaves-Sinjar-mass-graves-show-what-were-fighting.html

Posted by: JaneGibbs Nov 19 2015, 03:03 PM

What happened in Paris was ugly. People use the name of religion to backup their ignorance. True enlightenment and religion is seeing into the soul and thinking before acting.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2015, 03:47 PM

Given that this sort of atrocity has been occurring since time immemorial, by zealots, religious, political or even ego driven, it's pretty clear that we haven't yet discovered how yo stop them. Clearly retaliatory force, even a nuclear one, is no deterrent is it?

Of course, we need to put down this latest manifestation thoroughly and strongly - that's the placebo. Then what? Eliminate every human who demonstrates self glorying leadership tendencies?

Posted by: newres Nov 19 2015, 04:25 PM

Silly question. Or what atrocities the women of Berlin committed that so many were raped & butchered by the Soviets after Berlin fell?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 19 2015, 08:00 PM

Can't you answer the question then?

Posted by: Don Nov 19 2015, 08:01 PM

After the second world war we thought that that war would end all wars. But since then pockets of disenchanted people have popped up and caused havoc. Now people are doing it in the name of religion. What would Churchill have done, I wonder? He would have been right in the game and give them what for, I can tell you. We can't allow these sniveling little cowards to get the upper hand. That is my thoughts on the subject. I look at my grandchildren and it makes me sad for their future.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 19 2015, 08:49 PM

The first time Churchill came up against an army of Muslims, he came unstuck.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 19 2015, 09:16 PM

It’s certainly true that torture of the most vile kind has been part of our shared history since the day the first hairy Neanderthal learnt how to use their opposable thumbs and the strong realised they could pick up sticks and hit the weak and timid. Used to instil fear and ensure compliance. (..and to drag girl Neanderthal types to the nearest cave..)

Going back a few millennia I suppose the Persians had some pretty disgusting ways of dispatching their enemies (just need to Google search 'Scaphism' to confirm that one). The Spanish Inquisition (I bet you didn't expect that would be mentioned...) gave torture a religious twist and moving forward several centuries Daesh are now doing the same in the name of their particular brand of their 'faith'.


Oh I dunno... Japan has been pretty reluctant to return to old habits since their Instant Sunshine moments in '45

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 19 2015, 09:21 PM

Yup, quick dose of 'magic moonbeams' soon sort em out. Get some use out of trident we've all bin paying for!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 19 2015, 09:53 PM

Removing Syria from the face of the Earth is unlikely to take out all the sleeper cells around the world. Of course, in that scenario, we than have to ask who are the savages, us or them?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 19 2015, 10:01 PM

Look on this scum as an infection. What do you do with an infection? You cauterize it.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 19 2015, 10:08 PM

I fear we're just hoping that these scum aren't able to develop and deliver one or more 'dirty bombs' to the West via one of their suicidal followers, or detonate chemical or biological weapons in a major population centre. It seems inevitable that some time in the next decade (our lifetime) it will happen. Some very drastic action has to be taken to wipe that possibility out or we will sleepwalk into a mess of our own making through complacency and a process of hand-wringing and indecision before any action is ever taken..

As the IRA scum of the past said after their attempt to kill Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet, they "only have to be lucky once".

It's a scary thought if you have kids and grandchildren

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 19 2015, 10:18 PM

Hate isn't the answer. Hate can't promote peace. Compassion, respect and understanding can create peace.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 19 2015, 10:24 PM

Not much cop if it is a cancer you are dealing with.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 19 2015, 10:32 PM

I heard to day: France is 7% Muslim, but guess what 70% of the gaol population is? In England and Wales, Muslims account for 14 per cent of the prison population and 5% of the population nationwide.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 19 2015, 11:17 PM

Yeah but cancer isn't an infection now is it?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 19 2015, 11:18 PM

So?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 19 2015, 11:21 PM

Nope, quite right. Fire is the answer. Yours is the attitude that allowed Hitler to get away with killing 6..5 million Jews. If we had stamped down harder then they would not have been subjected to holocaust. Apologists have so much blood on their hands.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 19 2015, 11:24 PM

NO, but is infection the correct analogy? I don't think it is. The point is, wiping out Syria will not remove the 'French' problem, and elsewhere.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 19 2015, 11:26 PM

Give us a **** good head start! Wipe out the hive first, then deal with the individuals.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 19 2015, 11:49 PM

The truth is we'll never know.
It's only from a position of hindsight that we can ever make these sorts of statements about historical facts. We just have to hope that the intelligence services and the ones we have trusted to make major decisions on our behalf make the correct ones before the events rather than as 'reaction to' events. And we have to trust them when they justify their actions (which may appal us) with the argument that they were preventing a significant event from taking place. For The Greater Good.

Current behaviour suggests we're too cynical to trust such a statement even if there was absolute categorical certainty that it is true. Our practice is to lash out after an event rather than strike first blow and neutralise a problem.

But tracking down isolated fanatics who may or may not be working out how to carry out mass 'single action murder' of the type that a 'dirty bomb' or chemical/biological weapon would provide is intensely resource hungry and despite what you see in films or on the TV we are behind the curve and chasing shadows for much of the time. Recent events suggest things are going to get messy for us though if something major isn't done soon.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 20 2015, 12:04 AM

Well, while I agree most fervently with most of that, the French have just proved you can lance a boil! Mind you, 5000 rounds? And lest we forget, that ***** killed a dog as well!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 20 2015, 12:53 AM

...a needle pulling thread.


Or in this case, teeth.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 20 2015, 03:47 AM

I don't think you can justifiably say that. The rest of Europe didn't have the stomach for war, including the populous. The governments could have sent us in too early and although we might have been victorious, what if we weren't, what if we had been crushed? There may have been even more bloodshed in the long run. Sometimes you just have to wait until you have the resolve to do something and too many people didn't have the fight back then, until it became too obvious to ignore.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Nov 20 2015, 11:42 AM

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us."

Posted by: On the edge Nov 21 2015, 03:10 PM

Really?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 21 2015, 06:05 PM

I don't accept that; it's a world-view founded on fear and ultimately that will always consume itself in hate. Our best hope of sleeping safely in our beds is to challenge our own fear and to not give our neighbours any cause to fear us.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 21 2015, 07:15 PM

OK, I can dig that, I was around in the sixties man, cool! I only hope that if (God forbid) you are ever caught up in a Paris 'style' attack its not you and your loved ones cowering under a table fervently praying for people with guns to come and kill the 'badmen'! Dig it man? look a smiley!

Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 21 2015, 07:24 PM

Would you really be under a table Je rather than up and at 'em?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 21 2015, 07:28 PM

A death cult that believes all none believers are nothing more than a parasite to be exterminated and are happy, really happy to die in the cause.
That tends to cause lots of fear.

We are no threat to them if they were lets just call it as it is "CIVILLISED". They are not and would happily kill you, your children, your grand children and anyone you cared about without a moments hesitation.

But hey - Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and start a conversation.

France are well on the way to electing Marie Le Penne. When they do 5 million moslem's (99.9999%) of them fine nice people will be looking to relocate.

A lot will want to come here. Our infrastructure, stretched as it is will not cope. (and 0.0001%) will want to kill us all.

It is the truth. People don't like the truth. Speaking it must make me a r&&&st (to some in the PC police)

But I don't give a s**t about them.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 21 2015, 07:34 PM

I'd run and hide myself. Even the SAS must worry about people wanting to kill themselves.
What would you do Mr Brown? I'm no hero unarmed against a Kalashnikov.

Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 21 2015, 08:39 PM

Have we learned nothing?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 21 2015, 08:48 PM

No. Please give me your pearls of wisdom.

Posted by: newres Nov 25 2015, 08:04 AM

An interesting alternative view which puts into words my own thoughts, though somewhat more humorously:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/frankie-boyle-fallout-paris-psychopathic-autopilot

Our own local MP carries on as usual though:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/16536/Newbury-MP-quizzes-Prime-Minister-over.html

Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 25 2015, 09:24 AM

As you say, very interesting! Listening to Parliament talking about Trident, we don't need to go in anyway; because they'll realise that we have a really big firecracker that will take out the pub as well as the car park at the press of a button. Have we told them yet?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 25 2015, 09:19 PM

I think like that too.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 26 2015, 07:59 PM

Belgian nationals launch a terrorist attack on Paris; it is now imperative that we start bombing Syria. Did I miss a meeting or something?

Posted by: spartacus Nov 26 2015, 08:56 PM

It was hardly an attack motivated by Walloon Separatists though was it. 'Belgian' they may have been according to some of their papers and passports but in their hearts that was just a matter of convenience.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 26 2015, 09:20 PM

In a way that reinforces my implied argument.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 26 2015, 09:29 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 26 2015, 09:41 PM

Or in another way, is flattening Syria (which is not what is proposed) going to deal with threats from terror cells across the 'free world'? Or is this to allow some of us to 'feel better'?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 27 2015, 01:04 AM

Bombing Syria will no doubt make us feel so much better. Not that it will make any difference on the ground. The only way to keep Islamic fundamentalists out of power in the middle east is to invade the lot and keep a few hundred thousand troops on the ground for a century or so.

Or we can stay out of it - which, eventually, we seem to have done in Iran. Now Iran seems like an oasis of calm in comparison with its neighbours the west is bombing.

Either way a lot of locals will suffer - there is no perfect solution - but the place will probably calm down a lot quicker if left to sort itself out.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 27 2015, 07:29 AM

Britain supported the CIA in overthrowing the legitimate democratic Iranian government in the fifties and installed a pro-western dictator. Little wonder the people of Iran are distrustful of the west, and particularly the Christian extremists of the USA who subvert a peaceful religion in order to motivate their feckless population into supporting an oil-inspired colonial expansion.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 27 2015, 09:40 AM

Of course we will always be safe under Labour leadership. Oh, wait! Iraq! As you were then!

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 27 2015, 11:26 AM

The British interests in Iran were to be nationalised in 1950 or so. OK said the bosses. we'll blow everything up...
Right said the legitimate government we 'll detain UK citizens (including moi) in camps.

UK backed down and we were all evacuated on a battle cruiser.

Who on earth would have called their son.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Roosevelt,_Jr.

It was to do with communist influence in the area as well. "The great Game" 'Twixt Russia and UK empire.
ce

Posted by: blackdog Nov 27 2015, 11:48 AM

Yes, we joined the US is messing about in Iran for many years (including encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade) but - eventually - we stopped. I Since when the country is calmer and a little less hard line Islamic (probably no more oppressive than our friends the Saudis). Sure they still distrust us (who can blame them?). But we are talking now, and involving them in discussions about Iraq and Syria. Another 100 years of peace and we may even be friends.

Endless warfare is not the answer.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 27 2015, 12:20 PM

I think while we have an electorate that appear to lack critical thinking, we will not be safe with any party; after all, the parties represent who we are.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 27 2015, 12:23 PM

Sadly, the only warfare that 'works' has to be overwhelming (brutal, total and merciless).

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 27 2015, 02:07 PM

Didn't work that well Andy Capp. Brutal warfare didn't really work well in WW2.

An uncle vanished after a bombing raid on Emden.

He was in the first 1000 bomber raid on Essen earlier the same week.
"We shall wreak the whirlwind" it was 1942

His name is on stone at Runnymede.
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 27 2015, 02:17 PM

I accept you have to stand up. When the riots over London a few years ago.
Burnings, Lootings. it was the Kebab shop owners who came onto their doorsteps.
Brandishing very big knives for essential cookery they just stood against troublesome looters.
I am sure they used some strong language

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 27 2015, 02:26 PM

Precisely.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 27 2015, 04:23 PM

From the ISIS weather service,

"Warning! Tornados expected!"

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 7 2015, 03:25 PM

And so as predicted the rise of the far right in Europe begins. I have a sense of deja vu.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Dec 7 2015, 04:39 PM

The French (I assume you are referring to Marine Le Penn?) Has had a far right faction in political circles since the 1890's and Drefus.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 7 2015, 05:02 PM

I was referring to Le Penn. However, the German right will rise with the influx of 1 million + immigrants.
The German chancellor will have blood on her hands. History will not remember her well.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 8 2015, 04:20 PM

Meanwhile, from the Stop the War Coalition, “Benn does not even seem to realise that the jihadist movement that ultimately spawned Daesh is far closer to the spirit of internationalism and solidarity that drove the International Brigades than Cameron’s bombing campaign.”

Nice!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 8 2015, 05:23 PM

You're quoting Matt Carr. Much was made of his comparison, and http://infernalmachine.co.uk/: