Paris shooting and casualties ?
Discussion
Patrick Bateman said:
V6Pushfit said:
It doesn't have to be religion, just a basic understanding of right and wrong would go a very long way. I don't give a toss what religious beliefs anyone has but if they can't differentiate between the two that's when there's a risk of piss boiling.
With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.Edited by V6Pushfit on Monday 23 November 09:12
Kaj91 said:
Belgian police have made 16 arrests in anti-terror raids but fugitive Salah Abdeslam remains at large, authorities have said.
At least 22 raids were carried out in Brussels and Charleroi, Belgian federal prosecutor Eric Van Der Sypt told a news conference.
No weapons or explosives were found during the searches.
Two shots were fired during an operation in Molenbeek, he said.
Brussels will remain on the highest level of terror alert following the attacks in Paris, Belgium's Prime Minister Charles Michel said on Sunday.
Universities, schools and the metro system will also remain shut, Mr Michel said.
Rumours are that Abdel whathisface from the Paris raids was seen in a BMW near Liege but then gave the Police the slip and headed in to Germany.At least 22 raids were carried out in Brussels and Charleroi, Belgian federal prosecutor Eric Van Der Sypt told a news conference.
No weapons or explosives were found during the searches.
Two shots were fired during an operation in Molenbeek, he said.
Brussels will remain on the highest level of terror alert following the attacks in Paris, Belgium's Prime Minister Charles Michel said on Sunday.
Universities, schools and the metro system will also remain shut, Mr Michel said.
Breadvan72 said:
Godwin alert: What business did the UK have interfering with the affairs of Nazi Germany? That was a sovereign country, wasn't it? What business did NATO have in preventing Serbia from crushing Kosovo?
Come now BV Nazi Germany attacked the rest of Europe it if it hadn't have been for that we wouldn't have "interfered" in their internal affairs.Kosovo is a more interesting example. An example of the way the west makes complex situations simple good and bad guys, the utopian solutions it imposes that can only be maintained by a constant western presence and the way it ignores others key interests (the Russians who already fought one world war for Serbia).
In a rational world the west would have used a threat of military intervention to partition Kosovo, which was an internal administrative unit of Serbia, not put Serbs under the rule of people who hate them.
If you wonder why Russia has moved in an anti-western direction since the hopeful days after the fall of Communism it was decisions like this that helped push them on that path.
We are left with a solution that can only be maintained by American military power and European economic pressure and America is becoming ever more disinterested in Europe.
JagLover said:
If you wonder why Russia has moved in an anti-western direction since the hopeful days after the fall of Communism it was decisions like this that helped push them on that path.
Or, they could of moved to full democracy, press freedom and an independent judiciary ?but maybe Mr Putin would not be there if they did.
AJS- said:
I don't see any sense in which disestablishment of the CofE would be a blow to Islamic terrorism.
Agreed. It doesn't matter whether one has a firm belief in Christianity, Jediism, or worshiping the God of Jelly Babies. What matters is peace. Dismantling CofE would have no effect whatsoever, in fact the reverse is true.There is a huge amount on here now ranging from the apologistic through to the political and everything in between.
Gents and Ladies we are faced with something that will NOT just go away but every indication is it will get worse, and worldwide. It needs dealing with and IS will not negotiate and neither will the world negotiate with IS. History lessons are good, but don't help either as they are by nature (and assistance to this problem) now academic.
Armchair intellectuals have proposed solutions which would take years to implement whilst the IS plague meantime is being spread exponentially.
There are hard decisions for Governments to make and these may remove some peoples rights, in the the case of IS the right to exist or in the case of others restrictions on their rights to preach hatred, to not integrate, or to travel freely etc. There will be a degree of resistance to this change. However, right minded people - those wanting world peace, security, and most of all a future without fear, will be willing to accept these changes. As for the others? Most will accept it as there will be no option, excuse, get-out or safety net.
Those who cannot accept, and refuse to live in a modern world, will be those who have little time left in this one.
The West could not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. We threw a trillion dollars at it and yet it still pervades the country. The death of several thousands of coalition troops and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians has done nothing but delay the take over of Afghan by the Taliban.
The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
I'll be very much opposed to any attempts to (further) limit free speech for all the classic reasons. It will drive the hate preachers under ground, or just on to YouTube or other mediums we have no real control over, and the laws will end up being used to harass 'Islamophobes' and enforce further sharia concessions on British public discourse. And it will achieve nothing, and probably make it look as though they have a point.
This is again where we are completely misunderstanding our attackers, and underestimating the political dimension of the Islamist threat. Besides IS inspiring bored thugs to go and tear up Iraq and Syria, other elements of this movement are very adept at political maneuvering and making secular institutions do their bidding.
Just look at the decade long shambles in the United Nations which very nearly got a global blasphemy law passed, and was used to deflect any and all criticism of countries who used Sharia penalties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religi...
In fact what I would much rather do is say that freedom of expression is a core western value and we will brook no dilution of it. That includes freedom to 'blaspheme' and otherwise criticise and mock religions and religious icons, and that we will come down very hard on any attempts to limit this or respond violently.
This is again where we are completely misunderstanding our attackers, and underestimating the political dimension of the Islamist threat. Besides IS inspiring bored thugs to go and tear up Iraq and Syria, other elements of this movement are very adept at political maneuvering and making secular institutions do their bidding.
Just look at the decade long shambles in the United Nations which very nearly got a global blasphemy law passed, and was used to deflect any and all criticism of countries who used Sharia penalties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religi...
In fact what I would much rather do is say that freedom of expression is a core western value and we will brook no dilution of it. That includes freedom to 'blaspheme' and otherwise criticise and mock religions and religious icons, and that we will come down very hard on any attempts to limit this or respond violently.
Edited by AJS- on Monday 23 November 10:24
skyrover said:
Russia went the way it did because it is under the control of what is essentially organised crime.
A move to the western model would have broken that syndicate and made it accountable to the people (i.e lustration in Poland)
That is part of it yes.A move to the western model would have broken that syndicate and made it accountable to the people (i.e lustration in Poland)
But you also have to look at the deeper conflict between westernisation and a distinct pan-Slavic identity in Russia. NATO bombing their Serb "Brothers" in aid of the very dubious Kosovo Liberation Army was a part of the reaction which strengthened the latter faction.
TTmonkey said:
The West could not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. We threw a trillion dollars at it and yet it still pervades the country. The death of several thousands of coalition troops and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians has done nothing but delay the take over of Afghan by the Taliban.
The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
And your answer is ?The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
Edit to correct a reading error on my part.
Edited by PRTVR on Monday 23 November 10:52
V6Pushfit said:
Agreed. It doesn't matter whether one has a firm belief in Christianity, Jediism, or worshiping the God of Jelly Babies. What matters is peace. Dismantling CofE would have no effect whatsoever, in fact the reverse is true.
Do you not feel that by having a state sponsored religion, even if it is one that has few or no adherents, gives a clear opening to other, much more invasive religions, such as Roman catholicism and Islam?'We', the state, cannot justify restrictions on the nutty ones when we allow concessions to a favourite. Just by suggesting that in this country, the anglican church is, to a degree, benign is not much of a defence. It was not so long ago that it was homophobic, sexist, racist and lots more ists.
TTmonkey said:
The West could not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. We threw a trillion dollars at it and yet it still pervades the country. The death of several thousands of coalition troops and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians has done nothing but delay the take over of Afghan by the Taliban.
The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
So what's the answer? Invite them over for a cup of tea?The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
rovermorris999 said:
TTmonkey said:
The West could not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. We threw a trillion dollars at it and yet it still pervades the country. The death of several thousands of coalition troops and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians has done nothing but delay the take over of Afghan by the Taliban.
The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
So what's the answer? Invite them over for a cup of tea?The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
In reality there already is an unconventional global war being prosecuted, talk of creating one is massively out of date.
PRTVR said:
TTmonkey said:
The West could not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. We threw a trillion dollars at it and yet it still pervades the country. The death of several thousands of coalition troops and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians has done nothing but delay the take over of Afghan by the Taliban.
The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
And your answer is ?The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
any comment on your highlighted post from September.
TTwiggy
6,379 posts
103 months
[report]
[news]
Monday 7th September quote quote all
Esseesse said:
AA999 said:
If no EU country is prepared to secure its borders then if you were ISIS you'd see an amazing opportunity to flood the EU with 'operatives'.
I wonder if in a few months/years that such relaxation of border controls will come back to bite the likes of Germany, France, UK etc.
I think its been said many times that the solution is to stop the flow at the source and to prevent illegal border crossings in to the EU. An open door policy is basically an invitation for anybody from lower economic background regions of the world to come and live off the taxpayers within the EU.
I believe ISIS threatened this months (years?) ago.
As the basic premise of terrorism is to spread terror, they'd be missing their calling if they didn't threaten to do this. The ability to ACTUALLY do it is another matter of course.
rovermorris999 said:
TTmonkey said:
The West could not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. We threw a trillion dollars at it and yet it still pervades the country. The death of several thousands of coalition troops and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians has done nothing but delay the take over of Afghan by the Taliban.
The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
So what's the answer? Invite them over for a cup of tea?The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
PRTVR said:
TTmonkey said:
The West could not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. We threw a trillion dollars at it and yet it still pervades the country. The death of several thousands of coalition troops and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians has done nothing but delay the take over of Afghan by the Taliban.
The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
And your answer is ?The West wont defeat Radical Fundamentalist Islam by attacking Syria and Northern Iraq strongholds. Its far more widespread. Global even.
In attacking Radical Fundamentalist Islam wherever we believe its hiding, we will inflict huge 'collateral damage' on innocent lives, mostly that of Muslims.
Doing this will be a catalyst for the further spread of Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will start to look like you are simply attacking any Muslim you suspect of being associated with Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You will be creating a religious war, as seen from the Islamist side, whether our politicians like that or not.
Do we want a global religious war?
Perhaps some people actually do. On BOTH sides.
This can only escalate.
Edit to correct a reading error on my part.
Edited by PRTVR on Monday 23 November 10:52
I agree with others who feel that bombing ISIS targets with no other plan would be pointless. Russia's plan of propping up the dictatorship of Assad and helping him win his country back is at least coherent. And a nationalist country with a central government is a lot easier to persuade into/out of actions than a war zone (good luck getting ISIS/the Taleban to voluntarily give up chemical weapons, for example).
If fighting an ideology then there needs to somehow be a clear distinction made between whatever ideology ISIS have and the Islam that your bloke on the street practices. This difference needs to be stated explicitly and then pursued to extinction with the same zeal that western governments pursued Communism.
Attacks on Communism upset the general lefty I'm sure, and many have sympathy for Communist ideals, but we still had plenty of people fleeing their lives under Communism. We also have streams of Muslims fleeing ISIS, and loads of Muslims at home who probably feel rightly irked that their views are being misrepresented/fellow Muslims being bombed by the West/whatever, but who are pragmatic enough to weigh that up against the thought of religious fascism overtaking Europe and think "No thanks".
The reason this probably doesn't happen is that a "war on Extreme Sunni Islamic Republicism" would probably involve dropping places like Saudi Arabia in the "Against Us" list and noone in power ever seems willing to do so much as express displeasure towards them.
It's also striking how this is very much one of those cases of "us" looking at "them" and wondering WTF is going on. It'd be really interesting to read the politics section of some Sunni/Shia petrolhead forums. The typical white Brit is fairly ignorant of Islam and the ME, and since they're the ones who put our governments in charge, it's perhaps not so surprising that our "solutions" are so simplistic.
If fighting an ideology then there needs to somehow be a clear distinction made between whatever ideology ISIS have and the Islam that your bloke on the street practices. This difference needs to be stated explicitly and then pursued to extinction with the same zeal that western governments pursued Communism.
Attacks on Communism upset the general lefty I'm sure, and many have sympathy for Communist ideals, but we still had plenty of people fleeing their lives under Communism. We also have streams of Muslims fleeing ISIS, and loads of Muslims at home who probably feel rightly irked that their views are being misrepresented/fellow Muslims being bombed by the West/whatever, but who are pragmatic enough to weigh that up against the thought of religious fascism overtaking Europe and think "No thanks".
The reason this probably doesn't happen is that a "war on Extreme Sunni Islamic Republicism" would probably involve dropping places like Saudi Arabia in the "Against Us" list and noone in power ever seems willing to do so much as express displeasure towards them.
It's also striking how this is very much one of those cases of "us" looking at "them" and wondering WTF is going on. It'd be really interesting to read the politics section of some Sunni/Shia petrolhead forums. The typical white Brit is fairly ignorant of Islam and the ME, and since they're the ones who put our governments in charge, it's perhaps not so surprising that our "solutions" are so simplistic.
glazbagun said:
I agree with others who feel that bombing ISIS targets with no other plan would be pointless.
So do I but I don't see any evidence of no other plan, iyswim, or consider it likely.Perhaps that's because I don't expect to have a running commentary on the development of such a plan, or see details of the plan set out across newspaper front pages for everyone to read.
No doubt elements of it will be impossible to hide, but at the relevant time.
TTmonkey said:
Why do you think I would have an answer?
You seem sure of what the 'west' can and can't achieve so I though perhaps you had some ideas instead of just negativity. Doing nothing isn't an option.Not just us now though, Russia and China in the game. Two countries which won't be so worried about the niceties of collateral damage or international law.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff