Paris shooting and casualties ?

Paris shooting and casualties ?

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
Making a bunch of rude and patronising remarks and then saying "just friendly banter" is pretty feeble. Oh, and I am not your friend, by the way. Assad is vastly more lethal than IS - look up the figures. You may only care what happens down the road from you, and maybe think that dead Syrians don't count, but that is a short sighted view, as turmoil elsewhere can end up clobbering us.

Patrick Bateman

12,143 posts

173 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
Is he more destabilising?

allnighter

6,663 posts

221 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Making a bunch of rude and patronising remarks and then saying "just friendly banter" is pretty feeble. Oh, and I am not your friend, by the way. Assad is vastly more lethal than IS - look up the figures. You may only care what happens down the road from you, and maybe think that dead Syrians don't count, but that is a short sighted view, as turmoil elsewhere can end up clobbering us.
Lighten up will you? Dead Syrians count for me, and Syria was a stable country before we started arming mercenaries and undermining their president. I spoke to Syrians who might not like their president, but they much prefer life as it used to be under him and his father, yes a police state, with no security issue, no crime, and no rape and pillage as is the case currently thanks to Daesh.
Do not attribute things to me which I have not said, that's what's feeble about your argument.

Believe or not the best solution IMO is to help Assad crush all these outlaws north, south, east and west of the country, and help the Iraqi troops in Iraq too.
I will sound controversial by saying this:
By helping local people taken hostage. By also involving Western troops to dislodge the criminals of the Islamic State and eradicate them. We need to do it as an international coalition, there is no alternative. We must not be afraid to go on their land. They have come to us hitting the heart of Paris.
Fear is the keyword. The ultimate weapon for terrorists.
Fear is the natural habitat of terrorism. We must battle against this organization that has managed to build this reputation, arming themselves to the teeth (with our help) and threatening peace in all countries of the world. All means are good, including talking to Assad and helping the Syrian army!

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
Regarding the merits of Assad, they are few. The main argument in favour of backing him is the rather miserable proposition that he has fewer demerits than any of the alternatives. In my view there is another cynical advantage to it which we are not making any use of at all so far as I can tell - his desperation to hold on to power and the money that goes with it.

What this means is that we have an opportunity to attach some serious conditions to our support, which would further secularise the Syrian state in opposition to political Islam. Guarantee equal rights for religious minorities. Push women's rights. Enshrine true freedom of religion in Syrian law, etc. Basically all the things we totally failed to do in Iraq, which caused Saddam Hussein to go from being a fairly secular leader to courting Islamic fundamentalists as he scrambled to hang on to power.

0000

13,812 posts

190 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
irocfan said:
who mentioned the NHS - I merely stated that it would likely not be beyond wit or reason to manufacture something without porcine products. One might imagine that vegans would be a tad upset about that one too so for a drugs company it's another (potentially) untapped market. Strikes me it's a win/win situation - don't ps off the crazies and ensure that immunisation programmes are fully successful
The article in the comment you originally replied to mentioned the NHS; there is a vaccine without porcine products, but the NHS chose the most effective vaccine to distribute - which resulted in that article. Irrational motivations to use less effective vaccines can be met by individuals own wallets.

allnighter

6,663 posts

221 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
AJS- said:
Regarding the merits of Assad, they are few. The main argument in favour of backing him is the rather miserable proposition that he has fewer demerits than any of the alternatives. In my view there is another cynical advantage to it which we are not making any use of at all so far as I can tell - his desperation to hold on to power and the money that goes with it.

What this means is that we have an opportunity to attach some serious conditions to our support, which would further secularise the Syrian state in opposition to political Islam. Guarantee equal rights for religious minorities. Push women's rights. Enshrine true freedom of religion in Syrian law, etc. Basically all the things we totally failed to do in Iraq, which caused Saddam Hussein to go from being a fairly secular leader to courting Islamic fundamentalists as he scrambled to hang on to power.
Really? Saddam courting Islamists? He was their enemy no:1.

Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad, ruled Syria for 29 years with an iron grip but gave significant protection to Christians. In some ways, the situation in Syria mirrors that of Iraqi Christians during the reign of deposed leader Saddam Hussein.

Both countries have been secular regimes of different branches of the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party, which had Christian involvement from its beginning in the 1950s. While the regime has kept a tight lid on Muslim fundamentalists who seek its overthrow, Christians and other religious minorities received relative freedom to practice their faith.

Both dictators (Assad & Saddam) clamped down on Islamic fundamentalist groups while at the same time allowed Orthodox Christians to freely practice their faith. Syria was regarded by Christians as the 'Model Arab Country' till ISIS operatives started their campaign of intimidation shouting "Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut."

It would be a big mistake to remove the current government apparatus and install a puppet government there instead.It would be a disaster for the country and a tragedy for all minorities who enjoyed relative freedom. The objective is to remove the tumour and recognise our active part in creating it (ISIS). We, along with the Russians, should help Assad & his army defeat this clear and present danger.

Once that's achieved, and all armed gangs disarmed, tried and jailed (or killed) then , and only then, we can exert pressure on Assad to make reforms, get rid of corruption. I think you would find him more willing to listen.

irocfan

40,154 posts

189 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
0000 said:
irocfan said:
who mentioned the NHS - I merely stated that it would likely not be beyond wit or reason to manufacture something without porcine products. One might imagine that vegans would be a tad upset about that one too so for a drugs company it's another (potentially) untapped market. Strikes me it's a win/win situation - don't ps off the crazies and ensure that immunisation programmes are fully successful
The article in the comment you originally replied to mentioned the NHS; there is a vaccine without porcine products, but the NHS chose the most effective vaccine to distribute - which resulted in that article. Irrational motivations to use less effective vaccines can be met by individuals own wallets.
fair play on the NHS - apologies for that. That being said I'd be curious what the cost differential is between porcine and non-porcine based medicines. Given the public sector's reputation for being 'right on' and massively multi-cultural I am just a tad surprised that no-one thought that this could be a potentially massive PR fk-up at the very least.

0000

13,812 posts

190 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
Should a national health service choose a less effective medicine for a vast majority of the population because of non-scientific reasoning from a minority regardless of the cost difference?

I'm not sure that's ethical.

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
allnighter
Definitely true in his earlier days but around the time of the first Gulf War this started to change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_campaign

By 2003 he was paying the families of Hamas suicide bombers and aligning himself with the Muslim brotherhood.

irocfan

40,154 posts

189 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
0000 said:
Should a national health service choose a less effective medicine for a vast majority of the population because of non-scientific reasoning from a minority regardless of the cost difference?

I'm not sure that's ethical.
and again I'm not saying everyone should be treated with the same less effective medicine I'm just saying there c/should be a choice for people who have issues (IIRC there are many different flavours of quite a few medicines, why should this be any different?)

amusingduck

9,396 posts

135 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
irocfan said:
0000 said:
Should a national health service choose a less effective medicine for a vast majority of the population because of non-scientific reasoning from a minority regardless of the cost difference?

I'm not sure that's ethical.
and again I'm not saying everyone should be treated with the same less effective medicine I'm just saying there c/should be a choice for people who have issues (IIRC there are many different flavours of quite a few medicines, why should this be any different?)
Well, I doubt the flavour of a medicine affects it's effectiveness for a start.

Justayellowbadge

37,057 posts

241 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
That's not what he meant, Captain Literal.

Edited by Justayellowbadge on Tuesday 1st December 11:36

amusingduck

9,396 posts

135 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
Justayellowbadge said:
That's not what he meant, Captain Literal.

Edited by Justayellowbadge on Tuesday 1st December 11:36
Then maybe he should have used a better word confused

TTmonkey

20,911 posts

246 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
Is time this thread was locked. Its wandered off topic now, there are other threads for this stuff.

fatboy18

18,930 posts

210 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
TTmonkey said:
Is time this thread was locked. Its wandered off topic now, there are other threads for this stuff.
Agree, its gone way off line now frown

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED