Explosions reported in Manchester?

[Alpinestars]

Katie Hopkins sacked by LBC.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv...

[otolith]

rscott said:

otolith said:

heebeegeetee said:

Hmm, some irony there. "Their stated aim has been to dominate the world, just like it has been since well before we invaded them".

I have not fact checked this, and the guy clearly has an agenda, however even those who dislike him seem to accept that his approach is generally objective.


https://youtu.be/eAn_I64mloU

Interesting opinion on this chap and his work here - https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-is-Bill-Warner-... .

He also declared Obama to be the face of Islam in America http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/president-obama... , so might just be pushing a slight agenda...

Yes - like the article you quote, I'm more trusting of his analysis than his commentary. But it does seem to be a fair point that the crusades were a much smaller scale operation than was aggressive Islamic expansionism, and hence perhaps not a good basis for a thousand year old grudge.

[Cobnapint]

And in other news, a bus carrying Coptic Christians has just been shot up in central Egypt, 23 dead, 25 injured so far.

Nothing to do with......

[MikeT66]

Cobnapint said:

And in other news, a bus carrying Coptic Christians has just been shot up in central Egypt, 23 dead, 25 injured so far.

Nothing to do with......

Quite.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-400593...

Oh, and to balance the books...
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/deaths-repor...

Purely down to these countries getting involved and meddling in the Middle East... or maybe not. Could it be that there is simply a group that wants to be at war with the whole world, and if there is no reason will invent one anyway to suit their agenda? Which brings us back to how we (Muslims/Chrsitians/Atheists, et al) resolve it?

[rscott]

otolith said:

rscott said:

otolith said:

heebeegeetee said:

Hmm, some irony there. "Their stated aim has been to dominate the world, just like it has been since well before we invaded them".

I have not fact checked this, and the guy clearly has an agenda, however even those who dislike him seem to accept that his approach is generally objective.


https://youtu.be/eAn_I64mloU

Interesting opinion on this chap and his work here - https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-is-Bill-Warner-... .

He also declared Obama to be the face of Islam in America http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/president-obama... , so might just be pushing a slight agenda...

Yes - like the article you quote, I'm more trusting of his analysis than his commentary. But it does seem to be a fair point that the crusades were a much smaller scale operation than was aggressive Islamic expansionism, and hence perhaps not a good basis for a thousand year old grudge.

Yep - I'd agree with that. There's an interesting comment in the first article about Christianity in North & South America in that first article too .

[Stickyfinger]

Alpinestars said:

You really have no capacity to learn do you. Even when it comes from the horses mouth.

Your reference to "learn" should read "believe what I/my clippings say"....the two are very different.

Try also to stop the snide st will you, I know it is what you do/how you try to control an argument but it is a little obvious now.

Edited by Stickyfinger on Friday 26th May 12:55

[Alpinestars]

Stickyfinger said:

Alpinestars said:

You really have no capacity to learn do you. Even when it comes from the horses mouth.

Your reference tp "learn" should read "believe what I/my clippings say"....the two are very different.

Try also to stop the snide st will you

Come back with some evidence to the contrary. Not interested in your puerile view.

[rival38]

ferrisbueller said:

It would appear Libya was a scapegoat, a pawn in the game. Gaddaffi was too much of a narcissist to address the situation. And Assad was the originator of many middle eastern issues.

However, it is difficult to establish the actual facts in a world where the truth seems to be so closely managed - or manipulated.

There is a recurring theme through this stuff. That would appear to be that our American bedfellows are the common enemy.

Absolutely agree that the narrative and spin on events is very carefully micro managed. Some time ago a journalist friend (ex Guardian & BBC ) was lamenting the degradation of his profession to that of `approved content provider` from that of `searcher and critical thinker`.

He suggested that some reading. `The Grand Chessboard` by Zbigniew Brzezinski & the PNAC documents (available online) and some diy research into the influence of their authors would be a help in assesing the bigger picture.

This led me to read about the Oded Yinon plan and the Coudenhove Kalergi plan. Both contain some policy objectives and suggestions of how to reach them that are well and truly `conspiracy theory territory`. However both authors do seem to be held in great esteem at the higher levels of certain governments. Mrs Merkel herself is a recent recipient of the Coudenhove Kalergi prize.

Even taking these 4 texts with a pinch of salt, it is hard not to question events - and wonder, in fact if the chaos we seem to be experiencing is not accidental, but entirely intentional.

Food for thought perhaps for those with an inquisitive nature. The PNAC document alone is interesting in the wider context, but also for what it says about Ukraine. Mrs Nuland (US state dept) is on record saying that the CIA had spent $5B fermenting the `maiden` revolution. Her husband Mr Kagan (US CFR member) is one of the authors of the PNAC publication.

My view is that it all leads back to `the petro $` - the determination of the US to be the issuer of the worlds reserve currency, and the undisputed ruler of a uni polar world - by any means. But we must not forget that Israel has many reasons to desire that its neighbors are weakened by conflict. A little bit of digging also reveals that almost all the members of the CFR (highly influential US -committee for foreign relations) hold Israeli passports as well as US ones.

Edited by rival38 on Friday 26th May 13:03

[Stickyfinger]

Alpinestars said:

Come back with some evidence to the contrary. Not interested in your puerile view.

I did, but you ignore the "horses mouth" it seems.....mucho double standards.

Puerile view ?.....still you cannot resist adding a little bit of bile to any reply, very sad

[alock]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I have said several times before that the West should keep out of the religious conflicts of the Middle East, because even where the Wests interventions were done with the best intentions (Remember the West trying to stop people like Saddam Hussein gassing thousands of his own people) both sides invariably just see it as infidels interfering in their affairs, and act (in their eyes) accordingly.
Bad though it might seem, it may have been best for the West to just stand back, and let these warring countries just get on with killing each other, and then just deal with the winning side.
Do not forget these countries (not forgetting places like Bosnia) were killing their own people/ kids long, long before the West decided to step in and try to put a stop to it.
If the so called warriors of these countries just fought the warriors of the other countries/religious sects that they disagree with, that would be more understandable, and even then there would bound to be collateral deaths of the civilian population, but to target innocents in other countries, many of whom have virtually no knowledge of what these people are fighting about, let alone support for either side, seems to highlight the stark difference between the mind set of the majority of those in the West, and the medieval mind set of the those in the Middle East. They cannot be reasoned with, they don't have the same culture, mind set and values of those in the West, and if history is anything to go by, they never will.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Friday 26th May 10:39

The problem is that everyone defines "interfering" differently.

• Is sending national troops to quash an armed and violent rebellion interfering?
• Is sending UN troops to quash an armed and violent rebellion interfering?
• Is sending medical troops to help with casualties interfering?
• Is sending the red cross to help with casualties interfering?
• Is sending medical supplies interfering?
• Is sending peace keeping negotiators interfering?
• Is sending aid money interfering?
• Is accepting refugees who have been found guilty of a crime and sentenced to death interfering?
• Is accepting economic migrants who represent a skills drain from their home country interfering?
• Is not doing any of the above, and allowing millions of people to die from a civil war, interfering with the human rights of innocent individuals?

They key here, is that it only takes one determined person who has decided to take offense at either our actions or lack of actions, for a retaliation to be justified.

We are where we are in history. In the future, the only real decision to make is whether we get involved in the internal disputes of other countries or we don't. Sometimes this might involves troops on the ground and sometimes it won't.

[Alpinestars]

Stickyfinger said:

Alpinestars said:

Come back with some evidence to the contrary. Not interested in your puerile view.

I did, but you ignore the "horses mouth" it seems.....mucho double standards.

Puerile view ?.....still you cannot resist adding a little bit of bile to any reply, very sad

Go back to you first post to me on this thread. And then try taking the sapiential and moral high ground.

Where's your evidence. Linky linky please.

[Stickyfinger]

Alpinestars said:

Go back to you first post to me on this thread. And then try taking the sapiential and moral high ground.

Where's your evidence. Linky linky please.

I disagree that your belief that such examples constitutes the truth, your willingness to stick to such defined and singular points is admirable but misguided IMHO.

I can only reason by the preset bias you adhere to and the desperate attempts to dominate our conversation as is exampled by your use of "the snide comment" so much. I have asked before why you exhibit such passive aggression, I still wonder.

Off now for an afternoon shooting and a weekend of some hill climbing cars..........so any more "talk" will have to wait.

Edited by Stickyfinger on Friday 26th May 13:32

[ferrisbueller]

dudleybloke said:

Oakey said:

ferrisbueller said:

One serviceman was killed in the disco. And it was believed to be a Syrian bomb.

Was Libya responsible for Lockerbie? My understanding is that Syria was the prime suspect but this was an inconvenient outcome.

It would appear Libya was a scapegoat, a pawn in the game. Gaddaffi was too much of a narcissist to address the situation. And Assad was the originator of many middle eastern issues.

However, it is difficult to establish the actual facts in a world where the truth seems to be so closely managed - or manipulated.

There is a recurring theme through this stuff. That would appear to be that our American bedfellows are the common enemy.

If you look hard enough you can find newspaper articles from the time that puts Syria in the frame

Most people find this hard to believe because the government told us it was Gaddafi and kept pushing the fact since the bombing.
Now they expect people to believe it was Assad but won't admit lying about Gaddaffi.

It would appear the story was managed.

Gaddaffi then later accepted responsibility in exchange for sanctions being lifted.

Blair all over it. No surprise there. One very positive message to send out to the masses would be Blair being held to account and banged up.

[Munter]

Stickyfinger said:

I disagree that your belief in such examples constitutes truth, your willingness to stick to such defined and singular points is admirable but misguided IMHO.

I can only reason by the preset bias you adhere to and the desperate attempts to dominate our conversation as is exampled by your use of "the snide comment" so much. I have asked before why you exhibit such passive aggression, I still wonder.

Do us a favour. Accept that companies don't use advertising for no reason. You put enough of a message out, some people will believe it. You add in some truth and more people will believe it. (E.g. Guinness is good for pregnant women, because it's got iron in it, and pregnant women need more iron)

Now if you take that, and apply it to people trying to radicalise young muslims. Not only can you say the message you want (e.g. the west is evil you should strike them down), but you can add some truth (e.g. they killed a whole bunch of innocent people, even their own press say so).

[MikeT66]

ferrisbueller said:

It would appear the story was managed.

Gaddaffi then later accepted responsibility in exchange for sanctions being lifted.

Blair all over it. No surprise there. One very positive message to send out to the masses would be Blair being held to account and bangedhanged.

Does that read better, Ferris?

[Countdown]

ferrisbueller said:

dudleybloke said:

Oakey said:

ferrisbueller said:

One serviceman was killed in the disco. And it was believed to be a Syrian bomb.

Was Libya responsible for Lockerbie? My understanding is that Syria was the prime suspect but this was an inconvenient outcome.

It would appear Libya was a scapegoat, a pawn in the game. Gaddaffi was too much of a narcissist to address the situation. And Assad was the originator of many middle eastern issues.

However, it is difficult to establish the actual facts in a world where the truth seems to be so closely managed - or manipulated.

There is a recurring theme through this stuff. That would appear to be that our American bedfellows are the common enemy.

If you look hard enough you can find newspaper articles from the time that puts Syria in the frame

Most people find this hard to believe because the government told us it was Gaddafi and kept pushing the fact since the bombing.
Now they expect people to believe it was Assad but won't admit lying about Gaddaffi.

It would appear the story was managed.

Gaddaffi then later accepted responsibility in exchange for sanctions being lifted.

Blair all over it. No surprise there. One very positive message to send out to the masses would be Blair being held to account and banged up.

With regards to Lockerbie, it wasn't Syria but Iran that is meant to be behind it. It was in retaliation for the shootdown of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes. The act was commissioned via the PFLP-GC who were based in Syria.

At the time Iran had been involved in a 8-year long war with Saddam Hussain's Iraq (supported significantly by the Saudis and with copious military aid being supplied by the West). Some people might remember the Matrix Churchill affair....

Now this is massively completely different to the US and the UK selling arms to the Saudis, for them to use against Shias in Yemen and in the eastern part of KSA itself....

[Oakey]

Countdown said:

With regards to Lockerbie, it wasn't Syria but Iran that is meant to be behind it. It was in retaliation for the shootdown of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes. The act was commissioned via the PFLP-GC who were based in Syria.

At the time Iran had been involved in a 8-year long war with Saddam Hussain's Iraq (supported significantly by the Saudis and with copious military aid being supplied by the West). Some people might remember the Matrix Churchill affair....

Now this is massively completely different to the US and the UK selling arms to the Saudis, for them to use against Shias in Yemen and in the eastern part of KSA itself....

That's right, here's a relevant newspaper article;

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&da...

[Justayellowbadge]

Analyst chap on the BBC earlier pointing out that IS use the west 'sitting back and letting muslim brothers be slaughtered by Assad in Syria' just as much as a recruiting tool as where the west did intervene.

Damned if you do...

[del mar]

p1stonhead said:

WestyCarl said:

bhstewie said:

Something I said on another thread.

After Monday how many comments have we seen along the lines of "Just fkking nuke the middle east" or "We should bomb the st out of Libya"?

Some people take the view "They killed our kids so let's kill them" and whilst it's only a tiny minority who think that way if they had the chance do you think they'd press the button and do it?

See any parallels?

It doesn't excuse it in any way shape or form but it seems a bit simplistic to say our actions overseas have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Agree. The hatred we all feel for the terrible atrocity, is exactly the same hatred "they" feel when we cause some collateral damage. Do we ever shed a tear for the innocents killed in Iraq / Afghanistan, etc?

Exactly. To the people who lose their families, whether we blew them up on purpose or by accident is irrelevent.

Agreed, but the bit that doesn't work is the "retaliation" from people who are not Afghanis, have never been to Afghanistan and don't know anybody that is.

Al Qaeda orchestrate the death of 3000 infidels in America, they then appear to hide in Afghanistan / Northern Pakistan, whose population doesn't seem to bothered about it. We in our "war on terror" invade to kill / arrest these individuals, of course there are going to innocent victims and the Afghans have a right to be a little bit annoyed. Although they also seem to be annoyed about the oppression of the Taliban, who we were also fighting against.

How this materialises into UK nationals who were born in the UK, are integrated into the UK and have never been to Afghanistan I have no idea. The Muslim bond, even with bad Muslims appears to be stronger than their bond with the country they live in.

Should an atheist die in some ****hole country on the other side of the world, I don't care

[del mar]

Cobnapint said:

And in other news, a bus carrying Coptic Christians has just been shot up in central Egypt, 23 dead, 25 injured so far.

Nothing to do with......

It is either;

Our involvement in the Middle East

The Saudi Funding of Mosques

Backpacks.