Paris

[Dr Gloom 19825]

I got away with calling the Saudi's savages. Beat that fuckers.

You were spot on. I'm struggling to think of anywhere on earth I'd rather live less. Australia perhaps, because of all the Australians

[toonotl 2415]

I got away with calling the Saudi's savages. Beat that fuckers.

 

Bastard.

[toonotl 2415]

You were spot on. I'm struggling to think of anywhere on earth I'd rather live less. Australia perhaps, because of all the Australians

 

Racist cunt.

[Renton 17782]

And while im making blanket statements about religion, I'd also point out that a lot of Muslim countries are pretty horrific countries to live because people are denied basic freedoms and human rights that we enjoy in the west - again because of religion. I welcome Muslim people seeking a better life here in the west as long as they don't bring their fucked up ideologues with them and start encouraging their kids to murder innocent people.

 

I think Renton's right about a clash of cultures. We on the left want to be tolerant, Muslim extremists don't tolerate anything not in the Koran. I'm not even sure islamiphobia was a word prior to 9/11.

Islamaphobia is bollocks. It suggests an irrational fear of Islam, from what I can gather the fear is entirely rational, especially if you're a woman, gay, or not a muslim. But lefties like J69 love their labels.

 

Fucking hell, I've just said "lefty". See what you're doing to me HF, you're turning me into Leazes!

Edited November 15, 2015 by Renton

[ewerk 26348]

 

Puts it all in perspective.

[Tom 13847]

She's such a moron

[Gemmill 34464]

 

">

 

Puts it all in perspective.

I think we can all unite in calling that woman a cunt.

[Howmanheyman 26833]

That's got to be a parody account?

[Dr Gloom 19825]

A fascinating and terrifying long read.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

[Park Life 70]

Everyone should read that. It's one of the best primers I've read anywhere.

 

 

I will diss it mind.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Park Life

[Sonatine 9998]

 

Puts it all in perspective.

 

[Monkeys Fist 38767]

There's a creeping undercurrent of cuntism in this thread which I find cuntish.

[Happy Face 29]

HF, I'm going to drag this post up again, what do you mean? Are you suggesting that it's only countries involved in the ME that have been targeted? Are there moral differences between Spain and Denmark compared with Germany and Switzerland? Should we just bury our heads to the conflicts on the European borders and not say anything for fear of reprisal (whilst of course accepting mass migration of refugees). For clarification, is this what you're suggesting?

 

Dr G said

 

the first reaction has been to blame last night;s atrocities on UK/US foreign policy

My first sentence was in reference to reports that the attackers shouted "this is for Syria".

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/paris-attacks-gunman-shouted-this-6830096

What I meant by this was rather than making the argument that UK or US foreign policy was "to blame" for attacks in France, you would think someone making the retaliation case would look at the foreign policy of the nation being attacked. Given reports that attackers did indeed refer to Syria and the fact that France has been involved in Syria, then it's not at all controversial to discuss French foreign policy and why an attacker might see it as a target, without justifying the act.

 

My second sentence referred to the fact that the motives described by the vast majority of terrorists involved in attacks (failed and successful) are that their target has been engaged in middle eastern aggression

 

Boston

 

The two suspects in the Boston bombing that killed three and injured more than 260 were motivated by the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials told the Washington Post.

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 'the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack,' the Post writes, citing 'US officials familiar with the interviews.'"

Northwest Airlines

 

"I had an agreement with at least one person to attack the United States in retaliation for US support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children, and noncombatants."

Times Square

 

"If the United States does not get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries controlled by Muslims, he said, 'we will be attacking US', adding that Americans 'only care about their people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die' . ."As soon as he was taken into custody May 3 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, onboard a flight to Dubai, the Pakistani-born Shahzad told agents that he was motivated by opposition to US policy in the Muslim world, officials said."

the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It's a war, and in war, they kill people. They're killing all Muslims. . . .

 

"I am part of the answer to the US terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people. And, on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their own people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die."

NYC Subway

 

"Your Honor, during the spring and summer of 2008, I conspired with others to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban and fight against the U.S. military and its allies. . . . During the training, Al Qaeda leaders asked us to return to the United States and conduct martyrdom operation. We agreed to this plan. I did so because of my feelings about what the United States was doing in Afghanistan."

I realise that you've already said

 

You know, I don't really give a shit what they say their motives were, these people clearly hate western secular democracy and are out to destroy it from within

So clearly there will be no convincing you otherwise. I would ask you though, why do you think there is such widespread public support (or ambivalence) in the west for violent incursions into numerous middle eastern countries? It's clear that westerners are understandably hurt and angry at the relatively minor attacks we have suffered. People who have no qualms about our 15 year bombing campaign that has killed so many innocent brown people feel threatened, insecure, and full of rage at the people that make them feel like that. I understand this desire for retribution on both sides. Why would that feeling be felt any less in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and that? Countries that have suffered FAR more from the war on terror than ours. I see no reason whatsoever to doubt them when they state it as one of their motives.

 

Then you have the other scenarios where the stated motives are not retaliation against violence, but against just insulting the religion. The ones that spring to mind are Charlie Hebdo, the Danish Cartoons and that mad head American bloke who made a film. In these situations I blame the religion fairly and squarely, 100%.

 

But those are distinct.

 

I don't bundle all of these things into one group and dismiss them all as having the same motivations despite the evidence and stated aims of the attackers. Because to dismiss the entire thing as one homogenous religious problem is to diminish the responsibilities of our leaders and their capacity to do anything whatsoever about it. Neither Corbyn or Cameron could do much about retaliation to offensive cartoons, and nor would I want them to. I have MUCH more faith in Corbyn to do something about retaliation to global violence though. That's why I think it's dangerous to tell people it's all the same thing and all caused all caused by religion. It's a largely solvable problem for us in the west to restrict muslim violence to the few cases where they don't like a cartoon, rather than the more frequently cited response to violence.

[Renton 17782]

 

Dr G said

 

 

the first reaction has been to blame last night;s atrocities on UK/US foreign policy

My first sentence was in reference to reports that the attackers shouted "this is for Syria".

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/paris-attacks-gunman-shouted-this-6830096

What I meant by this was rather than making the argument that UK or US foreign policy was "to blame" for attacks in France, you would think someone making the retaliation case would look at the foreign policy of the nation being attacked. Given reports that attackers did indeed refer to Syria and the fact that France has been involved in Syria, then it's not at all controversial to discuss French foreign policy and why an attacker might see it as a target, without justifying the act.

 

My second sentence referred to the fact that the motives described by the vast majority of terrorists involved in attacks (failed and successful) are that their target has been engaged in middle eastern aggression

 

Boston

 

The two suspects in the Boston bombing that killed three and injured more than 260 were motivated by the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials told the Washington Post.

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 'the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack,' the Post writes, citing 'US officials familiar with the interviews.'"

Northwest Airlines

 

"I had an agreement with at least one person to attack the United States in retaliation for US support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children, and noncombatants."

Times Square

 

"If the United States does not get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries controlled by Muslims, he said, 'we will be attacking US', adding that Americans 'only care about their people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die' . ."As soon as he was taken into custody May 3 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, onboard a flight to Dubai, the Pakistani-born Shahzad told agents that he was motivated by opposition to US policy in the Muslim world, officials said."

the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It's a war, and in war, they kill people. They're killing all Muslims. . . .

"I am part of the answer to the US terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people. And, on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their own people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die."

NYC Subway

 

"Your Honor, during the spring and summer of 2008, I conspired with others to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban and fight against the U.S. military and its allies. . . . During the training, Al Qaeda leaders asked us to return to the United States and conduct martyrdom operation. We agreed to this plan. I did so because of my feelings about what the United States was doing in Afghanistan."

I realise that you've already said

 

You know, I don't really give a shit what they say their motives were, these people clearly hate western secular democracy and are out to destroy it from within

So clearly there will be no convincing you otherwise. I would ask you though, why do you think there is such widespread public support (or ambivalence) in the west for violent incursions into numerous middle eastern countries? It's clear that westerners are understandably hurt and angry at the relatively minor attacks we have suffered. People who have no qualms about our 15 year bombing campaign that has killed so many innocent brown people feel threatened, insecure, and full of rage at the people that make them feel like that. I understand this desire for retribution on both sides. Why would that feeling be felt any less in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and that? Countries that have suffered FAR more from the war on terror than ours. I see no reason whatsoever to doubt them when they state it as one of their motives.

 

Then you have the other scenarios where the stated motives are not retaliation against violence, but against just insulting the religion. The ones that spring to mind are Charlie Hebdo, the Danish Cartoons and that mad head American bloke who made a film. In these situations I blame the religion fairly and squarely, 100%.

 

But those are distinct.

 

I don't bundle all of these things into one group and dismiss them all as having the same motivations despite the evidence and stated aims of the attackers. Because to dismiss the entire thing as one homogenous religious problem is to diminish the responsibilities of our leaders and their capacity to do anything whatsoever about it. Neither Corbyn or Cameron could do much about retaliation to offensive cartoons, and nor would I want them to. I have MUCH more faith in Corbyn to do something about retaliation to global violence though. That's why I think it's dangerous to tell people it's all the same thing and all caused all caused by religion. It's a largely solvable problem for us in the west to restrict muslim violence to the few cases where they don't like a cartoon, rather than the more frequently cited response to violence.

Well you've clearly put in a lot of effort into a good post there HF. Having read some of that article on ISIS someone linked to earlier, it fairly clear to me that all western countries will be a target whatever their military involvement in the area, so I'll have to disagree with you. I think France is especially vulnerable as they have the largest Muslim population and a worse intelligence network than us. They love their freedom, after all.

 

I've been against every single military intervention we've been involved with since and including Iraq 2. But we are where we are. I'm not convinced military withdrawal in Syria is a good option any more. I don't have a clue what's to be done tbf. As I've said though, my main fears are related to the non-integration of many Muslims into western society. You can't just dismiss Charlie Hebdo as a one off when 25% of UK Muslims (some 800,000 people) sympathize with these murderers. It's genuinely scary but nobody wants to talk about it.

[NJS 3978]

The thing is Islam is a political cult as well as a religious one - the belief in a global caliphate under sharia law means that any "attack" on that notion, be it cartoons or interference in the ME provoke the same response underpinned by the allegiance to a "tribe" based on one thing - genuine, sincere belief in the teaching of one man.

 

Thw west acting like cunts is a given imo and admittedley as you say its not going to stop but saying that's the main driving force is nonsense. If all western interference in Syria ended tomorrow and ISIS was victorious and somehow formed a sizeable caliphate do you think they would stop expanding for one second? They cannot as their doctrine requires them to keep going.

Edited November 15, 2015 by NJS

[McFaul 35]

No, I'm really not poking random people, not even you. Where have I been contrary? And as you know, I do have an opinion to the cause of this, but admittedly no solutions. Do you have any?

 

Again, I think you have a bit of a cheek personally to criticise me like this when your first response to this last night was to blame Cameron. I'll leave it at that.

The bloke is a complete and utter wanker, I honest to god mean that, not even getting in to this subject in depth, just ignore him. I agree with just about every single thing you have said on the subject.

 

I haven't got much to add to what everyone has contributed, but this is part of our future, not just for a few years, but as long as civilisation is around. Evil will always exist amongst us being passed off as "justice".

[NJS 3978]

think France is especially vulnerable as they have the largest Muslim population and a worse intelligence network than us. They love their freedom, after all.

They actually have the kind of surveillance laws that the Tories now want - did them a lot of good didn't it?

[Renton 17782]

They actually have the kind of surveillance laws that the Tories now want - did them a lot of good didn't it?

Didn't know that, an "expert" on radio 4 yesterday said their counter-terrorism was shambolic compared with the UK. I'm inclined to believe this because I'm surprised we haven't had an attack in the last decade (Lee Rigby aside). Having better border and gun control probably also helps.

[ChezGiven 0]

I'll try and post some thoughts later, some good discussion on here. Just to say, what an absolute head fuck this has been, can't help but think about the future and my kids growing up here.

[McFaul 35]

I'll try and post some thoughts later, some good discussion on here. Just to say, what an absolute head fuck this has been, can't help but think about the future and my kids growing up here.

I feel for you, but London won't be any better in the future in terms of being a target of these arseholes, I hate saying it seeing as though I've got really close family and friends down there.

[Dr Gloom 19825]

It's obviously all very raw and the future is frightening and uncertain but right now you're statistically more likely to get hit by a bolt of lightening than killed in a terrorist attack in Europe.

[Kid Dynamite 5908]

This tit has banned Muslims from here beauty shop

 

https://m.facebook.com/Blinks-of-Bicester-466064383469269/

 

Read the new reviews on her page

[Renton 17782]

It's obviously all very raw and the future is frightening and uncertain but right now you're statistically more likely to get hit by a bolt of lightening than killed in a terrorist attack in Europe.

I really don't think that's true.

[Park Life 70]

Didn't know that, an "expert" on radio 4 yesterday said their counter-terrorism was shambolic compared with the UK. I'm inclined to believe this because I'm surprised we haven't had an attack in the last decade (Lee Rigby aside). Having better border and gun control probably also helps.

Our security services are pretty much the best on the planet.

[Dr Gloom 19825]

I really don't think that's true.

I heard some security analyst say it on the radio yesterday, it must be!