blonde poker forum

12 people shot dead.

The assassins are on the run, & being pursued.

Police warn that the pursuit may end with further shootings, or "explosively".




http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/07/shooting-paris-satirical-magazine-charlie-hebdo



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/11330196/Paris-shooting-Gunmen-storm-Charlie-Hebdo-magazine-office-in-pictures.html

Muslims at it again or someone else this time?

Edit-yep looks like it.

The attack was on the Offices of a satirical newspaper, which had published disrespectful material about Muhammed. 

Nope terrorists whom hide behind Islam, just like wen I was in army it was terrorists hiding behind Christianity that we had to keep eye out for

Ok so Muslims then  ::)

People who describe themselves as Muslims, but aren't really.

So why are they attacking people who they feel have insulted their religion? They could have attacked any target not related to their religion if they were 'not really' Muslims.

Same reason the Christians attacked people in England Ireland and Germany miss guided grievances

Where are your posts that say "White British at it again?" when one of them does something wrong?

You're post has incensed me. What a racist you really are. I'm ashamed to know you.

You what? I asked a perfectly reasonable question that in fact turned out to be correct. You are totally out of order calling people racist for so little.

http://polemicalessays.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/islamophobia-attack-ideas-not-groups/

Unlike you, I didn't make a sweeping statement. I didn't call people racist. I called you racist.

I didn't think name calling and insults were allowed on blonde? I class that as an insult and you are bang out of order.

We don't allow racists either.

I only 'insulted' you. You stir trouble and incite hatred for millions.

I do not accept I did anything wrong. I asked a legitimate question that did in fact turn out to be true.

Anyway no point arguing with you or calling you names as I'll probably get banned or whatever, whereas you are gonna hide behind your mod tag and get away with insulting me.

No not Muslims again

Terrorists again

That's just bollocks. I would never hide behind my mod tag and you know it.

Do you really think it was a legitimate question with no consequences for the 99% of innocent Muslims?

Do you think their actions were because they were Muslims, or because they were extremists?

Shame on you.

The truth is that quite a large % of humankind are utter c*nts and this phenomenon becomes most evident in extremist religious and political movements.

We aren't going to progress while we continue to elect leaders who believe in fantasy beings and afterlives in heaven.

Fuck it I wrote a reply but it would be a waste of time with you, no point escalating it, I've said my bit.

You were still bang out of order with the insult, you band about the 'racist' word far to readily, it's a serious word to use against someone and I'm seriously not happy that you have towards me, I reported a couple of your posts for the insult, but I know nothing will be done even though insults are against the rules on Blonde. Note I have not used any insults towards you, it was you that started it.

Why are you insulted? The word racist is only a description of someone who makes assumptions based on race.

But I agree. Fuck it. I'm wasting my time too.

If you asked 100 children in England what was a Muslim how many do you think would have negative connotations? Or answer terrorist/bomber etc?

It seems like not every Muslim is a terrorist but every REPORTED terrorist is a muslim.

It's almost becoming a weekly occurrence now that there is "Muslim" terrorists killing somebody (usually multiple peole) in the Western World.

Red Dog - Woodsey made an ill advised post.  I'm sure he would word it differently if he did it again.  But you have gone after him like he is a KKK member.  I think that is why he is insulted.

Personally I think you went way over the top.

If only Woodsey had said "Some Muslims at it again?" we could have saved so much hassle and avoided this thread derailment.

Pretty sure that's what he meant but have to agree that his initial statement comes across terribly but hopefully without intent.

I also think Tom should have sent Woodsey a PM in his capacity as a mod asking exactly what he meant and suggesting a rewording of said post if he didn't mean it as a 'sweeping statement'.

Which part of the Country are we in when we ask these children?


 

I don't think the part of the country makes too much of a difference. I think working class parents and middle class parents will often spread similar views on Muslims.

However incorrectly that may be.

I'm a bit scared of stepping into this, but...

Woodsey, however you wanna spin it the phrasing of your post was deliberately (perhaps subconsciously deliberate, but still deliberate) provocative. And it did carry connotations of racism. I guess you will argue that you were just asking a harmless question and there is nothing wrong with that. After all, you are not directly saying "lots of Muslims are terrorists". But nevertheless this is (unintentionally) inferred through the wording of your post. You can deny this, and pretend that you genuinely do not understand what was provocative about your post. But you are a clever guy, you know exactly what the phrasing of your post infers. I am not saying you are a racist... but you have written something that has undertones of racism running through it. I know you will just roll your eyes and think "bloody PC brigade again, taking everything so seriously, forcing us to watch our every word and trying to stop us making harmless jokes". But the thing is, there are certain issues about which we have to be careful with what we say and the way that we say it.

Tom, I think you have got to be careful about how you deal with things like this. Going in all gung-ho and calling someone a racist might help you to let off steam. But it is counterproductive. It allows the other person to take the moral high ground ("You called me a racist! That's against the rules. I am really offended." etc). And now the focus is about your 'over-reaction' and the insult you have caused, rather than about the danger of people saying/writing such inflammatory things. It's like trying to argue with a UKIPT supporter. If you really want to try to change their views then discuss things with them using reasonable language and logical arguments; gently, politely but firmly. They might not agree with you and they might not change their mind - but they will listen to you, and you can share viewpoints and have a meeting of minds. If you give in to temptation and allow your emotion to enter the debate by calling them a racist... well, you have lost them from that point onwards. There will be no debate, and no possibility for your opinions to be listened to and respected.

I'm guessing this is what over 50% of people thought when they heard "terrorist attack in Paris" even if perhaps a little less cynically I'm sure most would have assumed it was terrorists who claimed their religion was Islam.

What about Muslim parents or Christian parents of either class?

Stu is right. Never argue with a Ukipt supporter- they will deny 3% of the prize pool is raked even though it's there in black and white

I'm a conservative supporter if you must know.

You're right of course.

I suppose I reacted the way I did because this isn't the first time Woodsey has made a post of this type or the first time he and I have clashed.

I know what it's like to be deemed guilty by association. One Gypsy commits a crime,(or is suspected) all the rest are tarred with the same brush.

It's very very destructive and causes untold suffering for totally innocent people.

You nasty racist you ;)

Wins thread.

To try and illustrate how offensive a comment like this is if i had said "Blacks again is it?" Or "some Jew I spose?" Whether I was right or wrong would U think that were acceptable?

Yeah exactly. And also, ask yourself if you would feel comfortable saying "Muslims again?" to a nice, friendly Muslim man/woman sat next to you on the train.

In the context of the thread about terror I think my question (before I had read the full facts) was perfectly reasonable mate sorry if you don't agree. if anyone thinks I really meant all Muslims and not muslim terrorists in a thread about a terrorist attack, then I dont know what else to say to convince them otherwise?  :dontask:

So just because there's a racial prejudice in place it's ok to enforce it?

If its a real situation about us/the west/whoever having issues with a particular group doing attacks I don't think it was an unreasonable question/assumption to be honest. Fact is it was muslim terrorists.

Ok I'm not answering question after question just because some of you disagree with what I said. I don't think I've done anything wrong and nobody will change my mind about that, but if you want to debate it amongst yourselves feel free.

I'm happy to answer questions about anything I've said.

Moving away from the poor wording of the opening post is it inappropriate for people to make any assumptions based on prior behaviour/current form?

In the 80s when I read that a bomb had gone off in the UK, I would be thinking in my head that it was the IRA before the perpetrator was known.  Would this be inappropriate and anti-catholic?  Should I have equally weighted the possibility of it being Japanese terrorists and kept a completely open mind until confirmation?

The first headline I saw today was "Terror attack in France" with no other details.  What percentage of people would think there is an islamic connection given the last couple of years?  Does that make them bad people?

These people were murdered because they wrote satirical pieces about Islam.

The religion is implicated in this atrocity and there is no point in denying it.

I know you think that your question was reasonable. But some people (myself included) think you are wrong, and that it was not a reasonable way to phrase the question. You can pretend to us that you have no idea why anyone would be offended. And you can argue that "I was just asking a question, that's all. No harm in that." But really you know perfectly well the implicit meaning that was contained in the phrasing of your question. You might not think it is important, that it is harmless. I disagree - I think this sort of thing is dangerous. And I think it needs to be challenged every single time.

There is so much hatred, fear and prejudice in the world already. And every single time a comment with such inferences is made, it just puts a tiny little bit of extra fear and prejudice into the pot. Like a drip, drip, drip effect. And eventually these things become normalised. It's like someone constantly telling sexist jokes. They may not really be sexist themselves, and perhaps the comedic device in their jokes actually makes them funny if you ignore the sexist content. But every single time a sexist joke is told and is not challenged it is just one tiny step towards normalising sexist viewpoints and giving permission for others to hold these views, both subconsciously and consciously.

I know you like to play a particular part on Blonde; that of the anti-liberal who is not afraid to "say things as they are" and is known for playfully stirring up a bit of trouble. And of course debate and argument makes this forum a more interesting and richer environment. But IMO we all have a responsibility to increase the love and respect in the world, and try our best to avoid adding to the constant drip-drip of mistrust, hatred and prejudice. And often this means being a little careful with the way we say things.

I am glad your post has been challenged, even if you do not change your mind. I believe that we should all aim to challenge every single racist, sexist etc comment or joke we hear. Not by steaming in and insulting the person who made the comment, but by calmly and respectfully saying that we do not like this sort of comment. Every time we challenge such things we take a tiny, tiny step towards stopping the drips.

This is just my opinion of course, but I think firstly there should be a distinction between what you think and what you actually say. What you privately suspect won't make life difficult for innocent people.

Secondly, thinking "I bet it was the IRA" is different than thinking " I bet it was the Catholics"


I fully take your point, but I hope you can you see mine.

True.........but the actions were carried out be extreme factions ,not the vast majority  !!

Yep see your point red.

This is an excellent point.  As there are so many different and fragmented extremist Islamic terrorist groups around, the news stations don't have a go to name to identify them.  So that go to name quite often becomes XYZ Muslim.

I'd guess if you were a conspiracy theorist, then it would actually be an NWO plot to slowly make our brains associate Muslim/Islam and terrorist all as one and the same.  Which if you talk to some people, then it would appear to have sadly already worked.

 

Sorry bud but that's what inherent racism is, you think that is a perfectly acceptable sentence and as you have said, nobody is going to change your mind.

Has Ched Evans hacked Woodsey's account?

Woodsey is old school , a bit like Dave Whelan the Wigan owner who recently got charged by the F.A.

He says things that would have been acceptable 15-20 years ago and to some are still acceptable today.

Dave Whelan has put a lot of time and money into Wigan Athletic and comes across as a very decent chap.

His comments ( Dave Whelan's ) are racist by todays standards but I think you have to cut a little slack when
you have been using those type of words for the best part of fifty years without any malice/spite/hatred intended
or indeed recourse. Personally I feel Mr Whelan was hard done by and a warning to his future conduct would have
sufficed.

I know Woodsey loves to stir the pot once in a while , I may be old school , but knowing Woodsey I would not say he
was racist per se.

Tom has lived his whole life in the glare of prejudice/racism so is far more aware than most people of being tarred with the same brush and how it affects everything you do.

I understand both sides of the argument , Woodsey calls a spade a spade and in this day and age that offends a few
people.

All good for healthy debate then......... ;snoopy'sguns;

My dad knew Whelan from before I was born. Said he was racist back then as well.

Racism offended people back in the seventies, it wasn't right then in the same way paedophilia wasn't right then. Just because people got away with it, they weren't heady happy days for those subject to racial discrimination.

FFS Islam is a religion not a race!

People who dislike a religion aren't racists,

Islamophobia is considered by many people to be a form of racism. Of course, some (like yourself) argue that since Islam is not a race, it cannot be racism. But those who believe that it is a form of racism argue that it shares almost every characteristic of racism, and also that it is often synonymous with Anti-Arab prejudice.

It's like when people tell me that Padooki is not actually a poker game because you only play a 4 card hand, and poker is always 5 cards. Maybe they are right if we are following an exact definition of what poker is... but I still think of Padooki as being a poker game. It shares every other characteristic of poker, so - to me - it is a poker game, rather than a poker-based-variant.

For what its worth I don't think Woodsey is racist and I do believe he was not intending on offending anybody barring Muslim terrorists (maybe).

I do admit the first I heard of the atrocity I instinctively thought Muslim with the distinct connotation that I actually meant Muslim terrorists. Does this make me a racist?

It might be a form of bigotry or prejudice (under certain circumstances), but it can't possibly be racism. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#mediaviewer/File:Apostasy_laws_in_2013.SVG

That is a lot of countries, some with the death penalty, for people who choose not to believe in fantasy.

There are a lot of people around who would not consider themselves racist, would be offended to be called racist, and are definitely not racists in the sense that they do not go round beating up black people or refusing to give jobs to Asian folk, or whatever.

Nevertheless, some of these people are actually racist. Often subtly so, and often completely unaware. And others may not actually be racist at heart, but may still do or say racist things, without even realising what they are doing. If they could be shown and made to understand exactly how they were being racist they would probably be mortified and would change their behaviour and viewpoints. Because most of them are good, kind people who are simply unaware of their racism.

Lots of people tell racist or sexist jokes even though they would strenuously deny they are racists or sexists. They'd argue it is just a funny joke, no harm is meant, I am not a racist at all etc. And others make subtle racist or sexist comments, without meaning any harm by them, and often without even realising that they are racist/sexist. On its own any single comment is almost completely harmless. But this type of low-level and subtle prejudice is actually extremely pernicious, especially if unchallenged. Taken en masse, all the millions of almost entirely harmless comments have a real effect on the group (sub)consciousness of a society. It builds slowly - drip, drip, drip - and each additional comment helps to normalise prejudiced views and behaviour in our subconscious minds, without us even realising it is happening.

cartoonists react to Charlie Hebdo massacre (http://mashable.com/2015/01/07/cartoonists-react-hebd-massacre/) featuring stuff like:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6wZOY8CMAA_b6v.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6wmwrzCUAEWjpu.jpg)

If we could ignore the 'are all muslims terrorists' debate, that'd be great. because it's obviously not even a real question for anyone who isn't a bigot.

stupid fucking debates like those take away from the fact that 12 people lost their lives today because they drew some cartoons. such insensitive bullshit.

Fair point mate, we've forgotten about the real issue with the red mist descending. RIP to the people who have died.

With Blonde needing a bit of a post count boost I like this new form of proactive modding. Mods wading in to get the party started in threads is decent strategy. More of this pls.

Very much this. 

Read some stupid fucking comments earlier from a wide anglo saxon former Jehova Witness who blamed the "Koran"  and was calling for executions. 

If the cap fits wear it.

Touché sunshine  8)

He has form.

The IRA had nothing to do with Catholocism and vice versa. 

The same way not all Muslims are Islamic extremists. 

My first thought today was Islamic extremists, oh fuck wait to see the outcry from the xenophobes with their anti-muslim vitriol and sure as night follows day Social Media was in meltdown. 

Heard an interview with three French people who were joining the many in a square in Paris to peacefully protest and show solidarity. They all spoke excellent English and very eloquently said why they were there and how the people of France had to come together against this sort of atrocity against innocent people and an attack on democracy. Said that they hope normal Muslims aren't targeted by right-wing thugs, etc.

Was very moving. 

Also heard a Muslim cleric saying that this slaughter should be condemned as an attack on freedom and democracy. He was understandably upset and angry. That's the thing, this cleric is a Muslim, but those terrorists are also Muslims. The same way the IRA are Catholics, etc. Religion makes people, and is used as an excuse by people, to carry out awful, inhumane acts.

Meh, it seems that Brits are the best at steretyping other religions and groupings. 

The reference that the IRA were some sort of avenging Catholic army is wrong on so many levels.  A myth that was perpetuated by the British state who were first responsible for the divide and conquer tactics. 

We see much of the same today only its along different religions and class grounds. 

Todays events looked to be very well planned and done with precision, I don't want to start with conspiracy theories until we know more about it but this wasn't done by a couple of thugs in my mind. 

the great Islam reformist and modernist of the 19th century, and Grand Mufti of Egypt - Muhammad Abduh - once said:


Those are words to remember today.

Racist pig ;)

Great, let's hope all muslim clerics around Europe and elsewhere say the same to their Muslim communities where they preach/work and out any possible terrorists/traitors. That is one of the best ways to get the local/non-Muslim communities on board, to know something is being done.

I would say the majority already do.

Good the more the merrier. Recruiting goes on, let's hope that ones that see sense to not to join up grass up the recruiters.

Try to understand the point of my post before claiming that I think the IRA were avenging Catholics ffs.

Reading comments on social media pages there are thousands and thousands of seemingly normal every day Muslims supporting yesterday's horrific shootings. Of course you will always get people on social media saying things but the majority really seem to think yesterday was justified.

I have never ever met a Muslim that has voiced any support or sympathy for attacks like these to me.  I know quite a few normal average Muslims.   Each time they appear appalled.  I was brought up a Christian and I never believed that any Murders made in the names of Christians were Christian murders or murders by genuine Christians.   Though you can read the Koran and bible and find justification for killings both religions overwhelming preach peace and love.

My Social media pages are full of people saying Je Suis Charlie and muslims disassociating themselves from the attacks.  Then again I don't read Britain First and the English Defence League sites for my World view.

Please tell me how you could possibly know, or even think that?

Do you know any Muslims? (Actual flesh and blood people I mean)

Have you asked even one?

I really despair when someone I consider to be above average intelligence is prepared to believe that the majority of 1.6 billion decent, ordinary men, women and children would think that murdering 12 innocent people in cold blood was justified because you read it on social media.

Similarly to Red's point I think if you asked this question the majority would actually say something about what they've learned in RE, or if they live in a more racially diverse area they'd think of their friends.

I think posts like this probably show something about a particular frame of reference rather than a more widely held generalisation.

Do you not think that there is the slightest possibility that posts like yours could cause some low IQ idiots to retaliate by taunting school kids, desecrating a Mosque, pouring petrol through some random person's letterbox, or kicking some poor bloke to death in a dark car park?  

You are obviously intelligent

This post goes a long way to disproving my thoughts, i hope in some weird way you are fishing/trolling otherwise have a think

Yes,it is a HUGE leap from social media keyboard bashers to "the majority"

You are obviously intelligent and along with others ignore the fact that in every country where Islam is the basis of the legal system, human rights are grossly abused.

Religion is mind cancer.

In every country where Atheism has been the state religion, human rights have been grossly abused.

Would you draw the same conclusion there?

We have only ignored it because we were using this thread to discuss something different.

HTH

Atheism isn't a religion.

and I'm glad you agree with my assertion about Islamic countries and human rights abuse.

Do you not think there is a possibility that posts like yours provide some great ideas as to the preferred method......?

I'm sorry Matt. As you know I'm easily whoosed sometimes. Is this a genuine, serious question or are you pulling my pisser?

"Reading comments on social media pages...the majority really seem to think yesterday was justified"

From the comments he's seen on social media some appear to be from Muslims. And from those that appear to be from Muslims the majority seem to think yesterday was justified. The only thing we can really prove from that statement is a lot of people use Facebook to troll. Bit of a leap to turn 'the majority' of posts pleno has seen on Facebook into 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide.

Think you're equally jumping to conclusions itt cowboy.

I totally agree. It was obvious ( to me anyway ) that Pleno was referring to the majority of facebook posts hes seen not the majority of the worlds Muslim population. How could that have been conceived any other way . Also lol at the Woodsey bashing train some people are jumping on.

Also apparently Pleno has had 10 pm's saying the same thing

Can we name a country that isn't guilty of human rights abuse at some point in the last 150 years? Your point seems a bit moot, although I agree somewhat with the anti religion stance, the common denominator is the human race.

More of a Devil's advocate type question Tom. If Pleno's post can cause low IQ idiots to run riot then surely yours can give them ideas on how to do it?

Genuinely couldn't see much difference between the two posts in that respect and I'm confident that both were intended with equal malice.

I meant the majority of people on social media not the majority of Muslims.

My bad then. I'm glad I'm wrong.

 

However after reading through the comments and the ways they unstudied it because of religion means I now have a way different outlook than 24 hours ago. If this happened with let's say a neo nazi extremist or sone White pride group the people justifying it would be very likely to be people who could have been in the act themselves. What I mean by that is people who look similar to the terrorists, are of similar age to the terrorists etc

Many people supporting the acts that I read were different to the two guys who have been labelled in the media. There were many women of all ages, many older men etc. Repeatedly what I read was things that seemed to say the Quran demanded that they did this and they were following what their religion told them.

It seems pointless for me to post 1, 2 or even 10 messages but for somebody who understands online journalism pretty well and reads a lot of similar things, honestly the overall feeling was very alarming.

On facebook if somebody writes something like "fucking pakis go home" in a comment and it gets 100 likes they are usually from the same brain dead people that you can imagine. I spent a long time yesterday reading all of this and when somebody commented like "you pigs deserve this and will keep getting this until the last day on earth" it would get 100 likes, maybe they didn't realise you can open up a like and see exactly liked it but liked I said scrolling through the people they represented all members of a society. All demographics etc

Don't get me wrong I have good friends who are Muslims, some of my very best friends. However they are "Westernised" and also Inwould say a lot more balanced with their views. They are religious but just as my Catholic friends don't follow the bible exactly word for word I believe they make intelligent interpretations of their religious readings. The feeling l got from reading yesterday was that those who have no been Westernised are perhaps way less likely to be as balanced in their view and the view that many held was extremely dangerous and like I try to reiterate, I understand the way that social media works but if you look at the responses that Islamic hate preaches get on Twitter/Facebook (where it's probably more justified and I can imagine all members of society being disgusted that somebody in a senior position in society would suggest that "they had it coming to them" still the responses are usually from the similar demographic. The Muslims I saw failing to condem yesterday and actually trying to justify it were as I've probably said too many times here from seemingly all ages, genders, social statuses.

on that point....

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/this-is-why-normal-muslims-shouldnt-have-to-apologise-for-extremists-890

I think it's very different refusing to apologise or even wanting to say RIP etc than trying to justify it and insisting and promising that there will be many many more acts like this unless "we change". Again just to reiterate if this was some 15-20 year old kids I would just think "sigh, standard" and it wouldn't be worth even mentioning.

i really haven't seen anything like what you've mentioned from anybody I'd consider in anyway moderate/sane, though.

I just see the way thingsare justified very different, obviously both are very wrong but lets say an EDL supporter says something similar to "fuck off home you pedophile" many many people will just disregard this as being a braindead guy who has no idea what he's talking about who is just racially preaching hate.

But many of the justifications I see from the Muslim community are basically saying "We've been told we have to do this, we're following our religion"

Here is a screen shot of a guy posting in Arabic(?) on an English facebook site, but luckily we have "translation" now to help us.

(http://i.gyazo.com/ef1fa1ddd634c5b84ff787171225135b.png)

So it appears to every Atheist, Christian or Catholic that he is quoting the Quran and that he supports this, previous and further attacks. Now I find this way different to a stupid braindead English teenager writing something like "Allah is a pedo" or something that nobody will take attention of. This guy and many others posts make 1) The Western World generalise Islam and 2) Helps younger Muslims potentially jump on the hate train.

To be fair Pleno this translation could be anything - it's like when I find a transfer about Watford in Czech and put it in google translate and it comes out with

"Roberz hope seek Premiership shelter division Watford, fast second - problems with rhinos."

3 likes in 17 hours.  Has a huge following bro.

The Koran is different from the Bible though (well, the New Testament anyway - the OT does have some mad shit in it), in that Mohammed wasn't some peace-loving hippy like Jesus - he was a warrior who would suggest that, yes, his guys should kill the enemy because he was fighting wars. This obviously is going to cause problems in the modern day when religious people take ancient writings literally - at least Jesus generally just told people to chill the fuck out and be excellent to each other (and yet many Christians still seem to fuck this up)

Hahahahahaha WP

Muslim extremists aren't the only ones to take words written hundreds of years of years ago and apply them today.

American gun nuts believe the second amendment giving them the right to "keep and bear arms", which was talking about the pop guns they were using 400 years ago, means they have the right to own and maintain an Uzi or a Kalashnikov.

There are nutters of all races, religons and ages unfortunately.

But isn't the point that there would be hardly anyboyd supporting the lunatic who followed (obviously incorrectly) from the bible whereas tens of thousands if not more are vocal/will think what the guys did yesterday was reasonable/correct?

no you have lunatics with support from all religions just look at the far right in America picketing outside funerals for American service men saying all american soldiers deserve to die because of the governements pro gay stance

Reading Richard Dawkins Twitter feed is remarkably similar to what Pleno said in this thread.

And what Woodsey said for that matter.

I am incredibly conflicted on all this.

I passionately believe in free speech, but I also find offending people for no reason pointless and rude.

I find the whole idea of religion ridiculous, but I understand some people believe and respect their right to believe.

I think the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving, but if you read certain parts of the Koran it is undeniably inflamatory and encourages followers to be voilent and commit murder.

Confusing to know what to think.

I read this elsewhere and it sort of echos my thoughts more.  I think it has a place in here - granted I am a few pages behind so not sure what has been said in the last 22 hrs or so. 

___________________________

It seems to be the job of politicians and journalists to deliberately obscure events and present them entirely without historical context. As supporters of Irish republicanism will know only too well, if the actions of an 'embittered minority' can be presented to the general public as inexplicable, bewildering and 'insane', the activities of the state itself will never be challenged or questioned. The state and those who support it, therefore, never have to answer for their manipulation of the events that caused the social alienation, racial exclusion and embitterment which led to "terrorism".
Yesterday's attack in Paris was a heinous crime, but with all of the righteous indignation currently being expressed by journalists and politicians after the murders of the Charle Hebdo staff, it's important to put the divisions that exist in France in some kind of historical perspective. France has a history of conflict in its Arab and African colonies, most notably Algeria which fought an eight year war of liberation.
Traditionally there has been a crossover between the far-right and the French security forces that goes back to the Vichy regime which collaborated with the Nazi occupation in WW2.
On 17th October 1961, at least 300 Algerians were massacred on the streets of Paris by the police. This is considered as a mere footnote of history and has long been ignored by successive French governments, of the right and the left. The Police Chief of Paris at the time was Maurice Papon, a Nazi collaborator who went on to mastermind the use of death squads in Algeria in the 1950's.
Papon was eventually tried for his Nazi collaborationist crimes during WW2, but no police officer was ever convicted for the massacre of the Algerians in Paris that night in October 1961.
There is no justification for the attack on Charlie Hebdo, but there is a political and historical context for the alienation of French Algerians and Moslems. That alienation has been further nourished by French military adventurism in north Africa and Arab nations such as Libya, Iraq and Syria

Oh I understood it.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/ offers a good perspective there.

I was a bigger fan of the baby jesus.   The one that stuck hiself up a mountain without food was a bit weird.

Interesting article. Thanks for the link.

It's difficult to look at the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in a vacuum now.

But attempting to, I haven't smiled at a single one. The ones I've seen are gratuitously offensive and unlikely to encourage debate.

Their sole purpose seems to be to offend. If I was a Muslim, I would certainly be offended.

I believe they have the right to offend, but why do it? It just makes people upset and angry. And it certainly isn't going to challenge anyone's beliefs.

More likely to strengthen them if anything.

You clearly haven't.  Read it again. Then paraphrase when you think you have managed to grasp it.

We have numerous unfunny offensive comedians in the uk.  Why do they do it?  Assume people find it funny even if I don't.  Each to their own. 

Ok, I'll say something.

Firstly I'm a Muslim not a devout one by any stretch of the imagination. My parents are very religious and I use to go to mosque pretty much every day after school from the age of 10 through to around 15. I was never taught to a) blow myself up b) kill the infidels c) look for a decent spot to become martyr etc etc you get my point. I was taught about the history of Islam how to live like a decent human being, respect your parents just generally be a good Muslim. I now go to mosque I'd say 3/4 times a year and still none of the a/b/c etc being brainwashed into me.

My parents live in Pakistan and do not cheer when a terrorist blows himself up/kills innocents in the name of Islam.

I never get involved when a person/persons do something horrific in the name of Islam. It's generally the people with a very low IQ or just plain racists/bigots who have a platform to spout the same shit over and over again.

Woodsey I found the stuff you wrote very offensive but I'm probably never going to meet you and at the end of the day it's a forum where anyone can be a hero with a keyboard.

Some of the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo put up I found offensive but I'm not going to kill someone over it.

40 people were killed in Yemen by terrorists last time I checked a muslim country.

The massacre of children recently in Pakistan by terrorists once again a muslim country.

They don't really care who they kill.

Pretty much a thumbs up to everyone of Red Dogs post.

Fair enough mate I respect your view. I know a lot of guys on here especially in the Nottingham poker scene (although play less recently because I'm shit nowadays) and do not hide behind a keyboard, I'm very easy to find should anybody wish to.

Nice post maldini.

Can confirm woodsey is very hard to miss 😀

Shut it fatty  ;bumwiggle;

Interesting article (via NoFlopsHomer):

http://thegerasites.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/suicide-pact-you-first/

Cracking post

Good post fella.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-30722098

Saw this today. Thought it was quite powerful, and goes well with maldini's post.

Most moving interview I've seen in years

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30751424

I've always been a big fan of Will Self but thought his views came across as rather tepid on ch4 news this evening.

Just to put these terrorist attacks into context, someone posted this on another forum I'm on:


The murders in Paris were aimed at a target that had mocked Islam (and religion in general), but surely they'd have found another target if that one hadn't been presented to them. A Jewish centre, a police station, an army barracks, random people in a shopping centre, etc. Those nurturing and promoting the Islamic terrorism have an agenda, and whilst they have disaffected, uneducated, or vulnerable people to use to create the terror and acts of murder, it's going to continue.

Of course, I have no idea what the solution is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30761963

Not in the news.

#shocking

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30761963

Regards

M

At least I can see a reason for the Paris attack.

What the fuck is the point of the others?

I assume the kids gathering firewood were killed by a mine or an unexploded bomb and it wasn't a case of the Taliban or whoever dropped it or left it deliberately taking them out.  Several children in Vietnam and Laos go the same way each year.  Guess we describe those differently. 

I agree with the points made above about putting the Paris attacks into context (and perspective). The number killed was very small compared with the numbers in other parts of the world, but Western lives still seem to be valued disproportionately. The same day as the magazine attack, it was reported that Boko Haram had destroyed sixteen towns and villages in Northern Nigeria, killing 2,000 people and displacing 20-30,000. The towns are reported to have been actually razed to the ground. The coverage of this has been sparse compared with the saturation regarding Paris.

Of course, there are reasons for that. It seems more shocking when it has happened in a Western capital, especially one so close; we can easily imagine the Paris situation happening here; the individuals killed were prominent people, and so on. And, of course, media access makes a huge difference. We don't have much access to Northern Nigeria whereas we have been able to watch the movie of the attack in France and follow the exciting chase. Still though, a dozen Western deaths from terrorism = saturation; 2,000 African deaths from terrorism = not much.

I well remember a sketch from Not The Nine O'Clock News. I could have only have been 11 or 12 when I saw it, but it left a deep impression.

Pamela Stephenson was reading the news in her gravest voice possible.

"Today, an airplane crashed into the Atlantic.

"It is feared all 372 passengers and crew have been killed.

"In order of importance, on board there were 2 British, 11 Americans, 6 Canadians, 15 Australians, 1 New Zealander, 3 Irish and 334 assorted krauts, frogs, pakis, spicks, wops and dagos".

Not sure if this has been posted but a very good interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5tc48iaki0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5tc48iaki0)

Can't embed this for some reason but Fox News need to sack this bloke.

http://youtu.be/w6HwtoOBMaA

What a moron.

Surely you have to make things up if you are on Fox News.  I travelled to Birmingham with work for a couple of years when I was in London.  Did have the upside of getting away from the God Rozzers.  Talk about out of the frying pan...

One for the older generation, who was God's cop?

"Me and the chief got slowly stoned..."

The look on the presenters face is just priceless.

Conspiracy theorists are on the case already.

Just so you are aware this discusses the policeman being shot with close up pics. Although there is no blood/gore or anything, that is what they are discussing, was this guy really shot.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJEvlKKm6og

Think that video was already removed over the weekend, but I could be wrong.

Ok, mods can take it down if they think it's not appropriate.

Video was removed at weekend at posters request

Woodsy has posted a warning and I want to add to it the clip shows an exacution of a policeman
Just because the person voicing over doesn't think it does doesn't make it less real

Just because there is no blood or gore in the video doesn't mean you don't see someone's life ended with there hands in the air in a surrender posture

If you want to take it down I'm not bothered either way.

I am not into censorship if people want to watch it and it's in the public domain then i see no problem with it being posted. Personally I wouldn't want to see it though I did see the video as no warning to its content was given in previous post

I will never be able to get it out of my head now

Finding tonight's Panorama surprisingly enlightening.

grrr knew i was meant to watch something


iplayer it is

When does free speech and satire become racial incitement?

I was having this discussion with my Mrs the othewr day.

We came to the conclusion we have the right to say what we want, but should use the decency not to offend people even if we disagree with them/.

Having seen the new front cover of the latest mag it feels a little closer to incitement than comedy to me. Is it just in really bad taste?

I saw a whole raft of the offensive cartoons aimed at all religions and races.

I didn't smile once.

I didn't find them funny either, just looked like a lot of digs at various religions and beliefs.

Probably something to do with 'kinboshi then.

Nah, I can't draw.

But the idea that you can't mock someone's beliefs is ridiculous. The Life of Brian is one of the funniest films I've ever seen, and if beliefs shouldn't be mocked then that film wouldn't have been made.  If you don't find it funny, that's fine.  Don't watch it.  It certainly doesn't incite violence.  The cartoons didn't incite violence either - remember the murderers killed lots of people who weren't involved in those cartoons being written or published.  I'm assuming the supermarket was targeted because it was Jewish.  To kill people because of their race or religion IS wrong.

The life of Brian was made in the 70's. Things have changed.

FYP

When it was made people tried to ban it.  It was massively controversial and it mocked a major monotheistic religion.  As far as I know though, no one died due to the making of the film?

Four Lions is a cracking film as well.  Again, I don't think anyone died because of that film either.

Not sure if the police were wrong to kill the terrorists?

But why do it?

If they want to believe a load of fairy stories let them crack on with it.

I still believe I am going to win a poker tournament one day, why crush my dreams?

Only when they attempt to convert people should they be challenged.

Live and let live.

all killing is wrong but sometimes it can't be helped

Soldiers fighting in a war have to kill, the killing is still wrong but people in this world just cant get on and there has to be people willing to protect the innocent
be they soldiers policemen or whom ever

But I have the right to tell you that you won't win a poker tournament. I might be wrong (hope I am), but doesn't mean you can then be violent against me.

The cartoons don't do much for me either, but neither does opera and people seem to enjoy that.

People didn't have to make the Life of Brian or Four Lions - but I'm glad they did. It was their right to make those films, and if they offend you or your beliefs, then don't watch them and accept you live in a democracy.

What about when they try to terrorise and oppress others? Should they not be challenged then?

Yes you have the right to tell me anything you want.

But why would you want to meake me unhappy?

I wouldn't Keith, of course!

But were the cartoons meant to make people unhappy?  Was Life of Brian or Four Lions meant to make people unhappy?

Life of Brian was funny and worthwhile.

I defy anyone to honestly state the Charlie Hebdo cartoons remotely make them smile.

To me anyway, they were drawn purely to antagonise Muslims.

Just for the sake of debate Dan, where should the line be drawn?

Is this OK?

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRNrTzldx3K4hEOuF2xUcwd3QpqjLohStueiSlBNp-ZPGXDjzHL)

I see Charlie Hebdo is potentially going on sale in the UK tomorrow, not sure I'd want to stock it.

Are they not in response to something else?

Private Eye magazine satirises and mocks people, but again, people don't die because of that.  If they say anything libellous then they can (and have been) sued. 

If I said that I found opera insulting and offensive, should it be banned?  I actually find some people's beliefs and political views offensive, but they're allowed to have their views and as long as they don't infringe on my rights or provide privilege to them because of these views, then that's a good thing.

That's racist.  It's not mocking someone's beliefs or opinions, it's attacking someone because of who they are.

It's a fine line though...

Doubt many people would walk into a trophy shop for it, so can see your point :)

Very fine.

For me Charlie Hebdo knew exactly what it was doing.  They crossed a line, just because we have free speech doesn't mean we have the right to offend. 

I like Satire, but deliberately offending people isn't on. 

They would have known, it's not even like this is the first incident of this sort of thing.

Where any religion is concerned the more offence the better imo

Brian did LDO

Which is fine, but would you go out your way to upset a particular religious group on purpose?

nh wp

It might be the one that you find most ludicrous or offensive? Anyway, they didn't restrict the mockery to one religion.

Well obviously, but sadly the Jehovahs Witnesses don't do so much door to door nowadays

George Burns played god in a movie and nobody said a word.

Was it a silent movie?

I lol'ed

That actually made me lol. Which is rare for one of your posts.

Looks like US CentCom wasn't the only account recently hacked.

;applause;

I, for one, found many of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons absolutely hilarious. I also thought they often made some really important points.

I also really like the Cover of the next one 'tout est pardonné' ('all is forgiven'). I think it's a brilliant response to an attrocious event.

This pretty sums it up for me: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7518349/charlie-hebdo-racist

If you don't 'see the joke' (because, for example, you don't know much about french culture and politics which is sometimes necessary) you might think that Charlie is viciously racist, islamophobic, sexist and all sorts of other 'phobics'.

With a little understanding of the context, the truth is they are clearly lampooning such beliefs.

The question is now, do we want to stop them making jokes because some people a) don't understand them and find them offensive, or b) don't care to understand them and find them offensive because doing so falls in line with a particular agenda. I think the clear answer to that is no.

I think those who say 'ah, it's not funny* and it's obviously designed to insult a certain class or group of people and the consequences should have been foreseeable because of the 2011 firebombing or the Danish Cartoons fiasco or similar' should reflect on whether or not they are almost being apologists for extremism. If you say that the consequence was foreseeable, then you say that it was understandable. If it's understandable, it's rational. If it's rational, it's acceptable.

*(and you might well say that, even understanding the joke, just like I understand Michael MacIntyres comedy, but don't find him funny)

Oh but we do have the right to offend. Offense is in the taking, and some people have lower offence-thresholds than others. Without the right to offend you cant ever say much of substance -someone, somewhere could be offended

I would make the polar argument: you dont have the right to never be offended. If someone says summat upsets you, or you find unpalettable, challenge them, sure. But deal with it. Its part of being an adult in civilised free societies. people wont always think like you do or hold dear the things you find important. You dont have the right to never be offended by others.

Great post this.

kmac trolling 99% of the forum sure, here - unacceptable.

hate being around here when he's doing this to every thread, makes blonde a way worse place.

edit: reminds me of Ken from celeb bb. Cant we show him the door to the right?

Agreed.

Diddums!

Get out more son there is more to the world than the internet. 

Dr Norman Finkelstein contrasts two images and asks relevant questions in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre... Does defending the right to 'free speech' also include defending the rights of racists and bigots? ‪#‎JeSuisUnMouton‬

http://normanfinkelstein.com/…/01/12/sorry-charlie%E2%80%8B/

It's offensive.  But that doesn't prevent anyone from publishing it. The fact he could publish that article (can't read it as the link's buggered) is an example of someone being given freedom of speech - and the freedom to offend.  Was he trying to be ironic?

Can someone explain why it's deemed ok to offend someone on the basis of their religion, but not on their race?

Surely we can then say we have the right to be racist, 'cos we got freedom of speech Innit'

Race is a fact, religion is a fantasy

I disagree. Religion is fact whether you believe or not, it exists.

Personally, I am offended by the fact that Finkelstein fella can't spell 'considered'.

Not for the majority.

relgion is a fact, Its there, the fact you might agree or disagree there is an almighty being which people worship is a case of fact or fiction

Racism isn't offending people based on their race - it's making assumptions based on their race.

You making assumptions might then offend them - but it isn't the part that's racist

Broadly speaking, it's the difference between what someone IS, and what they DO.

Its made up by human beings, its a fantasy to make them feel better and even if they don't really believe it, they enjoy the tribalism of being part of the group that eg mutilates young girls genitals (without considering why their fabulous infallible creator god didn't do the work properly).

I think the assumption people make is that religion is a choice, and your race is not a choice.

I'm not sure I actually agree that's the case for many people. I was raised in a church of england school/area, with agnostic parents and I believe that I eventually came to choose to be atheist. When I did, my circumstances meant it was not a big deal and they probably brought me to that decision naturally. However, for someone born in a very religious country with very religious parents and the threat of (at least) social exclusion if they change their religion, I don't think that person has much choice at all about their religion.

Such a tough one. I believe in freedom of speech and in particular freedom of comedy, but I can see why mocking a relgion is considered on a part with racism also.

What has mutiliting young girls got to do with religion?  It is a regional thing, not a Muslim or Christian thing.  For example, it doesn't happen in Malaysia or much in the UK, or Iraq, but happens an awful lot in Eritrea (more Christians than Muslims).

FGM is awful. In some countries it's ridiculously prevalent.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At6CC4x_yBnMdGdZSVNGaktTMVhZNFlJb1hmaUppbmc&type=view&gid=0&f=true&sortcolid=2&sortasc=false&rowsperpage=250

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/24/female-genital-mutilation-prevalence-uk

Estimated over 66,000 in the UK who have suffered FGM. That's not an insignificant number.

You're not born into a particular religion. Yes, your family and community might be focused around a particular religion, but you're not born as an adherent of a particular religion or faith.

For many there's very little choice as to what religion they end up following. Obviously if you're born in Saudi Arabia you're more likely to become a Muslim than someone born in say Brazil.

And where it is practiced it is undoubtedly connected to religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation

Islam introduced FGM into Indonesia and Malaysia from the 13th century as part of its drive to convert people to Islam

many Christian women are circumcised in Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria and Tanzania believing it to be a religious requirement

The percentage in Egypt - it's surprising, and scary, and sad.

Saw a TV program the other day (Panorama maybe?)and they said it's not a religious problem, but an African problem.

Exactly.  The vast majority of the world's Muslims don't practice it, 98% of Somalis do.  They always did even before Islam took over.  It isn't all of Africa either, it is just the bit in the middle.  I don't know the figures exactly, but the UK problem is strongly linked to those of Somali origin. 

The fact some people use religion to justify it doesn't take away the fact it is very much a regional thing. 

The interview that was posted earlier went into the mutilation problem.

The thing is that religion can perpetuate out-dated practices that are retained in a large part because of the presence of the religion in that area.

The Abrahamic religions started a long time ago, and there are customs and practices that are still in evidence where these religions are strong. Practices that have died of elsewhere as man's understanding of the world has progressed.

Why are you hurting me?

God says I have to

yeah nothing to do with religion.

I've always had the greatest respect for your point of view and the way you present your arguments, but this falls a long way short of your usual standards.

Dieudonné has been arrested for this Facebook post.

"After this historic march what do I say...Legendary. Instant magic equal to the Big Bang that created the universe. To a lesser extent (more local) comparable to the coronation of Vercingétorix, I finally returned home. You know that tonight as far as I'm concerned I feel like Charlie Coulibaly."

Now it is obviously offensive and distasteful, but how on earth can this be a crime?

He's a racist, shit happens to racists

Something that I, an avowed atheist, didn't really appreciate until recently is how much someone's religion is tied into their cultural identity and how they identify as a person.

I was reading something by an Italian woman, who'd been brought up Catholic by her parents, but then became non-religious and married a non-Italian who also wasn't religious. She was bringing up their daughter with no religious pressure either.

She then found that when the kid stayed with Grandma, Grandma was doing everything she could to indoctrinate the child into Catholicism - reading the kid the Bible, buying children's religious books, taking her to Mass etc. A big row between mother and daughter ensued. Rather than trying to make the child Catholic simply for the sake of Jesus having one more believer, it was more a case that for the Grandma, being a Catholic was so intrinsic to her perception of what it meant to be Italian, that if the child wasn't Catholic, then it was less Italian.

This is obviously going to be much stronger in strict Muslim countries - it would be just about impossible for a Saudi to comprehend the notion of a non-Muslim Saudi, Islam forms such an inherent part of what it means for someone to be, well, them. It would be like imagining a human with no head. So when Muslims hear Islam being criticised, they view it as their intrinsic selves being criticised - they can't disassociate the two, so they perceive it as the same as racism, they're getting shit thrown at them because of who they are. So when they see Jews getting protection from that through anti-racism laws, they get pretty annoyed.

In my younger, more strident days, I would casually think 'why don't more people just wake up to the fact that religion is so obviously bullshit and stop believing in it', and it is pretty easy to think that when you've grown up in a liberal Western democracy. Elsewhere, it requires a bit more of a leap and a lot more risk for someone to do that.

*Nicolas Anelka likes this post*

Is he attacking the Jewish race or the Jewish religion?

:)

Samir Nasri, Adel Taarabt, Mamadou Sakho shared it.

It would be the first time Taarabt's ever passed anything on.

anti-antisemitism is racism

It just goes to show how ridiculous the whole thing is. Jewish is a race, Judaism is a religion. But the two are inseparable.

If you ridicule the Judaism, you are implicitly being racist.

Why not just offend no one?

When Christianity had political power they grossly abused it and many Islamic countries are also abusing human rights when they have political power.  That offends me.




 

Glenn Greenwald agrees with me about Dieudonné.

@ggreenwald Jan 13

If you want to criminalize ideas you dislike, just be honest. Don't march under a free speech banner http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/french-comedian-dieudonne-charlie-coulibaly-prosecutor


i really can't understand how anyone can have strong opinions about any of this except of course the terrorists who did the shooting were scum.

The line between free speech and hate speech and racism is so blurred that is virtually indistinguishable.

i don't understand what you're mixing up.

Hate(ful) speech if something someone finds offensive.

Free(dom of) speech if the idea that in a proper free society, dissent must be allowed, even if it offends you.

Also, re French comedian - i think he was actually making a very valid point by mixing the name of attacker and victim. Firstly, it's a slight homage to Charlie because they do it all the time (the mixing thing) and secondly he's basically saying 'I don't know what to think, I'm so overwhelmed'

"Hate(ful) speech if something someone finds offensive.

Free(dom of) speech if the idea that in a proper free society, dissent must be allowed, even if it offends you."

So all speech is free, until someone takes offense at which point it becomes hateful speech.

So the distinction is completely at the discretion of whoever gets offended, not matter how unreasonable that offense may be?

And who gets to decide which is which?

Many Muslims would argue the sartoon of Charlie Hebdo clearly count as hateful speech.

For me the distinction is different.  Freedom of speech is being able to say (and think) anything you want - as long is it doesn't lead to others being discriminated against or it affecting their civil liberties. Hate speech is deemed as such because it provokes direct action against a person or group of people.

Saying "Christianity is bullshit" is fine, saying "Atheism is bollocks" is fine, saying "Islam is the only true religion and the rest of you are all going to hell you infidel scum" is also fine.  That's just voicing opinion. It's when it is intended to provoke a direct response against someone (an individual or group of people), or threatens such a response that it starts to impact on other people's liberties.  As soon as it reduces someone's civil liberties, then it over-steps the line.  That's why burning flags, poppies, or 'holy' books isn't considered a crime (in this country), as it's not an attack on people or their civil liberties.  It's merely voicing an opinion (one that you might be offended by and hate, but that's tough). Drawing a picture of someone else's prophet or god and mocking them isn't 'hate' speech. 

Ridiculing a religion or people's beliefs doesn't reduce anyone's liberties.  It does the opposite in fact, and allows all to have their own faith, their own beliefs and the freedom to be part of the religion of their choosing.  Threatening to kill people who don't follow a particular belief or way of thinking is very different, and that's when the line is over-stepped.

From wikipedia: (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech") "In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."

Of course, there are grey areas and that's when the legal system comes into play to determine which side of the line a particular action falls. 

I think burning a bible/koran etc is a violent act and purely intended to provoke a violent and angry response.

Why?  You might consider it offensive, but it's not violent or necessarily provoking a violent response.

What is the logic behind buying a book you have no belief in and no intention of reading purely to burn it?

I saw an episode of Top Gear where they drove through the bible belt in the USA with slogans that mocked Christianity painted on the sides of their cars. They almost got lynched and no one was surprised.

Exactly.

I don't think actions like these should be criminalised.

I just think in a mature society we should respect other people's beliefs and opinions as long as they don't harm anyone else.

Of course, exercising your freedom of speech can provoke people to violence (as in the Paris murders), but it's the response that's unacceptable rather than the provocation being 'unlawful'.  You would be very careful to criticise Islam in Saudi Arabia - heaven forbid (pun intended) you denounce Islam as your religion (where the penalty is death). We have (should have) the freedom to voice our opinions as we live in a free society, even if some might be offended by them, as long as it's not 'hate' speech.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/saudi-blogger-lashes-amnesty-international-raif-badawi

Not sure what the punishment is for making a snowman though:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa

If someone wants to burn the bible, koran, Bobby Moore's biography, etc., how does it harm you?  As for respecting beliefs, why?  I respect everyone's right to have beliefs and be free to believe what they want and to practice their faith in their own home and in a way that doesn't impact on anyone else or infringe their civil liberties.

But why should people's religious beliefs be exempt from mockery or criticism?  What next, their political views, the football team they support...

There are fundamentalist Christians who find the theory of evolution offensive.

The moral debates in a civilised society should be based on considering the effects of behaviour on various stakeholders starting from a position of freedom and moving to restrictions after considering the effects of those restrictions. 

Someone who wants to base society's rules on a book written by a lunatic hundreds of years ago and on top of this believes that anyone who disagrees with their point of view should be flogged or executed is a threat to liberty and should be confronted in the media and made to feel "offended"

Re Saudi Arabia - our tolerance of their appalling human rights abuses just because they pump out oil and buy our weapons is an utter disgrace.

Tom  ,   wasn't this programme where " The Christians " loathed "Dirty Homosexuals "  ?

Funny Old World   :)

Very much this !

One mans meat   .....

Yes. I think it was.

You do know that Top Gear is very comprehensively scripted?

Voltaire may not have been the origin of that old saw about defending people's right to say stuff we don't like, but he did say this

 “The supposed right of intolerance is absurd and barbaric. It is the right of the tiger; nay, it is far worse, for tigers do but tear in order to have food, while we rend each other for paragraphs.”

Noooo!!!!

Say it isn't so.

I discovered only the other day that he was also known for being anti-Semitic, which is interesting considering what he said and how often he's quoted in these circumstances.

The Pope demanding people's freedom of speech be curtailed when it concern religions.  I find his comments offensive and his church's protection of child-raping priests abhorrent.  But I'm not going to "punch him in the face" for it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/15/pope-francis-limits-to-freedom-of-expression

I will post a link to this though:

[Very NSFW & very much not for easily-offended catholics]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0

The two issues are separate though.

Absolutely the protection of paedo priests has been disgusting and obscene. The individuals who have done this should be outted.

But to blame the Catholic religion for the behaviour of some of its adherents is as much a mistake as it is to blame Islam for the Paris attacks IMO

he was anti a lot of other things as well, and lived in far less enlightened times than these.

I'm not sure how enlightened these times are.

I was arguing about him saying that freedom of speech should be restricted when it comes to religion. 


Anyway, all Muslims are as bad as each other obviously, especially the immigrant ones who come over and take people's jobs (in a Jewish supermarket as well, the audacity!), and save people's lives:

http://mashable.com/2015/01/15/paris-attack-hero-french-citizenship/

Missed opportunity.

In 1946 India, tensions between the majority Hindus and Muslims were at an all time high, a scholar named Durga Dass (Born a Hindu and became an Atheist),  wrote:

I’ve translated this from Hindi to English so some of the plural and masculine phrases may not make sense..

“The Hindus band their Agneyastras and the muslims their Scimtars, the world watches as these brothers and sisters fight for not what is right but for their man made religions.  Religion is everything in India we are not united by our land but by a religious beliefs.  Ghandhi gives speeches impassioned by his love for his native India and it’s indigenous people yet he fails to realize that what he is preaching is an anti Muslim/Christian India.  

We will be divided by our religions, Muslims in the North, Hindus in the south there will be no room for other religions over the virtual borders that will be created.  Sectarianism or racism it’s all the same once you divide you can not unify, this will have a long standing impact for generations and will create extremist on both sides, extremist Hindus and extremist Muslims. The world will feel the wrath; created by those who are adamant in creating this divide and in years to come when the hatred pours through the hearts of those effected by the actions and speeches of few, will the world realize that for harmony to exist religion must be compromised”


The part where he comments “the world will feel the wrath in years to come” is the most interesting, the actions of a minority today will have a lasting and snowballing effect on our future generations. Ask an Indian what he feels about Pakistan and vise versa, then ask the same people if they would mind their daughters marrying the opposite

Also for harmony to exist religion must be compromised, Kinboshi made a great point

“The thing is that religion can perpetuate out-dated practices that are retained in a large part because of the presence of the religion in that area.”
This completely.  The world needs to move on, not forget our beliefs but culturally diffuse…

------------------------------

The way the news is reported will have a dramatic effect on the way we treat one another in the future.  Woodseys initial post is evidence of this already and to be completely fair to Woodsey we can’t blame him, our opinions are based on the things that we see, the news we read or discuss with others who read, hear and see the same things.

I’ve seen a lot of comments saying “People who feel a certain way about this have a low IQ” which is BS not everyone has the time to do their own research and come to a conclusion based on evaluated evidence, so their opinions are based on the evidence that is presented to them, again which is normally biased.

Freedom of expression needs to be defended…

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Charlie-Hebdo-Magazine-Special-Edition-January-14-2015-UK-Version-/301486377301?pt=UK_Books_Comics_Magazines_European_Comics_ET&hash=item4631fd0955

feel the bidding might be dominated by fake accounts :)

Just came across this from the Scott Adams blog pages.

But I won’t be getting humorous about the founder of Islam because I would see that as an insult to Muslims who were minding their own business. I’m not a believer, but I’ve evolved to be pro-religion because I observe religion to be a functional interface to a reality our brains aren’t designed to understand.

For the uninitiated, he's a very successful cartoonist.

There's no way Dogbert would ever say anything like this.

absolutely not :)

It's happening again and it looks like it is going to be a hundred times worse.

Three locations, suicide bombers, 40 confirmed dead already, 100 people taken hostage in a concert hall.

Jesus christ, truly truly sickening.

I feel this is going to be a watershed moment in 'the war on terror'.

30 dead and rising, 60 hostages at a theatre. 4 separate coordinated attacks including suicide bombing. Scary scary stuff

Horrific, really shocking. I was in Paris earlier in the week, many friends & work colleagues are there over there this week.  #PrayForParis

Horrific news, and the worst thing is the early reports never show the full scale of what's going on.

I dread to think what we'll wake up to tomorrow.
It's just devastating.

If people aren't afraid to die they can't be defeated.

And the more the West kill, the more will be willing to take their place for their 72 virgins in paradise.

Sky reporting 140 dead.

Unbelievable.

I hope the news from the theatre is wrong

Just been confirmed 100 dead at the concert hall.

This morning all the news was Britain and the US high-fiving each other over killing one scumbag.

Plenty more where he came from.

Eyewitness reports in the French media are gut-wrenching. At least two gunmen burst in and open fire randomly into the packed crowd, reload when they run out of bullets and start again. Explosives thrown at hostages.

It's hard to imagine.

The band playing at the concert was Eagles of Death Metal, Jesse Hughes and Josh Homme's band.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTusxiqVEAA9t6-.jpg)

I'm a bit in shock really.

Absolutely shocking news. Pray for Paris!

timeline of last night's events

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTwz_XsWsAICU0p.jpg)

an analysis

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTwkRSoWoAEdL6Z.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTuV6DgWEAAOvTE.jpg)

ISIS says in statement

Bataclan concert hall: "hundreds of apostates had gathered in a profligate prostitution party"

Gatwick Airport evacuated after armed police arrest man with 'grenade in his bag' http://dailym.ai/1WY6fin 

The Islamic State names France as its “principle target” - John R Bradley on a new declaration of war: http://bit.ly/1j0wzv3

I hope we aren't falling victim to the hysteria that these attacks create.
Remember poor Jean Charles De Mendes.

(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc416/cambridgealex/80622043-1033-4975-ABF6-42B90161DB63_zpskiwcjy9q.jpg) (http://s1210.photobucket.com/user/cambridgealex/media/80622043-1033-4975-ABF6-42B90161DB63_zpskiwcjy9q.jpg.html)

This rings so true.

This

Rest in Peace all those whom have lost thier lives & a full recovery to those injured  x

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTyfCqKWIAccR1B.jpg)

Oh my, if he had got in, and pulled the tab in a packed grandstand, the toll would have been very much higher. Somewhere, soon enough, it will happen, of course

A little reported fact was the guard who stopped the attacker getting into the stadium was intact himself a museum, doesn't fit with alot of the right wing media's messages

Was his surname Tate?

So now, someone has started a petition on petition.parliament.uk calling for a stop to immigration and for all borders to be closed until ISIS is defeated...

Like that's going to help.

I think that's a fair enough opinion but it also demonstrates what a dim view of humanity ISIS have. Sure thing there might be a small minority who focus on race or religion driven by some parts of the media. But the overwhelming majority of people are only drawn closer together in such adversity. I would say 99% of the world are united in horror after these events and with every future atrocity the resolution of people will be firmer still. What now ISIS?

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/107516 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/107516)

It ends 9 March, so guess it must have started on 9 September, and wasn't a response to this.  Love the way the Petition starter provides links to the express and Mail, just in case we don't understand the issue, or maybe she was worried that we may think she was a Guardian reader?

Pope: ParisAttacks are part of the Third World War.

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/is-this-a-tearful-pope-francis-ringing-a-radio-station-to-pray-for-the-paris-victims/

Nick Wealthall posted this link on Twitter, which makes for very interesting (if very long) background reading on ISIS. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Does anyone else have any other links as while I'm sure the above is a very good account I doubt it's going to be totally accurate based as it is on one man's interpretation of some fairly dodgy primary sources.

I defy anyone not to read that URL and immediately think of the Spice Girls.

I read without any thought of them. Manage to get through most days that way too.

Sigh...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34835353

Being devils advocate now but why sigh Tom? If it is proved that IS members are being allowed in to a country as refugees surely the right thing to do is stop it until a robust method of vetting is in place.

Paris attacks: 'France will destroy IS' - Hollande

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34836439

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Long but eye opening article about Isis.
Apparently their true motives are nothing like i imagined and I'm not sure if the reality is better or worse.

Isn't that playing into the hands of IS? Stopping people from escaping the horrors.

I thought they were more concerned about causing harm to the West.

When you have wolves In sheeps clothing, you don't punish the real sheep :)

Investigatory Powers Bill...?

I probably heard about 20 different guys saying these kind of misguided comments at the tables in the US about this.  All seemed to believe that bile that Trump had been saying about an army of 200,000 ISIS soldiers that will soon be arriving.

Can only imagine what the kind of political discussion is like now in poker rooms that border the bible belt states.

My understanding is that IS wish to establish a Caliphate which is a region governed by Shariah law. That's what they are doing in Syria and Iraq. Al Qaeda's MO included destroying the west.  That's one of the main differences between the organisations.

The attacks in Paris were retaliation for air strikes on their caliphate.  Not as a result of their hatred for the west.

Happy to have that corrected by someone more knowledgeable.

"Exempted from automatic execution, it appears, are Christians who do not resist their new government. Baghdadi permits them to live, as long as they pay a special tax, known as the jizya, and acknowledge their subjugation. The Koranic authority for this practice is not in dispute."
(http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/)


Accepting any man made law above the law of the Koran is worthy of a death sentence so I think your wrong, although the quote above does exempt some people.

Their motivation isn't the hatred of the western world though. It's their unwavering belief in the fundamentals of Islam. The western world don't share this belief therefore are wrong'uns along with a huge number of non-extremist Muslims and followers of most other religions.

I can see that artcile in the atlantic seems popular here, but IS are very much picking the bits of the koran that suit their purposes.  And saying IS are very Islamic feels a bit like saying that a murderer who always obeys the speed limit is very law abiding.

Though the koran has more than its fair share of war mongering statements, but every chapter of the koran begins with a statement saying Allah is merciful, and there are numerous references to forgiveness.

I think they are very much driven by taking territory in the Middle East and that is far more important than attacking the West.  The muslim/middle eastern body count is far higher than the Westerner body count.

I don't even think the article is that accurate on Christians either, as there are documented examples of mass killings of christians too.

Something can be Islamic as an adjective but not as a noun. Something can define itself by Islam and in its nature be very Islamic without defining what Islam is for everyone else.

I quite like this idea, pity it didn't catch on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-call-it-the-un-islamic-state-say-muslim-groups-as-another-hostage-is-murdered-9731823.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-call-it-the-un-islamic-state-say-muslim-groups-as-another-hostage-is-murdered-9731823.html)

Dutch Football ‏@football_oranje  10m10 minutes ago
Reports emerging now that German Police discovered a vehicle disguised as an ambulance filled with explosives near the stadium.


Firstly very well done for discovering that seems like the last place you would think to look.

Secondly what a mess this is.

Never been so nervous watching an England match and I couldn't care less about the result.

Absolutely terrifying stuff in Germany.

Agreed

Hannover Chief of Police: "There was a device intended to be detonated inside the stadium."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12002026/Hannover-bomb-plot-Germany-v-Netherlands-called-off-what-we-know-so-far.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1447792513

Football stadium, concert hall, train station.

Tonight could have been very different.

Reports now saying no explosives found in Hannover, so maybe a false alarm this time?

i thought this was beautiful

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUCSMAEWIAEVEhf.jpg)

Oh my word.

police shield from a French officer sent into the Bataclan to restore order

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CT-MH_LWUAEFljC.jpg)

My son and I went to the game last night. Listening to fans singing le marseillais on the tube on the way there will stay with me for a very long time.

Terror mastermind cornered in Paris flat by 100 armed police.

Wife blows herself up, another jihadi shot dead and 5 more arrested. Developing

Did he get to deliver Jeremy Corbyn's letter?

It was only a couple of months ago that someone posted about Tunisia attacks and would they go to Tunisia, but look at last Friday's events and would you have gone to certain events that have been and gone or that are upcoming?

England v France - on Tuesday night

If France was at home on the Tuesday

Would you go to the Euro's in 2016 in France?

All of Europe, mainly England and France are saying "We won't be beat", but yet they are beating us. We walk around in fear. Paris is covered in fear, so is London and the same in other major cities. They definitely aren't winning and so on, but they are able to do what they wanted to do and terrify Europe. Yet all we are hear is that they will take IS down, but it won't happen.

But also, I always thought that I would always very likely thought Labour, but Jeremy Corbyn and has "no shoot" policy is absolutely stupid.

These terrorists do make it hard for themselves though, did they really think they would get into the stadium? But how did they get into the nightclub in Paris? I don't think they would ever get into big named nightclubs in London.

yes his quote about requesting the Army dont shoot their guns in warzones was a step too far some would say  ;whistle;

You don't think two men with kalashnikovs could get past a London doorman?

I am sure they could - But they couldn't get into the football stadium in France.

terrorists are under equipped, they aren't going to attack fort knoxs because they know that will fail.

Soft targets, lots of people, induce fear, that is their recipe for a fun day out. They attack the city of London with bombs, we invest in defenses, change road layouts, building safety concepts. They attack planes, we adapt (utterly randomly) security procedures, they both adapt their attacks and move to different targets. They then moved to concerts/restaurants/museums all because they are soft targets.

The whole point is they are trying to cause fear, by attacking 'everyday occurrences', making you think about your every day life, scaring you.

Our response shouldn't and cant be to just militarise every moment of our waking lives. Intelligent rational responses based in an actual understanding of what has caused these actions, what we can do to mitigate them and how we can EFFICIENTLY protect ourselves in the future should be the way forward. We have been shown that surveillance of the whole world electronically, when justified by 'terrorism' but utitlised for 'economics and politics', is a sham. One we are paying for dearly both through reductions in true freedom and in terms of death toll.

It's a colossal shame that we are so unlikely to have any kind of reasonable response to the recent actions. It amazes me just how much of a negative influence the media is able to have on a supposedly well educated country.

Ticket sales were very good for the Football in the days after the attack. 70,000+ wandered up Wembley Way. Paris didn't become deserted overnight. Nor should anywhere. We are still more likely to be killed crossing the road than by a terrorist act.

I have asked like 10 people if they would have gone to the match after the events, they all said no. But all take their hats off to people who went.

But yeah, you're right David, but isn't the likelyhood that something still needs to be done? Because whilst it isn't, we just wait for "our turn".

Love the phrase "something needs to be done" if there was a simple solution wouldn't we have done it by now?

absolutely

There is no visible solution to this. Fanatics will, like the poor, the homeless and the sick always be with us. Let's set our sights on doing what we can for the poor, the homeless and the sick.
And let's do it in the face of whatever the fanatics care to throw at us.

Oh, and let's not waste money and lives throwing bombs at these people. Because a) it won't work, and b) it is inherently counter-productive.

Could someone answer a couple of questions for me:

1. Why exactly are ISIS targeting the West like this? This i actually don't get. Their priority was gaining power and control in Syria right? So why are they choosing now in particular to incur the wrath of the same parties who funded/trained them to fight against Assad?

2. What are the reasons that no country seems to be planning to go in on foot to ISIS strongholds in Syria and Iraq? 

Again I think if we knew the answer to 1 we might be able to find a solution. Some will be brainwashed, some will be spooling for a fight, some will genuinely blame the west for their problems like people blame immigrants got theirs and some will genuinely believe they are doing Gods work. And that is why they are so difficult to stop.

1. Is as yet unclear I think.

The whole point of ISIS is to establish the caliphate and that was going well up until recently. The change in tact may well be to it now going tits up with air strikes and Kurds making headway so they need some good propaganda.

This attack was akin to the "Al-Qaeda" model who they won't give the time of day. Al-Qaeda has a faction in Syria who ISIS would ultimately wish to destroy too.

A lot of ISIS propaganda that we never see or hear about goes into convincing ordinary people to stay in Iraq/Syria and join them. Planting some fake Syrian passports to try to induce governments to restrict refugees may well have been a stated aim of the attack, and on that front it's worked..

'London is covered with fear'? Hasn't seemed that way to me and, certainly less so than after the numerous terrorist attacks in the past.

Would you not say that people aren't worried in London about the current situation? I would say quite a few people around London are walking around the city and genuinely are worried.

I spent the whole day in London yday and it never crossed my mind about my safety at any point from arriving to departing.  Even when i walked past two armed policemen at the train station both with huge guns i never once felt at risk and even considered something might occur.  Does seem odd seeing British police carrying such huge weapons though in public places like train stations.  Sign of the times i suppose.

Much bigger and more likely dangers in London than ISIS.

Yup i've been in London all week and, like you, the only discernable difference I've noticed is the extra number of visible police. People seem the same as always - public transport definitely isn't any less crowded for sure!

My fiancee goes to university in London and she confirms that nobody is particularly worried about it there.

I think I read the FA said less than a 100 tickets were refunded after they gave people the option of staying away, maybe it's only a very specific demographic that are covered with fear?

London is way too big and way too busy for anyone to be given pause to think for more than a day or so. It's not a city that breeds reflection. It was the same after the 7/7 bombings. People were mildly fearful the first time they used the tube again and it was really quite quiet. Within a week it was totally back to normal with people shoving each other to get on.

Question of the day (As Mr Shoelace seems to have stopped doing this)

Would you be happy with (or indeed accept) airport type security before using a train?

Wrong thread  for my Q of the day:)

Plus, the discussion is pretty busy on the politics thread with very current events so no need to prod it along.

Regarding your question, man I would hate that. Is that being proposed? That would be a nightmare to implement in London surely? Or are we talking more the cross country trains?

I'm not happy with it before using an aeroplane.

You wrote you didn't think they would get into a big London nightclub.
I think they could get into any of our nightclubs/museums/restaurants with the method of running up to the front door firing automatic weapons.
 
I agree the the different tactic of trying to sneak in wearing a suicide vest like they did at the stadium has a much higher chance of being foiled, but I think they knew that too, hence the different options.

Basically there isn't anyway you can protect public places from people who want to kill and don't mind if they die trying, we can only hope the intelligence services can keep discovering their plots and try to carry on with our lives as best we can.

why not John?

i can't imagine wanting to go on one if bags hadnt been checked, people and hand luggage hadn't gone through the machines

I just saw an interview with a "security expert" on BBC World who suggested it was "unfathomably naive and short-sighted" for there NOT to be airport style checks before train AND tube journeys.

Fuck that, say I.

Hahahaha! There speaks a man who has never caught a rush hour tube. Literally impossible to do so.

but if it saves one attack from being successful, isn't some minor inconvenience/some time onto your travel a small price to pay?

Aren't the terrorists winning by causing these "minor inconveniences|" on everyone?

As Alun says, can you really see screening for every tube passenger in London?

Logistically impossible, surely?

Victoria line has 34 trains an hour at peak times. Each one has over 1000 people on it.

Victoria station frequently has queues of hundreds both in the ticket hall and outside onto the train station concourse already.

Good luck with that screening.

Logistically impossible maybe for every tube and train station, certainly hugely expensive, but i'd take minor inconveniences over regular successful attacks (not that there are regular successful attacks)

dont particularly see it as terrorists winning to have these safeguards in place, see it as stopping the terrorists winning

(http://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/03/06/09/13oxfordcircus0603a.jpg)

Just a normal day at Oxford Circus

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/commuters-face-scrum-at-oxford-circus-station-amid-fears-capitals-transport-network-is-at-breaking-10089779.html

Without wanting to sound facile, as a parent did you try and prevent any possible thing in your home from being a potential danger to your kids or did you just accept there would always be some risks?

You'd buy a kid on a bike a helmet and maybe elbow and knee pads. You wouldn't make them wear full body armour and crash helmet.

of course its all a balance between risk and civil liberties in policy making terms.

i don't think it will happen for the logistical reasons you outline but if it did i wouldn't be in high dudgeon about it

I remember having a similar disagreement with some posters after the April Jones murder.

Be aware and vigilant, but you can't wrap people with cotton wool all their lives, or eventually their life won't be worth living.

About 200-300 million screenings to do it for air traffic.
About 3 billion screenings to do it for rail and tube.

Definitely not possible. But also I suspect not even helpful, we've already had an attack on the transport network. Theoretically another one is possible but to find people to carry it out, without the the intelligence services finding out and avoiding police and transport police before actually carrying it out - I would guess extremely thin probability.

Even if it were logistically possible there is no way it would be proportionate to the threat.

Apparently Isis have established a new caliphate who's main task is to annihilate all Muslims who don't follow the Koran to the bloody and outdated letter, so that's most of them basically, with the priority being their fellow countrymen.
It is also their divine quest to provoke the 'Christian' West into a massive war which will destroy them down the last five thousand, who will partake in a glorious last battle where Jesus (yes, Jesus) will appear to lead them to victory in the apocalypse.

I don't know how accurate this is but is does kind of explain why the are fighting a war the have no chance of winning, they don't want to win, they just want to play there part in the last act.
It is also the first thing I have seen that explains why western Muslim families have left modern comfortable lives to go to Syria.
They must be truly convinced that the end of days are upon us and that to comply is their only choice.

It's pretty scary stuff for those of us who can't comprehend dying/sacrificing our families for faith.

Just saw the Andrew Neill monologue.

He's probably just moved up several thousand spots on any IS hit list.

What's old Anjem Choudary got to say about this?

He's unusually quiet. Is keeping off Twitter one of his bail conditions?

They're off again.
170 hostages in a hotel in Mali used by Air France crew.
:-(

africa's richest man is one of the hostages

Aliko Dangote – Net worth: $15.7 Billion (Nigerian)

"Aliko Dangote is the world’s richest black man. He built his fortune through three commodities: sugar, cement, flour. Also he plans to invest in oil."

Interesting.

Call me cynical, but I'll guess is there will be a peaceful conclusion to this particular crisis then.

Denied already. 

I don't mind bags being checked. It's all the stuff with shoes, belts, laptops, liquids, most of which has little merit in bomb prevention, but makes the public feel like they are being safeguarded. We don't have any of that on trains or buses, and I can't think of an attack other than 7/7.

I think you could argue that a standard doorman is not going to do anything if there is a terrorist, but surely for a terrorist to get a "good result" in terms of good numbers, then I would question how they could get all weapons into a nightclub, etc. They could of course shoot a door supervisor/bouncer, but that would have only happened after a doorman has realised they have "weapons"?

I don't know the biggest nightclub in London, but I would potentially guess at Heaven, at Charing Cross. The sercurity is tight there, would they get a "good result" in their eyes? I suspect the sercurity in nightclubs like this and similar, would have an impact on how many they kill.

They must have known they would struggle with the football match too.

I hate to say it, but if you are wanting to kill as many people as possible, potentially hundreds, then why make it so tough? You aren't going to get checked on the tube at rush hour, when there are hundreds, you have hundreds in Trafalgar Square and in some theatres in the west end, they don't check your bag thoroughly enough. So I find it amazing, how they go to a football stadium, etc.

I really just don't get it.

I think of Iraq and how it took 2 weeks or so to take over an entire country. How is it that there aren't really any concerted efforts to get rid of ISIS? There is evidently a Western interest in keeping them an active presence, but what is it?

For the shit they do, ISIS seem to retain quite a few powerful friends.

Nah, the west are just scared of getting sucked into a conflict with ground troops where it would be really really hard identifying the enemy beyond the obvious people. It was hard enough in Irag after the uniformed people disappeared, will be an absolute nightmare in this situation.

They will take out the obvious in due course I think, don't know how they will deal with the others that are/will be hidden in normal society.

Excellent article that at least partially answers the why not launch a conventional ground war

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-in-a-borderless-world-the-days-when-we-could-fight-foreign-wars-and-be-safe-at-home-may-be-long-a6741146.html

This is brilliant from Frankie Boyle

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

Remarkably good.

Will have to force myself to read it. I can't think of many comedians I dislike more than him.

Read it. It's like a smug off with Frankie narrowly winning on points.

Interesting reading up on the House of Wisdom though. Although it's immediately obvious just from Wiki that he's overstated its achievements and it had rather an ironic end bearing in mind the point he is trying to make...

No big fan of Frankie Boyle, but did like this line..

'How could the most stringent surveillance in the world not have picked up Abdelhamid Abaaoud before? I mean, they’d have got him even if they just went through lists of terrorists alphabetically.'

I like the line

It’s not apologism to try to understand why something happened

The rest is apologist drivel

Oh man, just saw a Russian fighter has been shot down by the Turkish Air force - that's a pretty scary escalation

True, I am just working out a way that we can blame ourselves for it.   Doesn't have to be logical or fit timelines, I just need it as part of a rant. 

Haha, definitely our fault - we've been arming our NATO allies for a long time.

Have to say, I never thought a NATO country would knowingly down a Russian fighter. I guess we don't know this as a fact yet

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUlJ46lWEAEQJ2I.jpg)

"A Russian warplane was shot down on the Turkish-Syrian border, defence officials in Moscow have confirmed, in the country’s first serious loss since it launched an air war in Syria in late September."

Unconfirmed: Syrian rebels say they've hit a Russian chopper on a rescue mission - with a US supplied TOW missile

wat?  I most definitely would hope that the RAF would down a Russian fighter if it entered our airspace and did not immediately leave.

That's as may be,  but I'm still surprised although I don't know anything about the exact circs obviously

That seems likely to have rather large repercussions don't you think?

I don't understand what the problem is here.  There is no country that doesn't defend its airspace.  If a Russian or other unauthorised warplane entered our airspace and refused to immediately leave (or follow instructions), it would ultimately be shot down.  Why does this surprise you?

problem is if Russia wants it can walk through Europe and not much NATO can do to stop it

It will take them a mighty long time on foot.

even on foot wouldnt take them that long

Russia got their answer today, we ALL need to treat our neighbours with respect, if we don't we have only the past to look at as the future

Because I'm a rational human being?

You appeared to be suggesting that if a Russian plane strays into UK airspace they will be immediately shot down without a damn care for the consequences.

If what you're actually saying is eventually after all other possible avenues had been closed down and it refused to leave eventually it would be reluctantly shot down then I agree.

That is what a country's air force are actually saying yes, but in a very short timeframe haha
If foreign fighter jets do not respond in 5 min around your air space and cross it wwyd?

The Russians must have been aware that they risked having their plane shot down so we have to assume that they were comfortable with that outcome.

Turkey have needlessly given away the moral high ground. (IMHO of course)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

This will fit the bill nicely

Isn't that just flavour of the month in amongst those of us who like to wring our hands?

If we had stuck to the straighter lines favoured by Messrs Sykes and Picot, the Russian jet would never have overflown that little knobble of Turkey, hence today's incident would never have happened.

Luckily if we are going to go off on one in the Guardian, following any kind of logic is unimportant, so Sykes-Picot is officially the reason us wankers are to blame for today's incident.

Thanks for your help