Eleven people are reported to have been shot dead by gunmen who attacked a French magazine's offices in Paris.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30710883
|
Even worse news is that killers are still at large!
|
Now reported 12 dead.
A tight group of holes in a police car windscreen is being said to indicate a trained gunman was firing not an ad hoc attacker.
The gunmen escaped by car and hi jacked another car. They are still being hunted.
|
>> a trained gunman was firing not an ad hoc attacker.
What's the difference? There are a lot of 'trained gunmen' because many have passed through the military.
I like guns and approve on one level of the permissive French attitude to firearms ownership. It's obvious however that this makes it far too easy for ugly suicidal Islamist dolts to tool themselves up. In a way it would be good if the French fuzz just went around executing them when they could be identified. But violence, they say, breeds violence so I suppose it would do as much harm as good. And of course there would be a lot of collateral, fuzz being fuzz.
Remember Alain Mesrine, firing at police pursuers from the open boot of a stolen Golf GTI? Just a bank robber, in the gentler world of yesteryear...
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 7 Jan 15 at 13:49
|
Haven't terrorist Muslims heard the kids rhyme "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"? Thugs and murderous bullies that is all they are. The lowest scum.
Just heard on the radio someone calling for moderated language towards the Muslim militants. What next, even more moderation, then in the future no criticism allowed whatsoever on pain of punishment.
The French authorities new this publication was a target, it had been firebombed before. Did they provide protection?
It makes one wonder if the American right to bear arms makes sense.
If anyone in the office had a personal firearm they may have been able to protect themselves?
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 7 Jan 15 at 14:08
|
>>It makes one wonder if the American right to bear arms makes sense.
Ahh the land where no-one runs amok wasting strangers/their families/cops
>>If anyone in the office had a personal firearm they may have been able to protect themselves?
See the above comment: how often do you hear of an American shooting spree being ended by a member of the public using their personal weapon?
Almost never.
|
This will be a first class recruiting tool for the Front Nationale in France, the EDL in the UK and PEGIDA in Germany.
|
|
A clear case of leading with the chin. The scurrilous Canard Enchaine has been more circumspect.
|
>>A clear case of leading with the chin. The scurrilous Canard Enchaine has been more circumspect.
I think the point they were making was that in a free society they need not pull their chin in and in a normal society would not have to.
These lunatics want nothing more than to be able to lord it over us with their dark ages ways and death to anyone that disagrees.
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 7 Jan 15 at 15:18
|
|
I wonder if the gunmen could have slipped away so easily had the attack occurred in London or the UK with its many many CCTV cameras?
|
Sadly, there will be more of this.
|
>> Just heard on the radio someone calling for moderated language towards the Muslim militants.
What a tit.
Appeasement will never work for people like that, they are trying to have 'their way' imposed on everyone else.
Moderating ones language for the benefit of mass murderers would be a form of them winning.
|
>> Appeasement will never work for people like that, they are trying to have 'their way'
>> imposed on everyone else.
>>
>> Moderating ones language for the benefit of mass murderers would be a form of them
>> winning.
>>
Totally agree. It would be great if all western media outlets published the cartoons as an act of solidarity!
|
>>It would be great if all western media outlets published the cartoons as an act of solidarity
+1
This is probably the most sensible post zippy's ever made ;-)
|
>>It would be great if all western media outlets published the cartoons as an act of solidarity
But they won't all do it, some because of simple cowardice and others from a misplaced sense of 'objectivity'.
The massive flaw in Islam is that with most of the faithful, 'belief' however far-fetched trumps reason and knowledge every time. Makes you want to puke, perfectly sane individuals uttering rubbish they can't possibly genuinely believe. I've been told sternly that I didn't 'have the right' to be an atheist by people who were quite clever in their way. It's pathetic.
Only an educated minority can cope with the contradiction in the way Christians (or most of them) learned to do centuries ago.
A fifth of humanity are officially Muslim.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 7 Jan 15 at 18:15
|
Horrible crime don't understand what possesses anybody to do this.The poor copper who was already shot they had to finish him off.
Nutcases we have to stop this but how I don't know.Maybe we all have been to political correct and kept our mouth shut.
|
Haven't heard too much from the Neville Chamberlains on here.
|
>> Haven't heard too much from the Neville Chamberlains on here.
>>
>>
What a pathetic comment.
|
>> >> Haven't heard too much from the Neville Chamberlains on here.
>> What a pathetic comment.
>>
Would one care to explain why one thinks like that?
Have I hit the 'nail on the head'?....truth hurts and all that?
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 8 Jan 15 at 20:06
|
>> Would one care to explain why one thinks like that?
>>
>> Have I hit the 'nail on the head'?....truth hurts and all that?
The reference to Chamberlain suggests that you think a robust, Churchillian if you will, response is needed. While I may choose different words to Zero I agree with him that such an analogy/response is wholly inappropriate.
The 'enemy' here are currently a handful of oddballs who've fallen for the message of religious zealotry. In some instances because they've swallowed the thing itself but in a wholly disproportionate number of cases because they've converted while mentally unstable and/or looking for a fight (qv Rigby killers).
The risk of a 'show 'em who is boss' strategy is that it becomes a recruiting sergeant par excellence for their cause. See many former colonies and the six counties for examples.
|
>> The 'enemy' here are currently a handful of oddballs who've fallen for the message of
>> religious zealotry.
If it is a handful then your point is well made, but. As I said in a previous post/thread/ or whatever they are called (yonks ago) I do not trust any Muslim, no matter what they say until they prove differently and I am satisfied as to their intent. That of course is also true of of any religion or following. Then of course we don't want to talk about Priests do we, so where does it all end.
I am also sick to the back teeth of people who then say after such atrocities, that we must exercise restraint and be calm and don't say this or that.
In truth can anyone here, of which there are clearly some experienced and knowledgeable folk, ever see this situation being any different?
|
>> In truth can anyone here, of which there are clearly some experienced and knowledgeable folk,
>> ever see this situation being any different?
In truth, could you have seen the trouble in Northern Ireland ending?
of course it will end, it will be a long haul tho.
The point about exercising restraint and being calm is to show those who commit such atrocities that life goes on and we don't give a shove what they do, and they wont win. Part of their aim is to invite hostility upon the muslim population and create more radicalised muslims.
In short they want to cause racial strife, its their life and blood So why play their game.
|
>>In truth, could you have seen the trouble in Northern Ireland ending?
>>
Has it ended though? Rhetorical Q. only.
Anyway on a happier note there is new life in my household as of last night. A brand spanking new Grand Daughter. All perfect by all accounts.
Peace on you all. Peace I said, seriously.
MD
|
>> Would one care to explain why one thinks like that?
Well firstly it is a pathetic comment, adds nothing to discussion, is an attempt to belittle those who might have opposing views to yours (despite the fact you claim to respect free speech and thought - thats clearly proven to be a joke) and I would have thought pretty disrespectful to the victims of the event.
>> Have I hit the 'nail on the head'?....truth hurts and all that?
Just as pathetic - grow up.
|
>> Well firstly it is a pathetic comment, adds nothing to discussion, is an attempt to
>> belittle those who might have opposing views to yours (despite the fact you claim to
>> respect free speech and thought - thats clearly proven to be a joke) and I
>> would have thought pretty disrespectful to the victims of the event.
Which part of my post opposes or hints at a negation of free speech?
I posted it, expecting a response... and encouraging debate.... and stating that appeasement of some people doesn't work.
I cannot fathom what part of my post is disrespectful to any of the victims.. bearing in mind 3 of the victims are police officers and I spent 31 years in that field... and that many of the other victims were proponents of free speech which is exactly where I come from...
>> >> Have I hit the 'nail on the head'?....truth hurts and all that?
>>
>> Just as pathetic - grow up.
Care to expand rather than just throw insults?
Otherwise it kind of proves my point, doesn't it....
...Oh and if you feel belittled on this subject matter...'good'...you talk out of your backside.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 8 Jan 15 at 22:17
|
>> I posted it, expecting a response...
>> and encouraging debate....
>> and stating that appeasement of some
>> people doesn't work.
Rubbish you did it, and it was couched in terms - what was it now " the Neville Chamberlains on here" - to express your attitude to those who think otherwise.
I talk out of my backside? At least I am not now trying to lie and bull shine my way out of it.
|
>> Rubbish you did it, and it was couched in terms - what was it now
>> " the Neville Chamberlains on here" - to express your attitude to those who think
>> otherwise.
Yep. Glad it worked.
>>
>> I talk out of my backside? At least I am not now trying to lie
>> and bull shine my way out of it.
Nothing's changed here, no lies or backtracking. The reason for my post was to highlight the futility of your view point.... and you still haven't argued otherwise.
|
>> >> Rubbish you did it, and it was couched in terms - what was it
>> now
>> >> " the Neville Chamberlains on here" - to express your attitude to those who
>> think
>> >> otherwise.
>>
>> Yep. Glad it worked.
Proven Liar then.
|
>> Proven Liar then.
>>
I might have faults but lying isn't one of them...care to prove it?
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 9 Jan 15 at 08:54
|
I don't have to, you just did.
You claimed you didn't post in that way to have a dig at other peoples opinions
and then you admitted you did.
|
>> You claimed you didn't post in that way to have a dig at other peoples
>> opinions
You live in a dream land.
I often post having a dig at other people's opinions...as they do mine. Where have I said that I do not?
|
>> is an attempt to
>> belittle those who might have opposing views to yours
How about explaining them, then?
|
>> >> is an attempt to
>> >> belittle those who might have opposing views to yours
>>
>> How about explaining them, then?
>
I have in response to martin. You wont like my view tho, not enough retribution and retaliatory escalation for you to stomach.
|
>> I have in response to martin. You wont like my view tho, not enough retribution
>> and retaliatory escalation for you to stomach.
>>
What, the NI angle?
Do you seriously think that will work with radical Islam? Are you deluded?
|
Call me Neville if you like.
One point I will make. The "Islamic" extremism will never be eradicated without the support of the majority of Muslims. Demonising or even ridiculing the religion and its adherents as a whole will therefore be absolutely counterproductive.
|
>> What, the NI angle?
>>
>> Do you seriously think that will work with radical Islam? Are you deluded?
Let me ask again, what do you propose doing.
|
>> Let me ask again, what do you propose doing.
>>
I don't profess to have all the answers...and agree that there needs to be huge dialogue with moderate Muslims.
However, I feel very strongly that appeasement of some in society is a total waste of time and that appeasement of radical Islam is one of those.
The NI way 100% will not work with radical Islam.
|
>> >> Let me ask again, what do you propose doing.
>> >>
>>
>> I don't profess to have all the answers...and agree that there needs to be huge
>> dialogue with moderate Muslims.
There has to be a huge dialogue with Islamic people. If you try and categorise then as moderate sheep and radical goats based on Western perception or convenience you will fail. Some of the stuff at home, for example addressing perception that Isalm is denied privileges given to Christianity and Judaism, is 'low hanging fruit'. We should gather and distribute that quickly.
The international situation is more difficult becuase of the history both recent and past.
>> However, I feel very strongly that appeasement of some in society is a total waste
>> of time and that appeasement of radical Islam is one of those.
>>
>> The NI way 100% will not work with radical Islam.
I don't think you can portray what happened in NI as appeasement. The nutters are still there in various 'continuity' guises but the grievances that fuelled wider support for IRA insurgency have been addressed.
In same way it should be possible to address the issues driving people into hands of radical Islam because they see it as a defence against their real or perceived oppressors. Addressing Israeli conduct in Palestine would be a start. A more nuanced approach to Syria/Iraq would be another. Did the experts not realise that unconditional encouragement of Assad's opponents was playing with fire?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 9 Jan 15 at 09:13
|
>> In same way it should be possible to address the issues driving people into hands
>> of radical Islam because they see it as a defence against their real or perceived
>> oppressors. Addressing Israeli conduct in Palestine would be a start.
Lets look at one small aspect. This free speech idea. It is an offence in most (all?) countries to deny or question the existence of the holocaust, in speech and in the press.* The jewish lobby is heavy on the monitoring of, and quick to pull the "Anti Semitism" lever with the full weight of the law when ever possible. In many countries it is an offence to blaspheme, insult or denigrate the dominant religion or head of state. Even in France in some laws its an offence not to be "french enough"
Yet "Free speech" is held up to defend those who would insult another religion that is not as protected as others.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't deny the holocaust, I don't support, condone or applaud the shootings in Paris, I support fully the idea of the free press and free speech, I do not support the idea of free speech "within the law" It either free or it aint. And currently it aint, its weighted in one way. You can see how minorities can get confused.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 9 Jan 15 at 09:36
|
I do not support the idea of free speech "within the law" It
>> either free or it aint. And currently it aint, its weighted in one way.
Just to clarifiy do you mean total freedom of anyone to say anything about anyone/thing or something different?
|
>> I do not support the idea of free speech "within the law" It
>> >> either free or it aint. And currently it aint, its weighted in one way.
>>
>>
>> Just to clarifiy do you mean total freedom of anyone to say anything about anyone/thing
>> or something different?
Yes. Anything else isn't free speech. We don't have that of course, The americans come closest.
|
>> Yes. Anything else isn't free speech. We don't have that of course, The americans come
>> closest.
But it would be a crime if that free speech incited racial hatred?
|
>> >> Yes. Anything else isn't free speech. We don't have that of course, The americans
>> come
>> >> closest.
>>
>> But it would be a crime if that free speech incited racial hatred?
Currently, and in some countries only applicable against certain religions.
So, are the publishers of that satirical magazine in Paris guilty?
|
>> Yes. Anything else isn't free speech. We don't have that of course, The americans come
>> closest.
>>
True but I suppose there are limits, back to the old phrase* ' can you shout fire in a crowded cinema?'
* I've probably misquoted, but I'm sure the pedants will sort that out.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 9 Jan 15 at 12:41
|
>> True but I suppose there are limits, back to the old phrase* ' can you
>> shout fire in a crowded cinema?'
>>
>> * I've probably misquoted, but I'm sure the pedants will sort that out.
Its close enough.
Yes of course you should be allowed to shout "fire" anywhere you like. The state on behalf of any victims of your action should be allowed to prosecute you. Its not what you say, you should be allowed to say anything, but you have to be legally responsible for any consequences of what you say.
|
>>Lets look at one small aspect. This free speech idea. It is an offence in most (all?) countries to deny or question the existence of the holocaust, in speech and in the press.* The jewish lobby is heavy on the monitoring of, and quick to pull the "Anti Semitism" lever with the full weight of the law when ever possible. In many countries it is an offence to blaspheme, insult or denigrate the dominant religion or head of state.
I wouldn't call this "small". You make a strong and crucial point.
>>Even in France in some laws its an offence not to be "french enough"
I would be interested if you can expand on this as it is new to me, although consistent with the French view that their civilisation is superior to that of all others. I have found them bigoted, racist, extraordinarily tactless and lacking in empathy. I fear that, given things are as they are, Charlie Hebdo was simply begging for trouble and got it in spades.
|
Remember how it all kicked off with Salman Rushdie when it all kicked off when he published Satanic Verses?
There does appear to be particular precious sensitivity regarding criticism or perceived criticism against Islam. Whilst many seem to adopt the western point of view that everyone is entitled to their opinion it is also a rationalisation and justification for a small minority to commit these acts of atrocity in the name Allah.
So as Ambo says, knowing those sensitivities, Charlie Ambo would be naive in not anticipating some reaction, particularly as they had already been a target. That said should we be bullied into restricting our freedom of expression?
|
>> >I fear that, given things are as they are, Charlie Hebdo was simply begging for trouble
>> and got it in spades.
>>
I can't help thinking that some of those cartoons were the equivalent of prodding a tiger with a sharp stick...
|
>> I can't help thinking that some of those cartoons were the equivalent of prodding a
>> tiger with a sharp stick...
Absolutely. If you're in a potential fight to death wait until the issue is one that really threatens you.
|
>> Absolutely. If you're in a potential fight to death wait until the issue is one
>> that really threatens you.
>>
I don't understand what you mean by that.
|
Conserve your resources. Don't risk your life until you have to. Going off prematurely and half cocked 'for a principle' ain't going to win anything.
Which in a way was Chamberlain's tactic.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 9 Jan 15 at 21:40
|
>> I can't help thinking that some of those cartoons were the equivalent of prodding a
>> tiger with a sharp stick...
>>
The now deceased editor of the magazine was shown in a French t.v. interview, basically saying he understood why Muslims didn't like his cartoons...didn't expect them to find them funny... but as he was an Atheist and didn't believe in a God...what business was it of theirs what cartoons he drew....... (my take on a brief t.v. interview I watched).
He had a point.
If he'd posted them outside a mosque or something along those lines, well he'd be out of order, but if he posts them in a magazine that you don't have to buy if you don't like it..and posted cartoons of all the other religions as well...then why shouldn't he in an open and free society.
|
>> If he'd posted them outside a mosque or something along those lines, well he'd be
>> out of order, but if he posts them in a magazine that you don't have
>> to buy if you don't like it..and posted cartoons of all the other religions as
>> well...then why shouldn't he in an open and free society.
In the digital era it makes no difference; everything is 'outside the mosque'.
|
>> In the digital era it makes no difference; everything is 'outside the mosque'.
>>
Well there's a cross over between being 'outside the mosque' and freedom of speech.
The point I was making was being stood literally outside a mosque with a banner, means a mosque user can hardly not see it and would obviously feel targeted... whereas an article in an obscure magazine, not usually read by Muslims has to be looked for.
Offence in the first instance might well be understood, whereas in the second one you could easily ignore it if you chose to... a bit like what the deeply religious Christians have to with depictions of Jesus.
|
>> perception that Isalm is denied privileges given to Christianity and Judaism,
>>
What are these perceived privileges?
|
>> What are these perceived privileges?
>>
The position of an established religion, particularly in the English education system, needs no explanation. Neither does recognition of Jewish religious courts for business cases (ie as a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution).
And a lot of the Trojan Horse type stuff followed from adoption of techniques long used in other educational establishments. Why are Jewish and Catholic schools not subject to similar crackdowns by OSTED et al*
* The answer of course is politics. Gove, a necon and anti-Islamicist, might be spending more time with his whips but the damage is done. Jury still out on whether and to what extent his replacement is any better.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 9 Jan 15 at 11:01
|
>> >> What are these perceived privileges?
>> >>
>>
>> The position of an established religion, particularly in the English education system, needs no explanation.
I was thinking the same, but probably from a different angle, I think the reasons are well known and reflect the country. But I don't think that's an issue really. Do people you know really bothered that the positition of an established religion is a privilage that needs explaining or somehow equalling up?
|
>> I was thinking the same, but probably from a different angle, I think the reasons
>> are well known and reflect the country. But I don't think that's an issue really.
>> Do people you know really bothered that the positition of an established religion is a
>> privilage that needs explaining or somehow equalling up?
The position of the CofE in the Parish Church then no.
OTOH look at its influence in Education, particularly the Primary sector. That is certainly something that 'bothers' educationalists, and a growing number of parents. It's also a massive drag on attempts to reform education not least at level of admission policies.
|
>> OTOH look at its influence in Education, particularly the Primary sector. That is certainly something
>> that 'bothers' educationalists, and a growing number of parents. It's also a massive drag on
>> attempts to reform education not least at level of admission policies.
>>
You mean there are those of the Islamic faith who wish to send there children to CofE schools?
Is that what they are concerned about or something else?
|
>> You mean there are those of the Islamic faith who wish to send there children
>> to CofE schools?
>> Is that what they are concerned about or something else?
No. I mean that when those of the Islamic faith try to use same techniques that are lauded in Church schools, traditional values, parental involvement and such like it's suddenly a problem. Instead of addressing the issues by nuanced approach involving guidance from inspectors we get headlines about Trojan Horses etc and OFSTED made to look like a political puppet.
Is indoctrination into the tenets of the Catholic faith or Judaism (which also has a case to answer for gender segregation) preparing pupils for the modern world?
If you were a Muslim you might wonder why their schools were not being jumped on as well.
|
such like it's suddenly
>> a problem. Instead of addressing the issues by nuanced approach involving guidance from inspectors we get headlines about Trojan Horses etc and OFSTED made to look like a political puppet.
>>
Can't say I've seen any headlines about trojan horses, but then I don't get a paper. I assume it's about possible extreme teaching in Islamic schools.
>> Is indoctrination into the tenets of the Catholic faith or Judaism (which also has a
>> case to answer for gender segregation) preparing pupils for the modern world?
>>
>> If you were a Muslim you might wonder why their schools were not being jumped
>> on as well.
Are there any issues with Jewish or Catholic schools that need investigating? Are there many of these schools indoctrinating their pupils?
Which Muslims are looking for these schools to be jumped on?
|
>> Can't say I've seen any headlines about trojan horses, but then I don't get a
>> paper. I assume it's about possible extreme teaching in Islamic schools.
The term was all over the broadcast and print media for parts of last year. The underlying issue was alleged Islamisation of schools in Birmingham. All of them were in areas were the vast majority of the pupils had Pakistan or Bangla Desh heritage. On the usual statistical measures (ofsted, % GCSE A* to C etc) they were scoring well and were much improved on their historical record.
I'm not saying there was no cause for concern over role of conservative Islam. It's about the way it was dealt with.
>> Are there any issues with Jewish or Catholic schools that need investigating? Are there many
>> of these schools indoctrinating their pupils?
Indoctrination is one of those odd words isn't it? We educate and train, they indoctrinate. IMHO there are serious problems in some Catholic and Jewish schools. See reports of their attitude to LGBT issues for starters.
>> Which Muslims are looking for these schools to be jumped on?
More a question of looking for equal treatment.
|
>> The term was all over the broadcast and print media for parts of last year.
>> The underlying issue was alleged Islamisation of schools in Birmingham.
Like I say I don't buy a paper and don't really watch much of the news and very few 'political' stories, so I'm not surprised i didn't see it.
>>
>>
>> Indoctrination is one of those odd words isn't it? We educate and train, they indoctrinate.
I'm not there's that spilt in language, but you brought the word.
>> IMHO there are serious problems in some Catholic and Jewish schools. See reports of their
>> attitude to LGBT issues for starters.
Is a nuanced approach involving guidance from inspectors taking place? I don't pretend to know what happens in them all, I went to one of the above schools and there wasn't any issues with LGBT or attitude to them it was a non issue.
>>
>> >> Which Muslims are looking for these schools to be jumped on?
>>
>> More a question of looking for equal treatment.
So none then?
>>
|
@sooty 123
If you don't read papers or follow 'political' stories on telly/radio then it's not surprising you don't see reaction from those affected either.
Even following these things a little more closely I'm seeing little evidence of ANY intervention over religious indoctrination in schools unless the religion is Islam. It's about perceptions of fairness not whether one can link to reports of 'Muslims looking for these schools to be jumped on'.
If youngsters see their successful school demonised and placed in special measures for political gain are they less or more likely to react against western culture?
|
>> @sooty 123
>>
>> If you don't read papers or follow 'political' stories on telly/radio then it's not surprising
>> you don't see reaction from those affected either.
Yep, that's why I often ask questions on here. Easier to get to some sort of idea of what's happening rathering than having to cut the BS in the media.
>>
>> Even following these things a little more closely I'm seeing little evidence of ANY intervention over religious indoctrination in schools unless the religion is Islam. It's about perceptions of fairness not whether one can link to reports of 'Muslims looking for these schools to be jumped on'.
Indeed, perhaps it is taking place but not in the media. Perceptions are indeed all important perhaps we'd be better looking at that perception. Perhaps the risk is greater in one case leading to a greater reaction.
>>
>> If youngsters see their successful school demonised and placed in special measures for political gain are they less or more likely to react against western culture?
I very much doubt the pupils see it in such terms.
>>
|
>> I very much doubt the pupils see it in such terms.
>> >>
There were mid/late teens pupils from the 'Trojan Horse' schools in Brum interviewed on radio following OFSTED etc interventions. Plenty saw it in terms of anti islam and or racism. Some in resignation but others in anger.
|
>> Even following these things a little more closely I'm seeing little evidence of ANY intervention
>> over religious indoctrination in schools unless the religion is Islam.
I have not seen any real evidence of the levels of fundamentalist indoctrination that was docemented in the "trojan horse" schools reported in any "Christian" schools in the UK. In most cases the religious input is at a relatively minor ( I know that's a matter of interpretation) level.
I do not recall any non-muslim school having been reported for separation of sexes for non educational reasons. I would also hope, and I believe this to be the case, that LBGT issues are covered, if at all, at a fairly high level for primary age children if at all, which IMHO is pretty much how it should be.
Certainly my daughter's school were quick to quash name calling in that direction when a few children started down that route.
|
>> I have not seen any real evidence of the levels of fundamentalist indoctrination that was
>> docemented in the "trojan horse" schools reported in any "Christian" schools in the UK. In
>> most cases the religious input is at a relatively minor ( I know that's a
>> matter of interpretation) level.
I agree that some of what was apparently documented in the 'trojan horse' schools was unacceptable. The parents were though only taking advantage of the freedoms allowed in the new world of academies. OTOH a quite disproportionate part of one of the broadcast reports focussed on the 'fundamentalism' of not letting children swim during Ramadan.
My comments are more about the way it was dealt with.
>> I do not recall any non-muslim school having been reported for separation of sexes for
>> non educational reasons.
Now that's downright odd because it's widespread amongst Orthodox Jewish communities.
|
>> Now that's downright odd because it's widespread amongst Orthodox Jewish communities.
>>
Not seen much of that in the press, and from experience among both Muslim and Jewish friends the attitude to women in the two faiths is totally different especially to women of other faiths, including none.
|
>> Not seen much of that in the press, and from experience among both Muslim and
>> Jewish friends the attitude to women in the two faiths is totally different especially to
>> women of other faiths, including none.
>
I don't think you can generalise about treatment of women in either Islam or Judaism. Both religions are riven by division between sects from the liberal to fundamentalist. You cannot argue though deny that Orthodox Jewish education, like some in Islam, separates the sexes for religious reasons.
|
>> More a question of looking for equal treatment.
>>
I seem to remember that equality was exactly the main complaint, principally, but not restricted to differential treatment of boys and girls.
In general, I am in favour of moderate islam, but I find their attitude to women's rights in particular most offensive
|
I cannot understand why educationalists are bothered about primary education in CofE schools.
All 3 of mine were at CofE schools for their entire primary education between 1989 and 2001 and we were perfectly happy with the standard of education they received, the schools all scored well in SATs results etc and the children were happy and well prepared for secondary school.
There was no indoctrination or extreme religious activity of any kind, unless you count the nativity play in that category.
I cannot understand what the fuss is about.
|
>> Haven't heard too much from the Neville Chamberlains on here.
It's not an international incident but the work of a handful of domestic nut jobs. The suspects in this case appear to be of Algerian heritage but I'd not be surprised if converts were in the mix. Our own Islamic terror etc incidents have certainly involved a disproportionate number of such individuals from the 'shoe bomber to Lee Rigby's murderers.
Anyway, what's the 'Churchillian' prescription?
|
>> The suspects in this case appear to be of Algerian heritage
That doesn't surprise me in the least. Indeed I expected it.
Algerians are a very tough lot. There are quite a few exceptions of course, but from what I remember of them (and I knew several very well back in the day when I used to go there) they have a strange mixture of gross immorality and pious sanctimoniousness. They were often horrible to and about women, while being rather tiresomely devoted to their mothers.
As I said, there are a lot of exceptions and some Algerians are brilliant and wonderful. But their history is against them: the decades of French colonial domination produced an embittered but intelligent population, viscerally hostile to Europe.
Perhaps all that has died down in recent years, but I can't help doubting it. The country seems an utter shambles these days. Some countries need a repressive governmental regime to prevent the clans and tribes from running riot. The 'liberalisation' that followed the death of the Muslim 'communist' Houari Boumedienne - a sort of pet of the Soviet Union - was a disaster.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 8 Jan 15 at 19:33
|
>> They were often horrible to and about women,
Sounds a lot like two Libyan's I knew at University. Only knew them because they were in the hall of residence. Whereas the Egyptian I knew at the time was the most wonderful, kind and friendly person. The two Libyan's though came across as particular nasty to be honest. And I think their master's degrees were in chemical engineering....
|
>> It's not an international incident but the work of a handful of domestic nut jobs.
We shall see.
You may be right, but they seemed very well versed in tactics and weaponry and that is more than the local nut job.
>> Anyway, what's the 'Churchillian' prescription?
Unfortunately, it is 'kick ass'.
You'd be wise to grab a coalition of as many partners as possible and try your best to sell your plans to the overwhelming number of moderate followers of Islam...but the bottom line will have to be force meeting force.
You cannot negotiate with people that think like they do. They want to tread all over our ideals and freedoms.
|
>> >> It's not an international incident but the work of a handful of domestic nut
>> jobs.
>>
>> We shall see.
>>
>> You may be right, but they seemed very well versed in tactics and weaponry and
>> that is more than the local nut job.
Not local nut jobs then and an Al Qaeda link.
|
Whatever the Al Qaeda/Yemen link they were undoubtedly French nationals, reportedly from the Parisian banlieue.
Local nut jobs who'd got weapons training in a country with no meaningful government.
As with Afghanistan it's unlikely that western intervention in Yemen would improve the situation in the long term.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 10 Jan 15 at 09:36
|
> As with Afghanistan it's unlikely that western intervention in Yemen would improve the situation in
>> the long term.
>>
Would? Perhaps better written as has or hasn't. Not on the same scale as Afghan of course.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 10 Jan 15 at 16:25
|
>> Google hebdo for more of their work.
The one I want to see is of the Prophet Muhammad with his face in his hands, saying something like: 'It's awful being worshipped by such prats'. Has anyone else seen it?
I guess people are too scared to print a depiction of the Prophet, although God is seen as fair game. Odd really, if you think about it.
|
>>I guess people are too scared to print a depiction of the Prophet, although God is seen as fair game. Odd really, if you think about it.
Not really AC.
Religion's one of my pet hates, from the RC's who put the eldest (and usually brightest) male progeny into the priesthood, where they're expected to remain celibate, thus preventing from improving the gene pool. To Islam who rule (IMO) by indoctrination, subjugating the the females to what may be regarded as slavery. Any religion that relies on murder for apostasy must be very afraid of its followers finding out the truth.
|
>> Not really AC.
>> Religion's one of my pet hates,
Tsk. See my post just above bt, today 19.29.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 8 Jan 15 at 20:03
|
The history of any religion has always been about war.My God is superior than yours and you better believe it.
As soon the word God is used you know it is a justification for action to follow.Not sure if these killings in France have anything to do with religion.These thugs are famous now dead or alive.
|
|
Am I being unduly cynical in wondering that the unrelenting blanket main stream media coverage of this atrocity has something to do with the fact that the victims were media people themselves?
Last edited by: Roger. on Fri 9 Jan 15 at 11:29
|
>> Am I being unduly cynical in wondering that the unrelenting blanket main stream media coverage
>> of this atrocity has something to do with the fact that the victims were media
>> people themselves?
A dozen people have been assassinated in a major European capital. The suspects are thought to be hiding in a small town and may have a hostage.
Do you seriously think it would be different if victims were in a bank or a factory?
The need to fill 24hr rolling news with constant repetition and speculation is a different question.
|
>> Am I being unduly cynical in wondering that the unrelenting blanket main stream media coverage
>> of this atrocity has something to do with the fact that the victims were media
>> people themselves?
I think your cynicism is justified. The armed manhunt in the forests bonnie and clyde (should that be Mohammed and Fatima?) style of course captures the public imagination.
|
|
And now there are hostages in a grocery store.... So more gunmen.
|
Here is link to cartoons with English translation.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=U56q428amN0
|
Reports suggest that suspect in one of sieges (Jewish supermarket at Porte de Vincennes) is a convert to Islam. Same man is suspected of murder of female police officer yesterday.
Crook with form for violence/armed robberies etc who was radicalised while in jail.
|
>> Crook with form for violence/armed robberies etc who was radicalised while in jail.
I've said this before but I'll say it again: seems to me that nearly everyone gets all this the wrong way round, imagining that these atrocities are committed for a reason connected with religion.
Really they appear to be psychopathic individuals who just want to kill or maim people, and religion is trotted out as an excuse before and after the act. Most are probably unaware of this of course. It's a largely unconscious process, those concerned being very often deprived people with very restricted and narrow awareness. Our society produces a lot of them.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 9 Jan 15 at 16:30
|
|
According to Gaurdian website French have ended both sieges and suspects are 'mort'.
|
|
Bad reporting from sky .No hostages killed in shop,then we've heard reports 4 hostages killed in supermarket..Kay jumping to conclusions without waiting for the facts.
|
(On a phone on the beach so pls excuse grammar and spelling).
I think AC has it right. Nobody has been attacked because of satire and nobody has been attacked by islam.
A few raging nutters with access to weapons and a need to attack simply looked for an excuse. And "we are muslim and somebody has been mean about us in a cartoon" is no more than that.
Or do you really think that Mohammed Blofield is sat there stroking his cat saying "curses, foiled, now they're all printing cartoons"?
And of course one has no expectation that one can negotiate, persuade or appease these animals.
However, neither does one want to perceive and talk of this as a muslim problem and cause a situation which pulls others in - which is what happend and eventually stipped in Northern Ireland.
|
|
Reports of hostages in a jewelers in the south of France. No indication if linked.
|
>> Reports of hostages in a jewelers in the south of France. No indication if linked.
Latest is that it's in Montpelier and an armed robbery gone wrong. No Islamic connection.
|
>> Latest is that it's in Montpelier and an armed robbery gone wrong. No Islamic connection.
There isn't much difference. Villains are villains, and when they ask for it most people think they should get it.
Of course the French gendarmerie - paramilitary police - did the right thing and killed the hostage takers as I knew they would. A long boring court case would favour the bad guys by giving them a platform to spout poisonous rubbish and infect stupid people with moronic 'ideas'.
I don't buy the French president's assertion that the gendarmerie are 'heroes' though. They had numbers, armour and weaponry on their side, and were doing what they are paid to do. And will we ever know who killed the four dead hostages: the bad guys or the gendarmes busting in guns blazing? We will never be told. Or rather, what we are told is so obvious that it may not be entirely true. But it's always like that in these scenes.
One of the bad guys is still at large: a pretty girl (from her mugshot) aged 26, named as a miss Boumedienne. A nom-de-guerre perhaps. One assumes she's the girlfriend of one of the villains.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 9 Jan 15 at 19:52
|
>> I agree with this fellow:
So do I Wp, but that piece doesn't say anything that hasn't been said in this thread.
And call me finicky if you like, but I'm not impressed by a 'writer, broadcaster and historian' who seems to think precipitous means precipitate.
|
>> And will we ever know who killed the four dead hostages: the bad guys or the gendarmes
>> busting in guns blazing? We will never be told.
There were reports before they entered the supermarket that there were two dead hostages. They had access to cameras and were speaking to a hostage it seems.
|
>>should we be bullied into restricting our freedom of expression?
I don't know! It is a terrible quandary. In general terms the answer is "No!" as many of us will know from playground experience that if you let a bully get away with it you get more bullying. However, you don't have to go out of your way to provoke it, which is what Charlie Hebdo did.
Incidentally, it clouds the issue to dismiss the original assassins as scum, thugs, nut cases etc.
The position is far worse because in fact they were clearly members of a corps d'elite, highly trained and exceptionally systematic and cool in action and using excellent intelligence and planning.
|
|
What is wrong with "offending" anyone? (Within the law - although that limits one a lot these days)
|
|
I expect there will be more of this type of attack thanks to self appointed do gooders (traitors) like Assange and Snowden helping terrorists to avoid surveillance.
|
>> However, you don't have to go out
>> of your way to provoke it, which is what Charlie Hebdo did.
>>
>>
That's an interesting one. If Christian fundamentalists had murdered the cast of Monty Python and planted bombs in cinemas would you say they'd been provoked by The Life of Brian?
|
>> That's an interesting one. If Christian fundamentalists had murdered the cast of Monty Python and
>> planted bombs in cinemas would you say they'd been provoked by The Life of Brian?
The IRA were catholics that murdered people and planted bombs, and all they were provoked about was parades.
And of the course the orange order used the parades to inflame the situation.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 10 Jan 15 at 11:54
|
>> The IRA were catholics that murdered people and planted bombs, and all they were provoked
>> about was parades
You've come out with some ill informed bilge over the years but that takes the biscuit.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 10 Jan 15 at 12:05
|
>> >> The IRA were catholics that murdered people and planted bombs, and all they were
>> provoked
>> >> about was parades
>>
>> You've come out with some ill informed bilge over the years but that takes the
>> biscuit.
It was a crude illustrative statement highlighting one part of a conflict. BUT the situation in the troubles although smaller in scale has sufficient parallels to provide some useful insight.
Roots in a country where a proportion of the people perceive themselves to be controlled, put down, treated as a second class.
Invasion by an occupying power, or controlled by force from that power
Terrorists seeking power using religion as a conduit to indoctrinate and train recruits
ruthless attempts to use force to contain the terrorists
ruthless terrorists using high profile bombing, murders of civilian population at home and abroad.
and finally some form of accord and peace by - guess what - engagement and dialogue where armed intervention had failed.
Now i suggest you stick your ill informed bilge comment up your a ss
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 10 Jan 15 at 12:26
|
It was indeed a crude statement and the conflict could have been illustrated without being provocative.
There are certainly parallels between NI and the Israel/Palestine conflict. Both are conflicts over ethnicity, nationality and territory but with religion often used by politicians and media as a proxy for ethnicity. In both cases the controlling and putting down is a matter of fact not perception (albeit worst of it in NI may now be historic).
Unfortunately Israel is still stuck at the level of intransigence NI's Loyalism was in the seventies.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 10 Jan 15 at 13:31
|
>> Martin Rowson in today's Guardian:
I looked at that link and found another to an interesting discussion on C4 News:
tinyurl.com/p8ssn9d
|
Facile Arguments from facile interviewers....
youtu.be/PzusSqcotDw
|
>> Facile Arguments from facile interviewers....
>>
>> youtu.be/PzusSqcotDw
Too painful to watch. God help America if that's the general standard of news presentation over there.
|
|
Agreed. Although I found it most depressing because of those same views being held by some here also.
|
>> God help America if that's the general standard of news presentation
>> over there.
It is.
|
These arguments about Islam by people who are all poorly informed are always a meaningless shambles. You can't really blame them though because Islam, like Christianity and other religions, is widespread through many countries with very different social and political traditions.
FGM is an example: it's true that it's an old African thing, very variable in the extent of the mutilation, obviously originally intended to deprive women of sexual pleasure to prevent the numerous 'wives' of the rich from straying if they were young and sexually unsatisfied as many must have been. But after Islam arrived in those countries, or many of them, it laid claim to such pre-existing practices (as other religions do) on the principle that if you can't beat'em, join'em.
Sorry if you've seen this before, but I once asked a very black Chadian hotel tart if she'd been 'cut down there'. "Of course," she replied. "Without that I wouldn't be an Arab, a Muslim." She was a Muslim all right but she didn't look like an Arab to me. Funny place, the world.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 10 Jan 15 at 17:14
|
>> Another view from an out of the ordinary perspective:
'Pornographic Charlie Hebdo cartoons'... what a load of utter balderdash. Out of the ordinary be damned. It's silly verbose garbage.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 10 Jan 15 at 18:27
|
I think there are around three million Moslems in this country. If they are all plotting to kill me either:
1 They are fantastically incompetent
2 our security forces are fantastically efficient.
3 or perhaps they don't want to kill me after all.
|
|
4 combination of all the above, sort of, up to a point.
|
>> I think there are around three million Moslems in this country. If they are all
>> plotting to kill me either:
>>
>> 1 They are fantastically incompetent
>>
>> 2 our security forces are fantastically efficient.
>>
>> 3 or perhaps they don't want to kill me after all.
Norwich is a bitch to get to. Much easier targets.
|
|
They missed me too in spite of sharing office space with several of them from 1986 on. Even the one sat opposite from 2008-13 couldn't get me.
|
My barber is an Algerian moslem. I'm due for a haircut next week. If there are no more posts fear the worst. :-)
|
|
Don't fall for the wet shave trick :)
|
The IRA missed me lots of times, they got close a few times, made me late home a few times, and they spilt my beer once.
|
|
A Muslim once ran into the back of me in Ilford.
|
|
I was taught at school that spelling it "Moslem" is somewhat derogatory and the correct spelling is "Muslim". Just my 2p.
|
>> I was taught at school that spelling it "Moslem" is somewhat derogatory and the correct
>> spelling is "Muslim". Just my 2p.
>>
My numbers up then.
|
Not all that long ago I worked with an ex-copper from Glasgow who used the term Mohammedens.
He knew it was wrong but used it to wind up colleagues who were more 'PC'
|
"musulmán" in Spanish.
|
|
Anyone formed the opinion that Le Flics have been less than efficient in dealing with these incidents? Easy to speak from the comfort of one's armchair of course but they have seemed to let people flee the scenes rather easily.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sat 10 Jan 15 at 21:39
|
|
When I watched the news I thought similar. The people exiting the front door weren't controlled or segregated from what I could see. It's generally a good idea to grab everyone then sort the good guys from the bad ones later on.
|
|
Had the French had the forethought to send in the commandos or Foreign Legion as first responders there might have been a different outcome. Don't think, armed with a pistol (I assume), there is much that the ordinary police can have done in the face of an assault rifle. Other than get away!
|
>> they have seemed to let people flee the scenes rather easily.
Yes. They allowed them to drive away in leisurely fashion, followed them, cornered them in the bushes a few miles out of town and did the necessary. Or have I missed something?
|
|
Or in the Kosher supermarket, the SAS equivalent went in with a thunderflash and guns blazing, killing one or two bad guys and wasting four hostages or shoppers or innocent bystanders depending on your source.
|
>> Or in the Kosher supermarket, the SAS equivalent went in with a thunderflash and guns
>> blazing, killing one or two bad guys and wasting four hostages or shoppers or innocent
>> bystanders depending on your source.
>>
The sources I have said that the hostages were killed as soon as bad guy arrived.
Later he had a chat with the press or someone outside on the phone and forgot to switch it off.
On hearing he had started to pray they then went in.
We may never know.
|
We may never know.
No, never for sure. All the naff versions.
|
>> Anyone formed the opinion that Le Flics have been less than efficient in dealing with
>> these incidents?
The abilities of the French Police were well highlighted in the case of the brits gunned down in the forest with only the little girl surviving. You just knew they had no chance of finding those responsible.
|
Calling the French police and their abilities is a low blow.
We wouldn't have done any better come on.
|
>> >> I was taught at school that spelling it "Moslem" is somewhat derogatory and the
>> correct
>> >> spelling is "Muslim". Just my 2p.
>> >>
>>
>> My numbers up then.
A crap haircut at least
|
>> If Christian fundamentalists had murdered the cast of Monty Python and planted bombs in cinemas would you say they'd been provoked by The Life of Brian?
A hypothetical question and hypothetically I wouldn't rule it out, if only for copycat reasons.
|
>>Some background on France's relationship with Algeria
A very good summary. More required viewing, Pontecorvo's 1966 film "The Battle of Algiers".
|
>> Facile Arguments from facile interviewers....
It gets worse. 'Terrorism Expert' on Fox claims Birmingham is a totally Muslim city and that religious police patrol streets of London.
www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/fox-news-steven-emerson-birmingham-muslims
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 12 Jan 15 at 08:38
|
>> >> Facile Arguments from facile interviewers....
>>
>> It gets worse. 'Terrorism Expert' on Fox claims Birmingham is a totally Muslim city and
>> that religious police patrol streets of London.
Even in a land where TV channels and their news have relentlessly marched in a downwards spiral of trash, Fox was recognised to have got there faster, and going still deeper.
To a stage where even their only decent output, The Simpsons, frequently has a dig at it.
|
>> Nige decides to back him up
>>
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2909185/Mass-immigration-led-Muslim-ghettos-Britain-run-Sharia-Law-says-Farage-Ukip-leader-claims-authorities-turn-blind-eye-TV-interview.html
In which he conflates Sharia Law with FGM. Is he really that ignorant or is he deliberately dog whistling to the racists?
He even (almost) manages to get Eric Pickles talking sense.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 14 Jan 15 at 10:15
|
>> In which he conflates Sharia Law with FGM. Is he really that ignorant or is
>> he deliberately dog whistling to the racists?
Of course he is.
|
|
As usual, a splendid Matt cartoon in today's Telegraph; I hope no one who works for the NHS is too offended.
|
Excellent reporting today from the BBC regarding the march in Paris.
Reporters speak fluent French.
|
|
This incident was about mockery but I wonder how exposes of Muslim states will fare now. The producers of Homeland should be worried.
|
>> Excellent reporting today from the BBC regarding the march in Paris.
>>
>> Reporters speak fluent French.
>>
We pay them enough.
|
|
I cant help feeling that this very public mass condemnation of the events somehow, in the minds of such terrorists, justify their actions which were to have as massive impact on their targets as possible. in their minds 'job done'.
|
"I cant help feeling that this very public mass condemnation of the events"
Another 'Diana's funeral' event?
|
>> I cant help feeling that this very public mass condemnation of the events somehow, in
>> the minds of such terrorists, justify their actions which were to have as massive impact
>> on their targets as possible. in their minds 'job done'.
yup. We predictably helped them a lot along the way.
|
|
A sub set of the nutters who say 9/11 was a CIA job?
|
www.dawn.com/news/1156564/this-weeks-charlie-hebdo-to-feature-more-anti-islam-cartoons
Is it a principal worth dying for, or whether it ought to be principles are five a penny on every street corner. Drop and switch them and at least you'll be alive next time
|
A couple of items from Guido Fawke's bog:-
order-order.com/2015/01/12/richs-monday-morning-view-99/
...and from the comments section - so unsupported by sources and thus served with a pinch of salt and not endorsed by me " {Standard disclaimer ;-) }
Feel free to shoot it down!
QUOTE
"The Peaceful Majority Are Irrelevant
~
From 9/11 to the last day of 2014, there have been over 25,281 deadly terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims.
~
Yes! You heard that right!
Twenty five thousand, two hundred and eighty one separate attacks involving death and injury of one or more persons.
~
It beggars belief.
~
On 9/11, 2,752 lost their lives. It remains the largest single act of carnage.
~
But last year alone, in Mosul, 1566 were killed in just one June day by Islamic State.
~
In Nigeria, Boko Haram killed 997 in just one August day last year.
~
Since 9/11, 158,719 have lost their lives to Islamic inspired atrocities. In the same time, a further quarter of a million have been injured.
~
This is not a plea to stop it, we cannot. We do not have the means.
~
But it is a call for everyone to reject any mitigation that the majority of Muslims are peaceful.
Hollande claimed this yesterday. Cameron likewise. So many others as well. They are talking b*******. Irrelevant and dangerous b*******."
END QUOTE
|
That's offensive tripe Roger. The irrelvant dangerous b****** is spread by the author of the above and those who perpetrate his nonsense.
Many of those acts have been condemned by other Muslims. The activities of ISS and Boku Haram are aspects of wider ethnic conflicts in Syria/Iraq and in Nigeria. The perps are a tiny minority of Muslims and the acts have diddly to do with Islam as practised by the overwhelming majority of Muslims.
|
I'm not going to mark Roger's post as offensive but even I think it's a pretty unhelpful viewpoint.
Here's some more. I don't know what this kind of stuff is supposed to achieve.
www.thereligionofpeace.com/
|
>> I'm not going to mark Roger's post as offensive but even I think it's a
>> pretty unhelpful viewpoint.
>>
>> Here's some more. I don't know what this kind of stuff is supposed to achieve.
>>
>> www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Spot on Crankcase. Even if I could persuade myself that blaming the whole religion had some merit then what next? How is any sort of sanction going to improve things?
Rupert Murdoch is reported to be pitching the same line; all Muslims bear some responsibility. That from the man who took no responsibility for actions in his own empire at the NoW and Sun.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 13 Jan 15 at 11:23
|
Just one statistic. There are an estimated 1,600,000,000 Muslims in the world. Puts the tiny number of murderous thugs claiming to be Muslims in perspective.
|
Well I guess Roger would approve of this Muslim:
tinyurl.com/pk8rg5y (DM)
|
Not that much mention of Lassana Bathily in all this; perhaps there should be.
Oh, what a surprise. There's good people and bad ones. After that it's just pigeonholing.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Tue 13 Jan 15 at 14:25
|
>> There are an estimated 1,600,000,000 Muslims in the world. Puts the tiny number of murderous thugs claiming to be Muslims in perspective.
At least 10% (if not more) of those support this kind of action - now that's what is really worrying.
|
>> At least 10% (if not more) of those support this kind of action - now
>> that's what is really worrying.
Have you got a source for that figure ml?
|
One to start with
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
Also from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism
Go the Polls section and have a read yourself. You will see plenty of statistics.
Last edited by: movilogo on Tue 13 Jan 15 at 14:58
|
Listened to a speech from the Mayor of Rotterdam.He was born in Morocco came to Holland when he was fifteen.
If you don't like it here he says (Rot op) Which means F/Off.
|
>> If you don't like it here he says (Rot op) Which means F/Off.
That's the story in the DM link I posted above.
|
|
He is known for being outspoken ex journalist.I didn't see the link Mr Focus.
|
"If you don't like it here he says (Rot op) Which means F/Off."
So, at least he can't be accused of racism .................... can he?
|
>> One to start with
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
>>
>> Also from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism
>>
>> Go the Polls section and have a read yourself. You will see plenty of statistics.
Neither of those articles support your assertion.
The first is about Sharia Law. It fails to make clear that the Sharia Law proposed in UK refers to allowing business and possibly family disputes to be resolved in accordance with Islamic principles. In effect it allows a form of Alternative/Proportionate Dispute Resolution to have legal force. Whatever reservations there might be in relation to family issues the facts are that Jewish religious courts already have that recognition.
Understanding the feelings and motives of the 07/07 bombers is one thing. The key number is the 99% who condemned the action.
The second is taken in isolation and refers to support for suicide bombing of civilian targets in defence of Islam. It doesn't say what the question posed was or what 'defence of Islam' scenario might be in the respondents head. If the figures are right then we need to start asking why and addressing the causes.
Personally, I can understand why Palestinians, with no other outlet available, might attack civilian targets in Israel.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 13 Jan 15 at 15:22
|
Much of the problem with terrorist acts is of our own making. In the grand scheme of things ten, twenty or even fifty lives lost in one occasional incident is pretty small beer. That's not meant in any way to lessen the impact on those involved either directly or because they lost family members, but our massive over-reaction to these incidents make them much more attractive to those prepared to carry them out.
For instance if the Luftwaffe couldn't bomb Britain into submission with daily bombing raids which cost thousands of lives there's no way the odd nutter who blows himself up or runs amok with a gun is going to.
Mass shows of anguish and mourning are counter productive, do what's necessary to help the victims, quietly and efficiently increase security and vigilance and get on with life.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 13 Jan 15 at 15:37
|
>> Mass shows of anguish and mourning are counter productive
Yes, all the media have been making a hell of a meal of something that really isn't a serious threat to society as such. Endless soppy whining written and broadcast.
Not that the whingers give much of a damn in their heart of hearts, apart from those directly affected by these toerags and their pathetic little outrages. Cynical, calculating and cold-hearted, the media are encouraging the toerags and depressing the populace, while also giving the masses what they really love: something to go tut tut about.
It's all so disgusting and feeble.
|
Just on the TV
Totally new video from a mobile phone of the two guys with the black car in action.
They are at a different location and confronted by a white police car.
They are just so calm and certainly use a lot of rounds of ammo.
|
Some things are normal .
www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30812528
Charlie Hebdo 'survivor issue' on sale on eBay for more than £1,500
|
What exactly these terrorists are trying to achieve?
I never heard of Charlie Hebdo before this incident (and I'm sure I'm not alone). This incident made billions of people aware of this magazine which had led to billions of more people enjoying cartoons of mohamed.
Thus, their action had led to more people having a chance to laugh at those cartoons.
|
>> Thus, their action had led to more people having a chance to laugh at those
>> cartoons.
A variant on the Streisand effect after Barbra S attempted to ban pictures of her Malibu home from the net. Inevitable result was a quantum leap in those viewing the pictures.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 14 Jan 15 at 13:05
|
>> What exactly these terrorists are trying to achieve?
What exactly is Charlie Hebdo trying to achieve?
Do they think that the terrorists seriously consider reaction to these events and decide that public opinion is against them and therefore they won't carry out an atrocity?
>> I never heard of Charlie Hebdo before this incident (and I'm sure I'm not alone).
>> This incident made billions of people aware of this magazine which had led to billions
>> of more people enjoying cartoons of mohamed.
>>
>> Thus, their action had led to more people having a chance to laugh at those
>> cartoons.
Thus their - Charlie Hebdo's - action has caused more Muslims to take offence at what they see as a repeated insult to their prophet.
|
It seems to me that for any response to the current situation there are two things to consider first -
(a) the likely effect on the extremists
(b)the likely effect on the majority peaceful Muslim population, including
- whether it will make them more or less "radicalised"
- whether it will result in increased hostility to them from the ignorant, uneducated and NF types
Frankly, this free speech stuff is being misconstrued and misused anyway. There's no such thing as free speech when it is calculated or obviously likely to cause a serious breach of the peace, and all the blather is worth nothing from people who very sensibly will not put their own heads above the parapet.
All that is necessary for now is for the government to reassure the public that free speech is enshrined in law and treat those trying to suppress it as the criminals that they are.
Raising the stakes all round in response to the shootings plays to the advantage of the extremists on all sides. An angry response to this sort of thing is understandable but not logical.
6 million Muslims are not going to disappear from France whatever happens and a moratorium on childish provocation and name calling in the name of free speech and satire might be helpful. It would also reduce the "oxygen of publicity" that is aggravating the situation.
|
>> It seems to me that for any response to the current situation there are two
>> things to consider first -
>>
>> (a) the likely effect on the extremists
Should not be of any consideration.
>> (b)the likely effect on the majority peaceful Muslim population, including
This is the only consideration because the assistance of them is required to defeat the extremists. on both sides of the divide.
>> Frankly, this free speech stuff is being misconstrued and misused anyway. There's no such thing
>> as free speech when it is calculated or obviously likely to cause a serious breach
>> of the peace, and all the blather is worth nothing from people who very sensibly
>> will not put their own heads above the parapet.
Exactly its a convenient rally cry, its a pity it doesn't actually exist. In fact because of the terrorists the various governments will use it as an excuse to snoop on us and restrict us even more.
Ironically This magazine (and lets face it it it was a pathetic uninspiring not very amusing rag anyway) will now do more to destroy our very freedoms they pretend to be fighting for.
|
>> lets face it it it was a pathetic uninspiring not very amusing rag anyway
Actually in its original form CH wasn't bad, although at the time I preferred the grittier Politique-Hebdo. Post-revival by a sort of hip capitalist entrepreneur - something similar happened to the International Times in London, although IT wasn't anything like as big and successful as CH - it became as you say a bit feeble. No doubt why it had to resort to provocation to get noticed.
All this quarrelsome stupidity is very dispiriting somehow. It isn't as if one didn't get that stuff up to here closer to home sometimes. Tchah!
|
>> What exactly is Charlie Hebdo trying to achieve?
It isn't addressed to Islamists or Muslims in any way. It's addressed to humorous, non-religious French satire enthusiasts.
Nor is the furious reaction addressed to secular French intellectuals or satirists, but to real and imagined Muslims and Islamists.
So these two discourses are more or less independent of each other despite efforts to link them. They are an example of what the French call a 'dialogue de sourds', dialogue of deaf people.
|
After a considerable amount of thought on this issue, I have finally read something that agrees with my own point of view which does not really fit with the Je Suis Charlie zeitgeist, and that is the article published by one of the founders of CH, reported in this morning's press.
If there's a nutter out there with a gun who is likely to kill, you just don't go out of your way to tease him. It's a bit like not teasing the humourless games master at school. Some boys never worked that one out, and were perpetually in trouble with him. Maybe they enjoyed it.
I note that the Telegraph has not published the cartoons as they regard them as offensive (Allison Pearson stated thus today).
|
>> If there's a nutter out there with a gun who is likely to kill, you
>> just don't go out of your way to tease him. It's a bit like not
>> teasing the humourless games master at school. Some boys never worked that one out, and
>> were perpetually in trouble with him. Maybe they enjoyed it.
I'm not sure it will make much difference to the nutters, but it is also ill-judged to keep repeating the offensiveness. The 'Taliban' in all its forms can only be extinguished as long as that is what the majority of Muslims want.
When they see more of the material that supposedly provoked the attacks, some of them might just start to think that the nutters at least had a point.
And I think there may well be an element of deliberate offensiveness. It is really only Muhammad who, conventionally, must not be depicted; so why do it? It's perfectly possible to satirise Islamic fundamentalism without gratuitously offending a large number of more or less pious and peaceful people.
>>
>> I note that the Telegraph has not published the cartoons as they regard them as
>> offensive (Allison Pearson stated thus today).
Well I suppose they might just be keeping their heads down, but maybe it's just that they can see the wood for the trees - if so I agree with them.
|
>>>>
>> And I think there may well be an element of deliberate offensiveness. It is really
>> only Muhammad who, conventionally, must not be depicted; so why do it? It's perfectly possible to satirise Islamic fundamentalism without gratuitously offending a large number of more or less pious and peaceful people.
>>
>> >>
>>
I'm a peaceful person. Perhaps I should take gratuitous offence when the church tell me that I'll burn for eternity because I don't believe in some great Sky Fairy?
|
>> Sky Fairy?
I do dislike that expression.
I don't believe in any deity myself, but I can live with not knowing what it all is and where it all comes from.
But this sky pixie stuff somehow implies that its users know something the rest of us don't. And that makes it as much of a con as any mythology, on a certain level. I don't know anything either, but that doesn't seem an excuse to brag.
Just a minor moral and aesthetic quibble.
|
>> I'm a peaceful person. Perhaps I should take gratuitous offence when the church tell me
>> that I'll burn for eternity because I don't believe in some great Sky Fairy?
>>
Only to the same extent that church folk can take offence to what is obviously meant as an offensive term to them.
But in a mixed civilised society isn't it possible to believe what you want without being offensive or taking offence.
We can all ignore the offensive ones who believe different things than we do, without reaching for the nearest Kalashnikov, maybe we can even neither give or take offence.
|
>> I'm a peaceful person. Perhaps I should take gratuitous offence when the church tell me
>> that I'll burn for eternity because I don't believe in some great Sky Fairy?
Offended you may or may not be, but it's not the same thing at all. The churchy people who warn you about burning in hell etc. are not being offensive, nor is it gratuitous if they believe it.
It is, on the other hand, gratuitous and possibly offensive to refer to somebody else's god as a sky fairy.
|
>>
>>
>> It is, on the other hand, gratuitous and possibly offensive to refer to somebody else's
>> god as a sky fairy.
>>
If freedom of speech means only being able to say that which does not cause offence then it's not worth having.
|
SQ
>> If freedom of speech means only being able to say that which does not cause
>> offence then it's not worth having.
Indeed. But giving offence is not its primary purpose. And you could declare yourself an atheist without going out of your way to belittle those who believe.
I admit to having done it myself but I am trying to improve!
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 16 Jan 15 at 01:53
|
>> Indeed. But giving offence is not its primary purpose. And you could declare yourself an
>> atheist without going out of your way to belittle those who believe.
>>
>> I admit to having done it myself but I am trying to improve!
Me too. Close friends are pillars of local Methodists. She is also a published author on matters religious.
It's possible to debate the subject without giving offence and respecting each other's positions.
|
>> >> It's possible to debate the subject without giving offence and respecting each other's positions.
>>
That depends on what is said to you. If you're told that you will be damned for eternity because you don't share someone's beliefs (As I constantly was throughout my schooling) then you are entitled to come back at them with reasonable force.
|
Raised as a Catholic, I met in youth probably as many priests as most here. My mother's uncle was an eminent Jesuit and I went for a couple of years to a Jesuit public school.
The Jesuits are a teaching and intellectual order. Some of the ones I've met were as near as dammit atheists judging by their close-to-the-wind analytical statements and occasionally their social behaviour.
I had to get up early to serve my Jesuit great-uncle at 8 am Mass when I was a spotty adolescent. He looked very reverent going through the motions up there, and walking about in the garden saying his breviary and wearing my scout hat against the sun, but what he really enjoyed was playing chess and talking to my probably (he never said) atheist father. The Jays are OK in my book although many disagree vehemently.
|
>> And I think there may well be an element of deliberate offensiveness. It is really
>> only Muhammad who, conventionally, must not be depicted; so why do it? It's perfectly possible
>> to satirise Islamic fundamentalism without gratuitously offending a large number of more or less pious
>> and peaceful people.
I think you'll find that the angle is:
"What business is it of followers of a specific religion, dictating to me what I can or cannot do in a free, secular/Christian country, when either: 1, I do not follow that religion or 2, I do not follow any religion"
... and I'd agree with that.
In normal circumstances you wouldn't go out of your way to offend someone, so you'd mind your jokes around followers of Islam if you were discussing/ showing pictures of Mohammed.. but if you fancied trotting down to the newsagents to pick up a rag with pictures of Mohammed in for your own consumption or to share with like minded people.. then why shouldn't you?
|
>> I think you'll find that the angle is:
>>
>> "What business is it of followers of a specific religion, dictating to me what I
>> can or cannot do in a free, secular/Christian country, when either: 1, I do not
>> follow that religion or 2, I do not follow any religion"
>>
>>
>> ... and I'd agree with that.
I think there is a balance somewhere between not deliberately causing offence and not being offended for the sake of it, we all know examples of both
>> but if you fancied trotting down to the newsagents to pick up a rag with pictures of Mohammed >> in for your own consumption or to share with like minded people.. then why shouldn't you?
that's a matter for your own conscience and taste, not sure how you might do the sharing bit or why you might want to.
but hay, whatever floats your boat
|
>> >> but if you fancied trotting down to the newsagents to pick up a rag
>> with pictures of Mohammed >> in for your own consumption or to share with like
>> minded people.. then why shouldn't you?
>> that's a matter for your own conscience and taste, not sure how you might do
>> the sharing bit or why you might want to.
>> but hay, whatever floats your boat
>>
I'm thinking along the lines of something akin to Private Eye. If something made you laugh, would you not mention it to a mate in the pub.. or show your missus.... or have a laugh with a work colleague?
|
His Holiness says violence is wrong, but he'll punch someone who calls his mother names. Is that official Catholic doctrine? :)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30838667
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 15 Jan 15 at 18:52
|
A few newspapers are reporting that police officers are going around newsagents to demand names and addresses of those that have ordered copies of the Charlie Hebdo magazine.
The police authorities are claiming that this was on the officers own initiatives. I find that hard to believe. Why would officers from several different locations suddenly take it on to gather these names and addresses?
I sense a conspiracy!? ;-)
|
"I sense a conspiracy!?"
Ah, that'll be the sniffers - I'd better cancel my subscription to Private Eye :-(
|
>>
>> I sense a conspiracy!? ;-)
>>
I sense senior officers watching their backs and blaming the coal face coppers.
|
Having spent a long weekend in Paris - (with a lot of walking around), I made the following observations.
The local small jewish nursery school was being guarded by 6 bored (teenage) French Army, all equipped with automatic weapons.
The British Embassy had a single mature alert armed (French Army?) uniformed guard.
Wandering around the Marais,(traditional jewish quarter) it was very busy with a complete ethnic mix, only 2 police , equipped with automatic weapons were in evidence.
Is this a sign of evidence based policing, or just political pandering to the public perception of threat?
|
>> or just political pandering to the public
>> perception of threat?
Tick
|
>> Is this a sign of evidence based policing, or just political pandering to the public perception of threat?
Nearly always both. They go together, not just in France.
|
>> ........and again, this time in Copenhagen,
>> Do we see a pattern?
no?
|
>> no?
>>
What do you mean 'no'?
Of course there's a pattern. Are you just being argumentative or wilfully blind.
There's people out there, followers of Islam, that are prepared to kill to protect what they see as the integrity of their God.
|
|
No. They're criminals using religion as a cloak to kill and maim.
|
|
That then is a pattern :-)
|
The most likely pattern will be the one that involves a white 'convert' behaving per RP's definition.
Suspect pictured in press coverage is not obviously olive skinned is he?
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/14/copenhagen-cartoonist-charlie-hebdo-style-attack
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 14 Feb 15 at 23:40
|
>> The most likely pattern will be the one that involves a white 'convert' behaving per
>> RP's definition.
>>
>> Suspect pictured in press coverage is not obviously olive skinned is he?
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/14/copenhagen-cartoonist-charlie-hebdo-style-attack
If so, thus proving, once again, that concern about militant Jihadist Islam is NOT racist!
|
"They're criminals using religion as a cloak to kill and maim."
Spot on, RP, spot on!
Any religion in particular?
|
>> "They're criminals using religion as a cloak to kill and maim."
>>
>> Spot on, RP, spot on!
>>
>> Any religion in particular?
Hindu?
|
>> Hindu?
>>
Reports in media just today of Hindi persecution of Christians. Burma's religions conflicts don't have Islam at the forefront either.
|
Danish police have shot suspect dead. Believed to have been acting alone (or at least they're not looking for anyone else).
Another pointer to the lone nutter theory?
|
The recent planned mass murder in Halifax Nova Scotia does not appear to have been politically or religiously motivated either. There is a sort of copycat element by people who simply want to kill.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31467662
|
"The recent planned mass murder in Halifax Nova Scotia"
Blimey, CG, no need to go all the way to Canada to look for examples of non-religious nutty murderers - you'll find them in the Eastern Daily Press.
|
Any religion in particular?
Take any religion - pervert it and add anyone who wants to justify their criminality...
|
Fanaticism is always the enemy. But faith has always been the first seedbed of fanaticism.
www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/obama-crusaders
|
>> No. They're criminals using religion as a cloak to kill and maim.
>>
I have no doubt about their criminality.... but I do not think it's just that.
IMO there are warped people out there who follow a b******ised version of their religion and are prepared to kill or maim when following their warped version.
.... and in this set of instances we are talking about Islam.
There's no point fudging the issue or pretending it is not so.
|
|
Much th same as Christianity drove people to similar things in the past. Not much changes only the access to ppowerful weapons and a global village. Seems he was a well known gang member with convictions for all kinds.
|
>> .... and in this set of instances we are talking about Islam.
>>
>> There's no point fudging the issue or pretending it is not so.
OK you're quite right, the religion being hi-jacked in these cases us Islam.
So what are we going to do about it?
|
|
I'm not allowed to comment.
|
A little extreme they aren't going to end western civilisation but there is a risk to Europe's southern boarder.
Although funding is being cut for the only force in the area. I wonder if they will get their act together before something happens.
|
Mass Murder at Paris Magazine Offices - movilogo
