Attacks in Paris

[KenTheLandlord]

Good post up to the name Galloway, i stopped reading after that

Thats ok, thats how ignorance thrives.

 

[squirtyflower]

So 3 days on when emotions are now more calm this thread has turned this into a right v left pissing contest.

Drones strikes do kill many civilians so I would not like britain to use them, Di'ash if anyone has watched some of the special reports on them have a well set up system that mixes civilians with their members in villages, towns and cities they control, they are not just some fundamental nutters arsing about in the desert, they are ex high ranking and highly trained members of saddam old army and elite guard and well trained jihadi fighters that assad released from prison to fight his enemies, but then pissed off into the desert and joined the other fuckers. Bombimg the fuck out of them will not solve the problem though it does help weake some strategic positions
Firstly the west and russia should stop having a proxy cock fight in Syria and get the Assad government and rebels to settle their differences temperally and join together to fight these ****, while at the same time europe needs to tell turkey to get involved more with NATO support while we need to support the Kurds who, when helped have made good gains against them.
Lastly instead of pandering to the saudi's and treating Iran with caution we need to get them fully involved in supporting the Iraqi army, syria and kurds.

Only letting the local nations fight this (with our support) rather than we ourselves sending troops will this be sorted, settled governments and stability will defeat these twats.

This isn't a left/right - tory v corbyn issue this is a global problem as Di'ash/boko harem/al-shabaab are not only in syria/iraq/nigeria/egypt they are further afield and we need to deal with them globally not turn this into political point scoring

Good post, much better than lets just go and nuke the cunts

 

[whp.blue]

As i said they are talking to someone, make no bones about that. It might not suit the west's narrative but they are known to the US and they are not stupid.

I don't think talking is on the ISIS agenda and it certainly has no part in Jihad Unless when you say talk you actually mean we all should convert to Islam? The Koran says anyone wishing to convert should be spared it never mentions negotiation with the infidel.
I am curious as you say they are speaking to someone but you neglected to mention whom. So who do you actually think they are in discussions with?

 

[George Hannah]

I’m always puzzled by the sort of argument (if one can give it that name) that seems to be occurring online yet again. Whenever people complain about or criticise (or sympathise with the victims of) event A, someone pops up to say “Hey, but what about event B?”, as though the existence of event B somehow meant that event A was less bad, followed by the cry “why aren’t you criticising the perpetrators of event B?”.
The implication here is that it is wrong for anyone to criticise an evil action unless at the same time one criticises all the other evil actions in existence. (It seems to be especially wrong to criticise an evil action done nearby, if one has failed to make an equivalent criticism of a similar action done far away – the assumption here is that is wrong to have any special concern for those closest to you.) So if you sympathised about event A and failed to mention event B (not to mention events C-Z) you must be some kind of hypocrite.
These arguments parallel the ‘defence’ offered by government A or its supporters whenever it is accused of doing a bad thing: “hey, but what about government B? They also do bad things!” as though this made whatever government A had done less bad and unworthy of being criticised. Try getting away with this defence in court. (“Yes, I murdered him. But why are you picking on me? Lots of other people commit murder too! I don’t hear you criticising them!”)
It is a sad day when the sound of people weeping is drowned out by the noise of axes being ground.

 

[DelToro]

I’m always puzzled by the sort of argument (if one can give it that name) that seems to be occurring online yet again. Whenever people complain about or criticise (or sympathise with the victims of) event A, someone pops up to say “Hey, but what about event B?”, as though the existence of event B somehow meant that event A was less bad, followed by the cry “why aren’t you criticising the perpetrators of event B?”.
The implication here is that it is wrong for anyone to criticise an evil action unless at the same time one criticises all the other evil actions in existence. (It seems to be especially wrong to criticise an evil action done nearby, if one has failed to make an equivalent criticism of a similar action done far away – the assumption here is that is wrong to have any special concern for those closest to you.) So if you sympathised about event A and failed to mention event B (not to mention events C-Z) you must be some kind of hypocrite.
These arguments parallel the ‘defence’ offered by government A or its supporters whenever it is accused of doing a bad thing: “hey, but what about government B? They also do bad things!” as though this made whatever government A had done less bad and unworthy of being criticised. Try getting away with this defence in court. (“Yes, I murdered him. But why are you picking on me? Lots of other people commit murder too! I don’t hear you criticising them!”)
It is a sad day when the sound of people weeping is drowned out by the noise of axes being ground.

What about if Event B is linked to Event A?

 

[manimanc]

Not like bluemoon to have a dick measuring competition over a tragedy.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

I don't think talking is on the ISIS agenda and it certainly has no part in Jihad Unless when you say talk you actually mean we all should convert to Islam? The Koran says anyone wishing to convert should be spared it never mentions negotiation with the infidel.
I am curious as you say they are speaking to someone but you neglected to mention whom. So who do you actually think they are in discussions with?

If you talk to a Muslim, ISIS aren't reading the Koran anyway, so i think that is a misleading path.

They came out of the cells of Abu Ghraib and became very influential very quickly. They got their weapons and logistics sorted very quickly. Not sure who gave them the leg up, whether it was the Saudis and they are using them them as a military arm of Wahhabism or the west who are happy to keep the ME and Islam as the bogeyman. I think these bomb proof passports are a strange re-occurance. Or maybe ISIS are happy to play the Saudis off against the West for their own gains. As i said until someone blinks, not much will change.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

I’m always puzzled by the sort of argument (if one can give it that name) that seems to be occurring online yet again. Whenever people complain about or criticise (or sympathise with the victims of) event A, someone pops up to say “Hey, but what about event B?”, as though the existence of event B somehow meant that event A was less bad, followed by the cry “why aren’t you criticising the perpetrators of event B?”.
The implication here is that it is wrong for anyone to criticise an evil action unless at the same time one criticises all the other evil actions in existence. (It seems to be especially wrong to criticise an evil action done nearby, if one has failed to make an equivalent criticism of a similar action done far away – the assumption here is that is wrong to have any special concern for those closest to you.) So if you sympathised about event A and failed to mention event B (not to mention events C-Z) you must be some kind of hypocrite.
These arguments parallel the ‘defence’ offered by government A or its supporters whenever it is accused of doing a bad thing: “hey, but what about government B? They also do bad things!” as though this made whatever government A had done less bad and unworthy of being criticised. Try getting away with this defence in court. (“Yes, I murdered him. But why are you picking on me? Lots of other people commit murder too! I don’t hear you criticising them!”)
It is a sad day when the sound of people weeping is drowned out by the noise of axes being ground.

Fair response George but i think you are missing the point a bit. No one has any problem with support of victims. The victims in Paris need to be remembered however there are lots of people murdered on both sides of all wars, disputes and violent aggression. It is not so much a case of an argument for certain murders being highlighted but ALL murders highlighted, no matter who the victim is. The victim is the important person here and it is the mounting number of victims that needs to be stopped.

 

[coleridge]

If you talk to a Muslim, ISIS aren't reading the Koran anyway, so i think that is a misleading path.

They came out of the cells of Abu Ghraib and became very influential very quickly. They got their weapons and logistics sorted very quickly. Not sure who gave them the leg up, whether it was the Saudis and they are using them them as a military arm of Wahhabism or the west who are happy to keep the ME and Islam as the bogeyman. I think these bomb proof passports are a strange re-occurance. Or maybe ISIS are happy to play the Saudis off against the West for their own gains. As i said until someone blinks, not much will change.

It was essentially a jail break out of Abu Ghraib by a few hundred, who then persuaded other Sunnis to join them. I have heard Arabs say that it is a Western Plot but I am struggling to understand what has been gained or what was this masterplan. It has strengthened Iran's hand and made Israel look like an irrelevance. So I'll stick with the track record, which is of Wahabbis from Saudi sponsoring and inciting as many as they can because, as was Bin Laden's goal, they want to chase the infidels out of Arabia.

 

[whp.blue]

If you talk to a Muslim, ISIS aren't reading the Koran anyway, so i think that is a misleading path.

They came out of the cells of Abu Ghraib and became very influential very quickly. They got their weapons and logistics sorted very quickly. Not sure who gave them the leg up, whether it was the Saudis and they are using them them as a military arm of Wahhabism or the west who are happy to keep the ME and Islam as the bogeyman. I think these bomb proof passports are a strange re-occurance. Or maybe ISIS are happy to play the Saudis off against the West for their own gains. As i said until someone blinks, not much will change.

Call me synical but they would say that wouldn't they
If the never read the Koran, I find it a bit strange that their flag contains the quote "there is no god but Allah" which I am pretty sure comes from the koran
That is just a big coincidence them?