Attacks in Paris

[foxy]

Solidarity has to be the social media's most used word lol has only been used recently.

HAHA

The good old hashtags come out during these events, people are naive if they think a hashtag is going to defeat ISIS. Try better vetting and a few more drone attacks.

 

[Blue Hefner]

I am by no means a warmonger but surely a few battlefield defeats would dent their morale and slow down recruitment?

I heard someone on 5Live earlier saying that success breads success and at the moment IS/ISIS/ISIL, whatever you want to call them are appearing very successful to would be recruits

Thoughts are with the friends and families of the victims

Last point - how fucking potty does a person have to be to act like this. I know people have been doing it for years but to blow yourself up to murder civilians on the strength that someone they call 'God' will somehow reward you is fucking preposterous as far as I am concerned

I watched a documentary on C4 about these jihadis, by-enlarge they all seem like misfits and peodophiles. I suppose that's how they recruit though, look for loners and weirdos then promise them whatever it is they promise them - backward, the fucking lot of them

 

[Metal Biker]

Liberals don't defend them they just hate the far right using this as an excuse to further their own hateful ideologue. Liberals are after all ISIS real enemy as it is liberal ideas they hate.
Other than that a great deal of sense in the post

By using the argument that opposing rhetoric against Islamic State breeds contempt for all Muslims by the far-right (who are themselves a minority), liberals are preventing serious dialogue about how to deal with IS and Islamism by, unintentionally, connecting the two ideologies. People are joining their cause because they believe in the ideology, not because of the cause or their leader. You destroy the ideology by giving it nothing to latch onto, just as we did with Nazism. The far-right are violent thugs but despite all their gesturing there is no worldwide group of armed activists prepared to go to war with the Islamic World or commiting terror attacks across the world. At best they manage to attack individuals but more often than not they are arrested and sentenced by the letter of the law. Sure, there are examples such as lone wolf incidents like Brevik, but i'm struggling to recall an active group that has threatened other nations, or done any of the actions that IS has done recently in the name of far-right politics.

We don't need to 'accept' multiculturalism nor do we need to 'accept' there should be a place for all religions in our society. I understand that at first glance that sentence makes me look a bit of a little Englander, but I will explain what I mean by that statement. We should be TOLERANT of them, because despite our willingness to accept people from other cultural differences, there are still, for my own personal example, many parts of the three organised abrahemic religions that I cannot condone nor support. Tolerance, not acceptance is what our nation should be. Everything should be still open to ridicule, even if it upsets you or hurts your feelings. But when someone oppresses your right to practice what you believe, only then should the law be involved and should society condemn them.

Liberals tend to get offended on other people's behalf, even when the group they are 'defending' have no real opinion on the matter in question. Many fear that attacking IS will see anger in the eyes of moderate Muslims here in Europe and create more extremists. How do they know that? And why would a moderate Muslim care what happens to these Islamist thugs? They have no connection to their religion or their beliefs. The dialogue needs to change and everyone needs to stop making the connection between Muslims and Islamists. Maybe even a change in association by not using Islamic terminology such as Jihadists to refer to IS members. Even 'Terrorists' these days carries a perceptive blanket term in the media to mean 'pissed off Muslims'. It needs to change, we need to stop using Islamic terminology to refer to them. Separate them completely from Islamic ideology, then they'd have no support anywhere in the world.

 

[jay_mcfc]

Saw this on Britain Furst on Facebook. Sums it all up beautifully;

Why is a massacre turned into a Circus?

On Friday night, more than a hundred innocent civilians were mercilessly killed in their own capital. Paris faced coordinated shootings and bomb attacks. They were inexcusable, inhumane, and indiscriminate. We all know this. We all feel this.

But as is familiar with every terrorist attack by now, a Circus ensues. Tim Montgomerie and similar political pundits, before the blood of the victims had even dried, immediately declared that "we are at war". The chorus that followed blamed Muslims, refugees, immigrants, and anything in between for these attacks. This is Act One of the Circus.

Muslims and other members of the public then respond to Act One, pointing out that it is unfair to generalise the actions of so few, on to so many. And that, in fact, Muslims themselves are the biggest victims of this kind of terrorism. For example, on Thursday, dozens of Muslims were killed in a similar terror attack in Lebanon. This is Act Two.

Act One and Act Two continue to interact. Meanwhile, anti-Muslim sentiment drastically rises. Racist or discriminatory attacks follow, particularly against Muslim women. Perpetrators fail to realise that they are targeting innocent people, the very same way terrorism does.

As a result, a friction emerges within communities. This friction acts as a catalyst for extremism. Put simply, the more alienated Muslims are within Western society, the easier they become recruitment targets for groups like ISIS. The narrative of "You do not fit it, they do not want you here" will be easier to embed, because it is suddenly repeated by all sides of the discourse.

And the cycle rages on.

What makes this worse, is that it happens every time. After the first dozen times, you would expect that a comprehensive strategy of avoiding political statements and instead expressing solidarity and empathy within communities would have taken hold. This would counteract the poisonous repercussions (beyond civilian casualties) of such terrorist acts - it would avoid some of the confusion and terror.

But no, for a loud minority, the opportunity to capitalise on horror and massacres, to reinforce prejudice and hatred, is too difficult to ignore. It simply has to happen. For them, the Circus must commence.

And we're back to square one

 

[Blue&whitestripes]

I think Wahhabism has been behind nearly everything , the ideology that is paid for and promoted by our dear dear friends the Saudi's. The trouble is the only people who can probably defeat Wahhibism are our worst enemies the Iranians who are the arch enemy of most of our dear friends, Meaning the only people who could defeat our worst enemies are our other worst enemies but we can't work with them because our best friends won't let us because our worst enemies are their best friends .

Spot on.

 

[TCIB]

 

[OB1]

Looks like the England-France game will be cancelled

Does it?

 

[kas_tippler]

That's about as relevant as it being done on children in need day.
Tragic scenes still emerging in the media. Horrible to think of so many people going out for the evening and never making home to their families and loved ones again.

Not really, proves these animals aren't followers of Islam.

 

[kippaxwarrior]

Does it?

French media reporting it however The FA have just announced the game WILL go ahead

 

[foxy]

Does it?

It's going ahead, been confirmed, correct decision. Will show how insignificant those parasites are.

French fans singing the national anthem after the attacks took place....