French Terrorist Attacks

Started by easytiger95, November 13, 2015, 09:43:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

stew

Quote from: BennyHarp on December 03, 2015, 10:48:15 PM
I wonder was Tony Benn turning in his grave at his son Hillary's speech last night.

http://youtu.be/HfXmpJRZPYI

He made a great argument to hit the f**kers in fairness.

I will say this, the Muslim community will rise up and cause great harm to Britain if they become fully embroiled in Syria, if that happens the brits will have to drop the hammer on them, there is no end to this completely effed up conflict between the Muslims and the west.

I had one man a work tell me that the only cure for Syria is wlow grade nuclear weapons with a 3 mile kill range........................... I nearly went through him for a short cut.
Armagh, the one true love of a mans life.

easytiger95

QuoteHow can a country like UK, France, Britain and others give the 99.999% of the people any degree of public safety when there are known radicals (and probably unknown radicals), in the country, just staying onside but waiting for the soft opportunity to unleash terror.

No democracy has ever - ever - been able to provide 99.999% of their citizens public safety. The bargain of an open society is that the freedom gained is worth the risk - which at the moment, compared to the grave threats that the West faced in WW2 and the Cold War with communism - is minuscule. The key to terrorism, as it is to any asymmetrical campaign, is to exaggerate the threat posed.

In the 70s and 80s, Britain faced a threat as immediate and comparable, from the provisional IRA. I doubt there would have too much argument in the pubs and clubs of Guildford, Birmingham, Manchester and London had they decided to deport all Irish immigrants. They didn't, because for all their faults, they recognised that Irishness and Irish nationalism was not a monolith. Neither is Islam.

It is worth repeating again that the vast majority of IS victims are Muslims - and because of this they run the very real risk that they will suffer the same fate of the Algerian insurgency in the late 80s, early 90s, where the barbarism of the extremists played out to the logical end - without popular support they ended up slaughtering each other and destroying themselves.

As for the airstrikes I support them. The risk is that in trying to fight the last war, you end up losing the present one. There are huge differences between Syria today and Iraq and Afghanistan from 10 years ago. To touch on a couple, IS are trying to hold ground, which makes them a static target. Airstrikes over the past 2 years rolled them back from Baghdad and have reversed many of their other advances.

Secondly, there is no Western army of occupation to focus their campaign on. If airstrikes can halt them whilst a political solution can be forged, a transitional government agreed and a UN force deployed, either through no fly zones or the gathering of the disparate Muslim resistance to Assad, then they will have served their purpose.

I thought Hilary Benn's speech was a classic of common sense, expressed simply and forcefully. IS must be confronted, but to mistake their ideology for anything other than a cynical perversion of Islam is to legitimise them.

If the developments above happen, IS will disappear as a state but they will continue to plot attacks as a terrorist network. We will never be 100% safe in the West - but I would defy anyone to point to a time when we have been. The Red Brigades, Bader Meinhoff, the PLO, the IRA - there are always those who try and bring down democracy. But for all its flaws and risks, the great strength of democracy is pluralism and the promise that if you abide by our laws, and respect others culture, your way of life will be respected. If we lose that, we have nothing.

MK


johnneycool

Quote from: easytiger95 on December 04, 2015, 12:38:34 AM
QuoteHow can a country like UK, France, Britain and others give the 99.999% of the people any degree of public safety when there are known radicals (and probably unknown radicals), in the country, just staying onside but waiting for the soft opportunity to unleash terror.

No democracy has ever - ever - been able to provide 99.999% of their citizens public safety. The bargain of an open society is that the freedom gained is worth the risk - which at the moment, compared to the grave threats that the West faced in WW2 and the Cold War with communism - is minuscule. The key to terrorism, as it is to any asymmetrical campaign, is to exaggerate the threat posed.

In the 70s and 80s, Britain faced a threat as immediate and comparable, from the provisional IRA. I doubt there would have too much argument in the pubs and clubs of Guildford, Birmingham, Manchester and London had they decided to deport all Irish immigrants. They didn't, because for all their faults, they recognised that Irishness and Irish nationalism was not a monolith. Neither is Islam.

It is worth repeating again that the vast majority of IS victims are Muslims - and because of this they run the very real risk that they will suffer the same fate of the Algerian insurgency in the late 80s, early 90s, where the barbarism of the extremists played out to the logical end - without popular support they ended up slaughtering each other and destroying themselves.

As for the airstrikes I support them. The risk is that in trying to fight the last war, you end up losing the present one. There are huge differences between Syria today and Iraq and Afghanistan from 10 years ago. To touch on a couple, IS are trying to hold ground, which makes them a static target. Airstrikes over the past 2 years rolled them back from Baghdad and have reversed many of their other advances.

Secondly, there is no Western army of occupation to focus their campaign on. If airstrikes can halt them whilst a political solution can be forged, a transitional government agreed and a UN force deployed, either through no fly zones or the gathering of the disparate Muslim resistance to Assad, then they will have served their purpose.

I thought Hilary Benn's speech was a classic of common sense, expressed simply and forcefully. IS must be confronted, but to mistake their ideology for anything other than a cynical perversion of Islam is to legitimise them.

If the developments above happen, IS will disappear as a state but they will continue to plot attacks as a terrorist network. We will never be 100% safe in the West - but I would defy anyone to point to a time when we have been. The Red Brigades, Bader Meinhoff, the PLO, the IRA - there are always those who try and bring down democracy. But for all its flaws and risks, the great strength of democracy is pluralism and the promise that if you abide by our laws, and respect others culture, your way of life will be respected. If we lose that, we have nothing.

Why the f**k are they not cutting off their revenue streams from oil? Who's buying it and who's selling them arms?

The Russians have accused the Turks of buying the oil, surely the f**k it can't be hard to find out where its going with all the intelligence gathering in the area!!

Milltown Row2

Quote from: johnneycool on December 04, 2015, 08:54:59 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on December 04, 2015, 12:38:34 AM
QuoteHow can a country like UK, France, Britain and others give the 99.999% of the people any degree of public safety when there are known radicals (and probably unknown radicals), in the country, just staying onside but waiting for the soft opportunity to unleash terror.

No democracy has ever - ever - been able to provide 99.999% of their citizens public safety. The bargain of an open society is that the freedom gained is worth the risk - which at the moment, compared to the grave threats that the West faced in WW2 and the Cold War with communism - is minuscule. The key to terrorism, as it is to any asymmetrical campaign, is to exaggerate the threat posed.

In the 70s and 80s, Britain faced a threat as immediate and comparable, from the provisional IRA. I doubt there would have too much argument in the pubs and clubs of Guildford, Birmingham, Manchester and London had they decided to deport all Irish immigrants. They didn't, because for all their faults, they recognised that Irishness and Irish nationalism was not a monolith. Neither is Islam.

It is worth repeating again that the vast majority of IS victims are Muslims - and because of this they run the very real risk that they will suffer the same fate of the Algerian insurgency in the late 80s, early 90s, where the barbarism of the extremists played out to the logical end - without popular support they ended up slaughtering each other and destroying themselves.

As for the airstrikes I support them. The risk is that in trying to fight the last war, you end up losing the present one. There are huge differences between Syria today and Iraq and Afghanistan from 10 years ago. To touch on a couple, IS are trying to hold ground, which makes them a static target. Airstrikes over the past 2 years rolled them back from Baghdad and have reversed many of their other advances.

Secondly, there is no Western army of occupation to focus their campaign on. If airstrikes can halt them whilst a political solution can be forged, a transitional government agreed and a UN force deployed, either through no fly zones or the gathering of the disparate Muslim resistance to Assad, then they will have served their purpose.

I thought Hilary Benn's speech was a classic of common sense, expressed simply and forcefully. IS must be confronted, but to mistake their ideology for anything other than a cynical perversion of Islam is to legitimise them.

If the developments above happen, IS will disappear as a state but they will continue to plot attacks as a terrorist network. We will never be 100% safe in the West - but I would defy anyone to point to a time when we have been. The Red Brigades, Bader Meinhoff, the PLO, the IRA - there are always those who try and bring down democracy. But for all its flaws and risks, the great strength of democracy is pluralism and the promise that if you abide by our laws, and respect others culture, your way of life will be respected. If we lose that, we have nothing.

Why the f**k are they not cutting off their revenue streams from oil? Who's buying it and who's selling them arms?

The Russians have accused the Turks of buying the oil, surely the f**k it can't be hard to find out where its going with all the intelligence gathering in the area!!

Bomb the countries that are supplying them with arms and money....would certainly stop that resource and they wouldn't feel the need to terrorise Western cities.....
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Rossfan

The West won't bomb their Saudi mates.
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

seafoid

Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2015, 09:12:19 AM
The West won't bomb their Saudi mates.
or their new EU accession friend Turkey.
Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

Milltown Row2

Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2015, 09:12:19 AM
The West won't bomb their Saudi mates.

And therein lies the problem...instead of closing off their own borders closed down the influx of Isis heading into Syria ... Cutting of the supplies will eventually work a lot better than bombing the shit out of it.... Gather up all the radical preachers also and get talking (or paying)
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Keyser soze

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2015, 09:20:50 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2015, 09:12:19 AM
The West won't bomb their Saudi mates.

And therein lies the problem...instead of closing off their own borders closed down the influx of Isis heading into Syria ... Cutting of the supplies will eventually work a lot better than bombing the shit out of it.... Gather up all the radical preachers also and get talking (or paying)

Heh? Wtf??

Who do you think supplies the arms to Saudi? Britain, France, the US and Russia are hardly gonna start bombing themselves.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: Keyser soze on December 04, 2015, 09:30:08 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2015, 09:20:50 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2015, 09:12:19 AM
The West won't bomb their Saudi mates.

And therein lies the problem...instead of closing off their own borders closed down the influx of Isis heading into Syria ... Cutting of the supplies will eventually work a lot better than bombing the shit out of it.... Gather up all the radical preachers also and get talking (or paying)

Heh? Wtf??

Who do you think supplies the arms to Saudi? Britain, France, the US and Russia are hardly gonna start bombing themselves.

That's what I'm getting at!!! Its not so much oil being the problem here..... why is joe public so stupid?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

johnneycool

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2015, 09:32:11 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on December 04, 2015, 09:30:08 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2015, 09:20:50 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2015, 09:12:19 AM
The West won't bomb their Saudi mates.

And therein lies the problem...instead of closing off their own borders closed down the influx of Isis heading into Syria ... Cutting of the supplies will eventually work a lot better than bombing the shit out of it.... Gather up all the radical preachers also and get talking (or paying)

Heh? Wtf??

Who do you think supplies the arms to Saudi? Britain, France, the US and Russia are hardly gonna start bombing themselves.

That's what I'm getting at!!! Its not so much oil being the problem here..... why is joe public so stupid?

Because the main media outlets aren't telling them anything.

Can you see the Sun newspaper printing a story telling everyone that the Saudis are arming ISIL/ISIS/ with arms their very own Government sold to them?

I can remember clearly when the Arab spring was in its infancy Dave Cameron was leading a trade delegation to the Middle East, and no one bothered to say that seven out of the ten companies on the trade mission were arms and security equipment manufacturers, propping up these Governments with their equipment.

Tony Benn was right almost 20 years ago when he said the biggest threat to world peace were the arms industry supported by Western governments.


seafoid

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2015, 09:32:11 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on December 04, 2015, 09:30:08 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2015, 09:20:50 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2015, 09:12:19 AM
The West won't bomb their Saudi mates.
r

And therein lies the problem...instead of closing off their own borders closed down the influx of Isis heading into Syria ... Cutting of the supplies will eventually work a lot better than bombing the shit out of it.... Gather up all the radical preachers also and get talking (or paying)

Heh? Wtf??

Who do you think supplies the arms to Saudi? Britain, France, the US and Russia are hardly gonna start bombing themselves.

That's what I'm getting at!!! Its not so much oil being the problem here..... why is joe public so stupid?
Just look at RTE or BBC news. I remember John Pilger in Dublin 20 yrs ago saying he wouldn't work for any of the newspapers because of the self censorship. People are not stupid. They have in depth understanding of topics that are covered. But many topics are not and on these the public is misinformed. But not stupid.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

seafoid

The St Bernardino attack looks like it was carried out by jihadis.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

muppet

Quote from: seafoid on December 04, 2015, 11:14:21 PM
The St Bernardino attack looks like it was carried out by jihadis.

They should stop dropping bombs in the Middle East and drops guns instead. Far more effective and you can wash your hands of the consequences.

The refugess should be made watch all of the Die Hard movies, given plenty of guns and ammo and be sent back to Syria.
MWWSI 2017

give her dixie

Quote from: johnneycool on December 04, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2015, 09:32:11 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on December 04, 2015, 09:30:08 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2015, 09:20:50 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2015, 09:12:19 AM
The West won't bomb their Saudi mates.

And therein lies the problem...instead of closing off their own borders closed down the influx of Isis heading into Syria ... Cutting of the supplies will eventually work a lot better than bombing the shit out of it.... Gather up all the radical preachers also and get talking (or paying)

Heh? Wtf??

Who do you think supplies the arms to Saudi? Britain, France, the US and Russia are hardly gonna start bombing themselves.

That's what I'm getting at!!! Its not so much oil being the problem here..... why is joe public so stupid?

Because the main media outlets aren't telling them anything.

Can you see the Sun newspaper printing a story telling everyone that the Saudis are arming ISIL/ISIS/ with arms their very own Government sold to them?

I can remember clearly when the Arab spring was in its infancy Dave Cameron was leading a trade delegation to the Middle East, and no one bothered to say that seven out of the ten companies on the trade mission were arms and security equipment manufacturers, propping up these Governments with their equipment.

Tony Benn was right almost 20 years ago when he said the biggest threat to world peace were the arms industry supported by Western governments.

Cameron was the 1st Western leader to visit Egypt after the downfall of Mubarak.

He was accompanied by a travelling circus of arms dealers en route to an arms fair in the Gulf.

He sold arms to anyone with a cheque book.........
next stop, September 10, for number 4......