Paris Shootings

Some of them are a bit more unpleasant than that. They also booed the silence for the recent IS bombing of a left/peace march that killed around 100 in Ankara. Some of the crowd are of a serious nationalist, Islamist persuasion.

 

Turkish nationalists also blame the West for it's support (air cover) for the Kurdish PKK who are currently kicking IS's rear. They think this will lead to a Kurdish state.

 

The Bosnian war was in the early 90s, do you really think that the fans were protesting about a lack of global sympathy over 20 years ago? Isn't it more likely that a portion of their fans just decided to be idiots? As for no-one caring about Bosnians being killed, this is simply untrue. The Yugoslavian wars were a major feature of news coverage throughout the early 90s including some very distressing reports of the ethnic cleansing, there were several high profile charity campaigns to support the victims (the charity War Child was established as a direct result of the war in Bosnia) and the atrocities have been one of the main focuses of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

 

On your first point, you're probably right. There are some hard line Islamists in Bosnia, but they are not associated with football. The majority of Bosniaks (Bosnian muslims) are pretty secular and many drink. They have a number of teams with large Ultra followings (FK Sarajevo, Zeljeznicar Sarajevo, Velez Mostar, NK Celik - the last 2 are particularly left wing) and I suspect that it was mostly a group of tanked up lads causing trouble.

On the second point, whilst there were a lot of news reports and charities, Western governments refused to get involved in more than peacekeeping for several years. It wasn't until the second marketplace bombing (ironically most likely done by the Bosnians against their own people and not for the first time), coupled with Blair and Clinton coming to power that the west intervened. Prior to that the west, particularly Britain, held back any intervention.

As a side, the whole war could have been avoided if the Bosniak leader Alija Izetbegovic hadn't changed his mind on a peace treaty he signed in Lisbon in early 1992 that would have split the country into self-governing cantons like in Switzerland. Whilst most of the Bosniaks were secular, he wasn't and wanted a unified state to preside over, based on his religious convictions. He was never going to get that and dragged the country to war by declaring independence on his terms.

 

Clinton came to power in 92 and Blair in 97. We were bringing our troops home by 1997 Blair had nothing much to do with Bosnia.

Your last paragraph is interesting if accurate, I didn't know that.

 

All true, but a bit after the event. The fact is that the West failed to protect the most westernised Muslim community in Europe, and that was right at the start of our problems with Muslim extremism. It wasn't the only cause, obviously, but it was one cause.

 

Yes you're right about leaders and dates (getting confused with Kosovo), but either way, the west and Britain held the bombing back in Bosnia.

Reference below is wikipedia, but it is documented in numerous sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_plans_offered_before_and_during_the_Bosnian_War#Carrington.E2.80.93Cutileiro_plan

If the secular Fikret Abdic has had taken the leadership that he won instead of agreeing to give it to the Islamic dreamer Izetbegovic, a peace deal could probably have been sorted.

 

Yes, though did they just expect the Bosnian Serbs to say "oh OK then" to being removed from Yugoslavia? It was all handled very badly - from the nationalist politicians in Bosnia to the dithering indecision by the west.

The result is a divided country that has more radical Islamists than it had before the war (though still has far less people that are a threat than France, the UK or other western nations have). Driving though areas of Bosnia you will see ruined buildings and run down houses next to massive shiny mosques, where the Saudis have pumped millions in.

Saudi Arabia is a truly evil, backward place. If they didn't have oil, no one would deal with their medieval regime. Putin said at the G20 that some of the other G20 nations were funding IS - clearly having a dig at the Saudis. He said he had proof and will hopefully use it. If IS funding can be cut, it would be a massive step.

 

Saudi's are the worst, yet they're our closest ally.

 

Look forward to the day when we don't need oil and these wahabist scumsuckers can get what's coming.

 

Some of the shenanigans them sheiks get up to is disgusting.

 

Radio 2 currently debating using Nuclear Weapons on IS.

I'm going to take a flyer here and say Corbo wouldn't like it.

 

Good god. They'll be discussing using Napalm on an ants nest next.

 

Considering 'IS' seems to be all over western Europe that would be a daft idea really.

 

who is the 'our' in this sentence? because if it's the uk, i'm sure there must be some heavy qualification for that claim

 

Incase you don't know what's happening in the middle east.

President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!!

 

Needs a happy ending though.

 

Thanks for clearing it up, Halfwayline. It all seems so simple now.

 

For all of you insisting that Islam is fundamentally intolerant answer this, how did all those cultures IS is now exterminating, Yazidis, Christians etc get to stay there for hundreds of years? There have been many centres of tolerance within the Islamic world or at least no worse than Europe with it's periodical pogroms.

The tragedy is that this absolutist Islam an expression of both the power of Islamic Fundamentalist elites and the failure to build lasting democracy and peace is threatening to wipe out all others in a race to an ultimate conflagration between Sunni and Shia.

 

well done whoever wrote that originally

 

This is the kind of thing we in the West need to get a grip on if we are serious about defeating IS and promoting peace.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...es-arms-deals-with-saudi-arabia-a6738546.html

 

IS is an ideology, it will never be defeated.

 

It's not though. Is fundamentally needs to hold and control land as a caliphate as one of its core ideals. Al queda is an ideology.

One of the attractions of IS is that it seems to be a pure Islamic utopia to young, disenfranchised Muslims. It's a state of sorts governed by literal interpretation of 7th century writings. Without the land, IS ceases to exist. There will still be jihadists and extremists but they will lack the same focal point.

 

Here's one for the usual suspects to add to the conspiracy files:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34845730

 

2 shot dead in Sarajevo yesterday to the popular refrain of "Allahu Akbar": http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region.php?yyyy=2015&mm=11&dd=19&nav_id=96096

 

According to an item in last night's Evening Standard, people who take to social media to complain that the Paris outrage has had more coverage than similar incidents in Lebanon or, say, Kenya, are called 'Tragedy Hipsters'!
A few of those on here - you know who you are!

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-11-19/...ptures-terrifying-attack-on-diners-and-staff/

I watched the video without reading the article and was absolutely mind ****ed, reading the article helped explain what I saw though it's still quite unbelievable. 0.38, the gunman aims directly at the floor outside the restaurant and then flees, seconds later two women get up and run, the article claims his gun miraculously jammed - unbelievable.

Supposedly 30 bullets were fired at the restaurant, this guys' aim is that of someone who has never fired a gun before, surely. Look at 0.10, how the lady almost casually strolls through the under fire restaurant.

 

Good summary.

This clip is also a very good summary of the complexity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKb9GVU8bHE

 

So it seems like the mastermind of the attacks died in the siege yesterday. Deserves no better but it's a shame, as he has effectively been martyred for the cause.

 

It probably does sound like that... I don't think it was staged, but I think the footage is very strange - have you watched it? Don't you think the pieces I have highlighted are rather extraordinary?

 

You might be on to something. I wonder what we aren't being told? Do you think it might all have been the work of Mossad or the French intelligence services to drum up anti-muslim feelings in the west?

F***ING HELL!!!!!!!