Paris Shootings

Lol not really, this is all on my feed shared by other people.

2 out of the 3 videos were shared by middle aged white fellas who just so happen to disagree with ISIS like me but like to look at the whole picture.

 

And the west is currently using those now is it? Here and ****ing now. If you are so outraged by indiscriminate carpet bombing I'd have thought you'd endorse the use of more precise drone and guided weapons. But no of course, your answer to Isis is ...

 

So have you shared any anti ISIS articles or info on here?

Because apart from the initial token "shock/horror" exclamation, all I see you (and a few others) do is look for reasons why they shouldn't wholeheartedly be condemned.

When terrorists rake a busy restaurant or the crowd dancing to a rock band with Kalashnikovs, and then follow up with knives slicing open the bellies of the injured young men and women, whilst taunting them, shooting disabled people in their wheelchairs, etc, etc - there is no "whole picture".

It may be that ISIS has some sort of justifiable claim to the land they are fighting on or the right to spread their brand of Islam, or to moan at the US or Uk for what has happened in the past, I dont know, but that is absolutely nothing to do with what they are doing to the hundreds and thousands of Muslims they are killing and torturing in Syrian villages and towns, or in Paris nightspots or football grounds, and the (soon to be affected) British venues.

To even look for anything, let alone share it on the internet, is in my opinion, a moral crime in itself. That is what I meant when I mentioned earlier that some of what is on this thread is sickening to me.

 

Molly - you have to understand radical islamists hate us when we're involved in the Middle East and when we're not. The sooner all the bleeding hearts wake up to the fact that the problem is not us it is them and take the extreme action that will be required to remove the fundamentalists within our borders as well as those in foreign battlefields - the better it will be for everyone (peaceful muslims included)

 

Can you spoiler next time or at least a NSFW in bold - cheers

 

Remove them where?

From memory (although I could be wrong), many terrorists in Western societies are born within the country itself.

 

I see that Anonymous have declared war on ISIS.

https://twitter.com/GroupAnon/status/665956057005559808

When ISIS fighters envisioned getting ****ed by dozens of virgins, I'm not sure this was what they had in mind.

 

What do you know?

 

Christ

 

Yep, him too.

 

We would have used them on Syria two years ago but Cameron lost the vote. And it would not have been against IS.

 

Let's put it this way.

The West are no angels. The US have certainly done plenty wrong, there is no doubt.

But it does not excuse the far less discriminate actions of IS, who are an absolute embarrassment to humanity.

If you (I believe you are a Muslim but I'm not sure what sect) are not embarrassed at what they are doing, then I wonder why not. They might not speak for you, but they are trying to make your life harder, so that you are persecuted abroad, and join their side.

Whilst I quite rightly didn't feel the need to apologise for Timothy McVeigh or Anders Breivik, as a more right than left white born-Christian, nor for the institutional racism in the police after the Steven Lawrence trial, I felt the compulsion to speak out against it.

Perhaps you shouldn't need to speak out and criticise these people, but I certainly would want to. They are branding Muslims as murderous, uncaring, violent and unstable, whilst every Muslim I have ever been friends with has been the absolute opposite.

Sharing videos saying 'yeh, but the US did this...' is not helpful to anybody. Saying, what horrible people, educating people about the faith (or if you are not practising, the culture of those who are), and then saying there is a feeling of unhappiness at the West because... would be really helpful, at a time where there will inevitably be reactionist comments, which are far from the truth.

Because the way that ISIS will win, is if you are chased out of Europe. They will win when you feel that you cannot live freely in the West, and that their path is better. And going by the pain and devastation they are causing, especially to fellow Muslims, it certainly is not.

 

Assad remained in power because he had chemical weapons to use on his own people. Syria was a far more developed country than Afghanistan or Iraq. They were asking for democracy and were ready for it, but it was being blocked by the dictators monopoly of high-tech weaponry.

With decisive action we would have probably had one of two results:
Remove Assad quickly, allow free elections and the country could have been unified.
Not intervene at all, and let Assad fight off the threat of his own people through the use of chemical weapons.

The problem was that the West was blocked from intervening effectively then, due to the ridiculous decision for the Iraq invasion, but did not want to sit back and allow chemical weapon use, due to the implications that could have. There was then a stalemate, with weak action being made to sanction Assad and fund the rebels.

A multi directional battle then took place, with the country becoming increasingly ungoverned, with anarchists taking large swathes of land. External terrorist groups and mercenaries then flooded into the country, and some of the armed rebels switched onto the 'winning side', both because they were well paid and to save their own lives.

Terrorism and lawlessness breeds in states without legitimate or authoritative rule. Ignoring this fight could have lead to genocide, or to another Afghanistan (pre-9/11). Air strikes therefore might not have been such a bad thing.

 

I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the thread title. If you wish me to elaborate and discuss why they are equally evil to their own, that's extra - and I don't come cheap.

 

Next you'll be trying to tell us God doesn't exist. And Santa.

 

At the start of WW2 there were at least 19,000 Italians in Britain, most of whom had lived here for decades. Churchill ordered them all to be rounded up and sent to internment camps on the Isle of Man. Presumably there are less than 19,000 radicalised islamists living among us at the moment so a similar exercise shouldn’t be too difficult to organize - if the European political elite had the stomach for it which, of course, they don’t.

More importantly, I’ve got my Sunderland ticket

 

I don't pretend to have a definitive answer, but some of those that do forget that the radicalised and terrorist element is never a fixed number.

Having relatives in Ireland I know from experience that the vast majority of a community that has terrorists acting in their name do not support those terrorist. However, if an innocent relative or friend is killed by the 'enemy' of the terrorists it can result in people turning to the terrorists for revenge or 'justice'.

We have to very careful that any response we take does not simply produce more recruits for the radical minority from the moderate majority.

 

Speaking for my Manx compatriots I am telling you now to Fck right off ... we don't want them!

Send them to Scotland instead, let them bomb Ben Nevis or some unpopulated rock in the Hebrides.

 

I don't think this is true Mike - Had we removed Assad the conflict would have remained. At that time Assad was fighting the Free Syrian Army, who we believe were the good guys, but also Al Nusra, Al Quaeda and the emergent IS. The war wasn't going to stop with just the removal of Assad. He was using chemical weapons because they feared heart eating Islamists were at the door. Doesn't excuse it, but our bombs would have just chucked more ordinance on the fire and created a power vacuum which would have inspired more insurgency.

Removing Saddam had precisely this effect.

 

Quite so.

The five year old boy whose family were killed as "collateral damage" of a US bomb won't grow up thanking the Americans for "freeing Iraq". He'll grow up hating them and be a prime target for radicalisation. They bombed and killed his family in their own country; of course he's going to be pissed off. I would be too.

 

There is much more we can do than bombs alone. We should have a war effort to stop them selling oil. Massive sanctions against any country found transporting it or selling it. We can ensure funding is cut off. We can employ a propaganda war offering the people TVs, Jobs and running water, whatever, if they get rid of IS.

I don't doubt that we need to be opportunistic militarily, but we cannot bomb our way out of this solely. Bombing has no effect on Jihadists already in Europe.

 

Random thought, but it's quite incredible to think that we're going to be voluntarily singing the anthem of our longest and fiercest historical rival, France, on home soil.

It's amazing when you think about it in a historical context. It's hard not to feel hopeful and optimistic for the future when you consider the bloody history our two nations have had in the past.

 

The US have used the term "winning hearts and minds". This needs to mean more than handing out chocolate bars and looking at some more " blue sky thinking" approaches like those you suggest.

 

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=ab1_1447786785

Scumbags

Istanbul fans boo minute of silence for Paris attacks, chant "Allahu akbar" before Turkey vs Greece soccer friendly

 

Did the people of Britain and Germany go on suicide bomb missions or killing sprees after the 2nd World War? The bombings killed hundreds of thousands and there was no pretence of "freeing" anyone, yet we have lived in peace ever since. I was able to live in a Germany along with thousands of British, Dutch and American military personnel and their families in German towns and villages, just a few years after the war.

It seems that most of the terrorist atrocities in the West are committed by home growns, mainly. They havn't had any such tragedy fallen upon them. Most were parts of normal loving families.

Are we also to assume that the thousands of ISIS "soldiers" raping, torturing and murdering their way across Syria, Iraq and Libya, have also suffered similar tragedies and are merely seeking revenge on Shia women and children?

If the innocent people killed as collateral damage, are genuinely innocent, then they are likely to be the victims of ISIS who are ruling their locality by fear, rape, torture and murder. Most will understand that someone is trying to help them. Those that have been brought up with or by ISIS fighters, are probably well radicalised already.

If we sat back and did nothing, I think that, if there are any innocent people left, then they wont be exactly fans of the West for running away and leaving them to the horrors they suffered. Maybe they would become our enemies

I think you are exaggerating the effect.

The cost of doing nothing would be huge.

 

Disgrace. Gives the lie to the assumption that it is a tiny minority who aren't disgusted by the Paris atrocities.

 

England:
[video=youtube;7MLGTTMXsIU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MLGTTMXsIU[/video]



Turkey:
[video=youtube;NOMMw0g1iRU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOMMw0g1iRU[/video]

 

I have tried to stay off this topic for professional reasons, but I want to add a few things... there's a three stage route to terrorism; firstly, radicalisation. Not everyone who is said to be radicalised will become a terrorist. Secondly, extremism, such as expressing extremist views and thinking in that way. Again, not every person expressing these views pose a realistic threat. Lastly, a terrorist. Those that study methods resulting in terrorism.

The majority of those radicalised pose little threat, including those that express extremist views etc. In most cases, they've misunderstood the religion and more often than not there's other factors present such as age (lack of maturity), broken family, bullied in school etc. These factors play a huge part in their futures; from being withdrawn socially to being treated as a gang member, the thought of suddenly feeling valued etc. This is why peoples beliefs and mindset change so easily, because of some other factor.

I'll tell a quick story. A local male to where most of you live fled for Syria; he had converted to Islam while in prison. He fled to Syria and one day one was presented with 250 other people in front of this so-called leader. The white widow (Samantha Lewthwaite) was there too which suggests this was a top-end event, given that she's now married to a senior member and intel suggests that Al-Shahaab has merged with ISIS.

One by one, the crowd was ordered to this platform above everyone else. Everyone had to confirm their name. Whoever gave a non-Muslim name was beheaded there and then. If you lied about your name, you were burnt alive. This male gave his name as Omar - it was a lie. But he got away with it and managed to flee back to the UK to tell the story and present interesting video footage.

The fact is, ISIS do not accept everyone, regardless of anything else. And this is what gives us some advantage. ISIS, whether they realise it or not, are killing off their own - potential terrorists. Our main focus is to PREVENT - as per our main strategy to identify those at the first stage of radicalisation.

 

I would love to hear what the Turkish FA say about that. Unbelievably disrespectful

 

Interesting Orny, and quite horrendous.

These type if accounts are regular and continual. I just don't understand how people on here can still not accept that religion the major factor, claiming it is all geo-political.

Apparent intelligent people are discussing telling us that most terrorist acts in the USA are not by Muslims. Who cares?

Those people being beheaded or burnt alive on that platform you talk about were nothing to do with western intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet apparently intelligent people keep trying to give the intervention as reasons why the atrocities occur.

I know I am sounding like a stuck record, but why are people gleefully trying to use these horrendous events as a chance to blame the west, or seek excuses for the terrorists "anger".

 

Man wanted for plotting the killings now under siege in Paris hotel.

I expect some of you would like PC Plurd to just calmly walk in, tap him on the shoulder and say 'You're under arrest gar*on'?

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

Good sarcasm, Moose, but there were police casualties.

Some people really would prefer police casualties if it means that these people get a fair trial.

 

I think the Turks are probably angry because of the wests role in bringing war to their backyard through the Syria conflict, I wouldnt of booed if I was one of them but can understand why they did.