Paris terror attacks on Friday 13th

Sweet Square said:
Didn't ISIS say they attacked France because of France's involvement in the bombing campaign in Syria rather than anything else. I argue against your point on the hijab about how it could possible turn ''moderate'' muslims into supporting ISIS not that I think it couldn't be true but more that describing anyone who at the drop of a hat or hijab(shite joke I know)would support a death cult like ISIS was hardly moderate at all.
Click to expand...

ISIS are full of crap when they explain their motives, France are not the only country involved with airstrikes so that is not the only reason behind their choice to respond with attacks on France first. If airstrikes was the big issue, USA would be their first target right now followed by the UK. Firstly they obviously see French security as a weak target compared to the might of the USA, UK and Russia.. secondly, there is a lot of deep hate for what France stands for and their active policy of 'secularism'. I guarantee you that a true 'moderate' as you would like to define it, is very few and far between in the religion of Islam.. i.e. one that would not bat an eyelid if his wife and daughter were forbidden from wearing the head scarf when going out into the public sphere. I am an agnostic and even I find the rule repulsive, my girlfriend is a devout muslim and despite all my efforts to tell her not to wear one, she still wishes to wear it to University in defiance of my wishes.. so I can imagine she'd be extremely pissed off if the government in this country were to make her way of life difficult or illegal.

I know plenty of muslims who I wouldn't particularly call radical, have much hate for ISIS, but would go apeshit if such a law was passed in England, yet they'd never admit to it right now. They might not join ISIS, or actively support them but there is no way they would care anymore if the UK was to suffer any more atrocities. There would be mass protest, mark my words. It is a wonder actually that direct violence wasn't directed at France when the laws were first passed, I guess it took a long time for the frustration to bubble up.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
As long as you remember that 'political correctness' is an imaginary invention of the right wing, you can evaluate how seriously anyone should take such criticism.
Click to expand...

the first time i heard that expression was from the of the face of then first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. when I was able I voted for her husband twice.
 
Mail: Sky News presenter Kay Burley mocked for tweeting a picture of a dog in Paris with the caption 'sadness in his eyes'
Click to expand...

Again, how is this utter moron still employed?
 
Mrs Smoker said:
What's so outrageous with her tweeting that, Steve?

It's kinda silly tweet, but harmless.
Click to expand...

Well. yeah, I get that, mate. However, it's just the latest in her long list of crimes against journalism.
 
My heart goes out to the people who were injured, lost their own lives those of their loved ones in this horrible way.
 
diarm said:
Here's that other article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Click to expand...

Very thorough. Found this bit particularly interesting.

One way to un-cast the Islamic State’s spell over its adherents would be to overpower it militarily and occupy the parts of Syria and Iraq now under caliphate rule. Al‑Qaeda is ineradicable because it can survive, cockroach-like, by going underground. The Islamic State cannot. If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate. Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding. Former pledges could of course continue to attack the West and behead their enemies, as freelancers. But the propaganda value of the caliphate would disappear, and with it the supposed religious duty to immigrate and serve it. If the United States were to invade, the Islamic State’s obsession with battle at Dabiq suggests that it might send vast resources there, as if in a conventional battle. If the state musters at Dabiq in full force, only to be routed, it might never recover.
Click to expand...

The foreign fighters (and their wives and children) have been traveling to the caliphate on one-way tickets: they want to live under true Sharia, and many want martyrdom. Doctrine, recall, requires believers to reside in the caliphate if it is at all possible for them to do so. One of the Islamic State’s less bloody videos shows a group of jihadists burning their French, British, and Australian passports. This would be an eccentric act for someone intending to return to blow himself up in line at the Louvre or to hold another chocolate shop hostage in Sydney.

A few “lone wolf” supporters of the Islamic State have attacked Western targets, and more attacks will come. But most of the attackers have been frustrated amateurs, unable to immigrate to the caliphate because of confiscated passports or other problems. Even if the Islamic State cheers these attacks—and it does in its propaganda—it hasn’t yet planned and financed one. (The Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris in January was principally an al‑Qaeda operation.) During his visit to Mosul in December, Jürgen Todenhöfer interviewed a portly German jihadist and asked whether any of his comrades had returned to Europe to carry out attacks. The jihadist seemed to regard returnees not as soldiers but as dropouts. “The fact is that the returnees from the Islamic State should repent from their return,” he said. “I hope they review their religion.”
Click to expand...
 
Raees said:
ISIS are full of crap when they explain their motives, France are not the only country involved with airstrikes so that is not the only reason behind their choice to respond with attacks on France first. If airstrikes was the big issue, USA would be their first target right now followed by the UK. Firstly they obviously see French security as a weak target compared to the might of the USA, UK and Russia.. secondly, there is a lot of deep hate for what France stands for and their active policy of 'secularism'. I guarantee you that a true 'moderate' as you would like to define it, is very few and far between in the religion of Islam.. i.e. one that would not bat an eyelid if his wife and daughter were forbidden from wearing the head scarf when going out into the public sphere. I am an agnostic and even I find the rule repulsive, my girlfriend is a devout muslim and despite all my efforts to tell her not to wear one, she still wishes to wear it to University in defiance of my wishes.. so I can imagine she'd be extremely pissed off if the government in this country were to make her way of life difficult or illegal.

I know plenty of muslims who I wouldn't particularly call radical, have much hate for ISIS, but would go apeshit if such a law was passed in England, yet they'd never admit to it right now. They might not join ISIS, or actively support them but there is no way they would care anymore if the UK was to suffer any more atrocities. There would be mass protest, mark my words. It is a wonder actually that direct violence wasn't directed at France when the laws were first passed, I guess it took a long time for the frustration to bubble up.
Click to expand...

If people do not like the laws of a country then the easy option is to leave that country.
There are plenty of laws throughout the countries of the world that prohibit people from doing what they want to do.
If you live in any particular country you abide by those laws.
Would your girlfriend like to be told that she couldn't drive a car in certain countries because she is female, people who like to drink alcohol are not allowed to due to the laws of those countries but that's alright I suppose because these are not western countries and westerners have to comply by these laws or should they start a riot because they want to drink a beer in Saudi Arabia for example. I have no problem though respecting the laws of these countries.

Just take an example which has nothing to do with colour or religion .
I am British and moved to France 8 years ago. I love France which is why I decided to live there. I was brought up a protestant and my wife of 40 years is French and was brought up a catholic.
Both of us are now non-believers and personally my view on religion is that it is beyond my comprehension in this day and age how anyone with any kind of intelligence could possibly believe in a god,heaven or hell or whatever people want to believe in. However, if people want to believe in this then I have no objections under one condition, that it does not affect me, my family my friends or anyone or anything I am associated with.

Getting back to the example I am trying to say is that I have voluntarily moved to France and will abide by the laws of this country, the way of life etc etc. I have integrated fully into the "french" way of life, I speak fluent french I have worked in France, I pay my tax and contributions in France, most of my friends are french - however, there are a lot of British people who have also moved to France, who live in their little enclaves, do not associate with french people, do not try to learn the language, only to raise their voice which they think might assist the person they are talking to understand better. Some even order all their food from Asda or Tescos and have it delivered to their house in France - why did these people decide to live in france in the first place. These are British people I am talking about not Arabs, Africans or Asians or whatever religion they may believe in but they do not want to integrate into the society in the country where they have chosen to live.

Have respect for the people and the country you are living in or even visiting
 
DomesticTadpole said:
I would have said liberal. Wants to please everyone, but ends up alienating everyone.
Click to expand...

The term was created by communists discussing people who held the right opinions and went along with the communist party line, regardless of results.
 
Sir Matt said:
:lol: If by right wing you mean communists...

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/uni/summary/v016/16.1.kohl.html
Click to expand...
I was, of course, talking about the right-wing reinvention of the term as mentioned in that same article. My memory of communists in the 70s was that people would be more likely to be accused of 'false consciousness'(??) for such failings. My exposure to them was limited however.

Also, the main point regarding the modern usage is that the supposedly pc-motives of their opponents and pc-actions supposedly carried out by them are all inventions of the right wing.
 
Sir Matt said:
The term was created by communists discussing people who held the right opinions and went along with the communist party line, regardless of results.
Click to expand...
I wasn't really arguing with you. It just here I would call them bleeding heart liberals. They think for everyone else and they decide what other people will find offensive. In the end to the detriment of our own culture.
 
Raees said:
ISIS are full of crap when they explain their motives, France are not the only country involved with airstrikes so that is not the only reason behind their choice to respond with attacks on France first. If airstrikes was the big issue, USA would be their first target right now followed by the UK. Firstly they obviously see French security as a weak target compared to the might of the USA, UK and Russia.. secondly, there is a lot of deep hate for what France stands for and their active policy of 'secularism'. I guarantee you that a true 'moderate' as you would like to define it, is very few and far between in the religion of Islam.. i.e. one that would not bat an eyelid if his wife and daughter were forbidden from wearing the head scarf when going out into the public sphere. I am an agnostic and even I find the rule repulsive, my girlfriend is a devout muslim and despite all my efforts to tell her not to wear one, she still wishes to wear it to University in defiance of my wishes.. so I can imagine she'd be extremely pissed off if the government in this country were to make her way of life difficult or illegal.

I know plenty of muslims who I wouldn't particularly call radical, have much hate for ISIS, but would go apeshit if such a law was passed in England, yet they'd never admit to it right now. They might not join ISIS, or actively support them but there is no way they would care anymore if the UK was to suffer any more atrocities. There would be mass protest, mark my words. It is a wonder actually that direct violence wasn't directed at France when the laws were first passed, I guess it took a long time for the frustration to bubble up.
Click to expand...
That's where I have a trouble with the expression "not radical" or "moderate Muslim". Anyone who could "go apeshit", join mass protests or not care if innocent people are killed over stuff like head covers is not moderate in my opinion.
 
Momochiru said:
That's where I have a trouble with the expression "not radical" or "moderate Muslim". Anyone who could "go apeshit", join mass protests or not care if innocent people are killed over stuff like head covers is not moderate in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, hence I don't really believe the myth that the vast majority of Muslims are 'moderate' or peaceful. Many in the UK wouldn't take kindly to it.
 
Raees said:
I agree with you, hence I don't really believe the myth that the vast majority of Muslims are 'moderate' or peaceful. Many in the UK wouldn't take kindly to it.
Click to expand...
For every decent peace-loving Muslim I know there are at least 3 other Muslims who will go batshit crazy if I speak negatively of the Islam. I guess that's just me though as other people seem to have a thousand peace-loving Muslim friends.
 
Raees said:
ISIS are full of crap when they explain their motives, France are not the only country involved with airstrikes so that is not the only reason behind their choice to respond with attacks on France first. If airstrikes was the big issue, USA would be their first target right now followed by the UK. Firstly they obviously see French security as a weak target compared to the might of the USA, UK and Russia.. secondly, there is a lot of deep hate for what France stands for and their active policy of 'secularism'. I guarantee you that a true 'moderate' as you would like to define it, is very few and far between in the religion of Islam.. i.e. one that would not bat an eyelid if his wife and daughter were forbidden from wearing the head scarf when going out into the public sphere. I am an agnostic and even I find the rule repulsive, my girlfriend is a devout muslim and despite all my efforts to tell her not to wear one, she still wishes to wear it to University in defiance of my wishes.. so I can imagine she'd be extremely pissed off if the government in this country were to make her way of life difficult or illegal.

I know plenty of muslims who I wouldn't particularly call radical, have much hate for ISIS, but would go apeshit if such a law was passed in England, yet they'd never admit to it right now. They might not join ISIS, or actively support them but there is no way they would care anymore if the UK was to suffer any more atrocities. There would be mass protest, mark my words. It is a wonder actually that direct violence wasn't directed at France when the laws were first passed, I guess it took a long time for the frustration to bubble up.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure there's a ton of horrible crazy reasons to why ISIS would to attack France I'm just mentioned that's what they said. And I'm also in agreement with you that the mostly like reason for the attack in Paris was that they see French security as a weak target compared to other countries(It's also far easier to get to than the UK and USA).

As for your example in bold I wouldn't class those people as moderate at all and would slightly worried if someone had that viewpoint. Although being on the left you hear the these's sort of arguments i.e the UK or most of the time U.S had this coming to them because of foreign policy or failed integration it's most of the time a load bollocks.
 
Last edited:
Paul the Wolf said:
If people do not like the laws of a country then the easy option is to leave that country.
There are plenty of laws throughout the countries of the world that prohibit people from doing what they want to do.
If you live in any particular country you abide by those laws.
Would your girlfriend like to be told that she couldn't drive a car in certain countries because shIe is female, people who like to drink alcohol are not allowed to due to the laws of those countries but that's alright I suppose because these are not western countries and westerners have to comply by these laws or should they start a riot because they want to drink a beer in Saudi Arabia for example. I have no problem though respecting the laws of these countries.

Just take an example which has nothing to do with colour or religion .
I am British and moved to France 8 years ago. I love France which is why I decided to live there. I was brought up a protestant and my wife of 40 years is French and was brought up a catholic.
Both of us are now non-believers and personally my view on religion is that it is beyond my comprehension in this day and age how anyone with any kind of intelligence could possibly believe in a god,heaven or hell or whatever people want to believe in. However, if people want to believe in this then I have no objections under one condition, that it does not affect me, my family my friends or anyone or anything I am associated with.

Getting back to the example I am trying to say is that I have voluntarily moved to France and will abide by the laws of this country, the way of life etc etc. I have integrated fully into the "french" way of life, I speak fluent french I have worked in France, I pay my tax and contributions in France, most of my friends are french - however, there are a lot of British people who have also moved to France, who live in their little enclaves, do not associate with french people, do not try to learn the language, only to raise their voice which they think might assist the person they are talking to understand better. Some even order all their food from Asda or Tescos and have it delivered to their house in France - why did these people decide to live in france in the first place. These are British people I am talking about not Arabs, Africans or Asians or whatever religion they may believe in but they do not want to integrate into the society in the country where they have chosen to live.

Have respect for the people and the country you are living in or even visiting
Click to expand...

So just because the Saudis live by an abhorrent set of laws which infringe on all manner of civil liberties, we too should start dictating people's sense of dress in the public sphere? I absolutely detest Saudi Arabia. . And how they ban non muslims from Mecca etc.

A ban on the niqab I can understand from the perspective of health and safety but headscarves/banning halal food from certain institutions, in general I find that small minded and petty. For a great intellectual country like France to resort to such means to impose their culture doesn't strike me as advanced. It creates division where it is not needed and just pushes muslims into a situation where they feel resentment to the country they live in.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
I wasn't really arguing with you. It just here I would call them bleeding heart liberals. They think for everyone else and they decide what other people will find offensive. In the end to the detriment of our own culture.
Click to expand...
Except that whole idea is massively overplayed and exaggerated by the right, eg the classic cancelling-Xmas/Winterfall furore.
 
This from Sir Matt's reference is useful


The accusation of being "politically correct" is a weapon used by right-wing professors, and publicized by conservative media critics, to protect themselves against criticisms of their own biases by students or other, usually younger, professors. It is a way of diverting the issue of bias within the university to issues of freedom of speech without acknowledging that the right to question professorial authority is also a free speech matter.
 
CNN reporting some panic and people running from the memorial service in Paris right now. Flicked over to SKY and he says there are reports of gunfire somewhere in the city.
 
diarm said:
CNN reporting some panic and people running from the memorial service in Paris right now. Flicked over to SKY and he says there are reports of gunfire somewhere in the city.
Click to expand...

Was a false alarm, was watching C4 news and there was a reporter live when it happened. They had to run down the street and hid behind a van.
 
RedSky said:
Was a false alarm, was watching C4 news and there was a reporter live when it happened. They had to run down the street and hid behind a van.
Click to expand...

Good to hear. Thanks.

I was just flicking through and caught it on CNN. Thought it was kicking off again.
 
Raees said:
So just because the Saudis live by an abhorrent set of laws which infringe on all manner of civil liberties, we too should start dictating people's sense of dress in the public sphere? I absolutely detest Saudi Arabia. . And how they ban non muslims from Mecca etc.

A ban on the niqab I can understand from the perspective of health and safety but headscarves/banning halal food from certain institutions, in general I find that small minded and petty. For a great intellectual country like France to resort to such means to impose their culture doesn't strike me as advanced. It creates division where it is not needed and just pushes muslims into a situation where they feel resentment to the country they live in.
Click to expand...

But it's not just Saudi Arabia, there are many countries, every country in fact, which have laws which people do not like - why should France or any other country for that matter change their laws to suit the people who don't like the laws. As per my earlier post they know what they can do. I may want to drive at 150mph but I can't, I may want to run down the Champs Elysée naked but I can't, I may want to smoke in a restaurant but I can't, I may want to steal all your money but I can't .That is why it is a democracy where people vote for people to run the country. Afraid it doesn't suit everyone but there you go.
 
RedSky said:
Goes to show how jumpy everyone is!
Click to expand...
Yeah I was just at the memorial thing in Copenhagen and whenever there was a sound people didn't except, like metal scraping against tarmac, they would turn around and look very quickly.
 
RedSky said:
Goes to show how jumpy everyone is!
Click to expand...

CNN just showed the video of the crowd panic. Apparently there was absolutely nothing kicked it off but within seconds there was a frantic stampede of people. Crazy stuff to watch!
 
senorgregster said:
Shows how lucky it was that the stadium occupanta didn't panic.
Click to expand...

Yeah with everything that happened, the authorities and security teams involved with handling the situation at the stadium deserve great credit. In stopping the suicide bombers at the gate, minimising casualties and maintaining calm and safety inside, they did fantastic work.
 
Eyepopper said:
There is nothing wrong with preserving your identity, doing so by stopping others observing theirs is slightly ironic though.

I mean, women wearing head dresses, I agree, thats just weird and should be outlawed in a Christian country.

nuns-singing.jpg
Click to expand...
They dress normally as well in the states and I never saw one dressed like those in the picture
 
You must log in or register to reply here.