[Closed] Shooting in Paris; casualties reported. Hope this isn't what it sounds like.

I'm confused am I an apologist for Islam?

Does someone need to apologise for Islam?

Are we at war with the Koran now, are you and Cameron saying we just need a good ol fashioned book burning, or just burning whatever %age of Muslims you think will fix this?

Koran/ old testament is largely identical, same hating on gays, mensturation is unclean, enslaving captured women etc all in Leviticus

@nemesis - you're stuck in catch 22 there, if you want to reduce the opposition, you need nation building, if you want nation building then you need to provide peace and security, if you want to provide peace and security, you first need to reduce the opposition...

Given that even the Russians were unable to break that cycle with a willingness to throw far more of their own blood (let alone that of the locals) at it than the West ever would, then I doubt it could ever work - personally I still suspect that the answer to Afghanistan comes in the global legalisation of the heroin and hasish trades through legitimate sources to take away the money and power from the gangsters who are running it, which would also gradually allow us to bring the prices down to the point where other crops were as profitable for the locals, at which point you can begin nation building through trade.

Let's not forget that the Koran is written in Classical Arabic which very few of these extremists will be able to read. Indeed very few Muslims will.

So rather than direct from the Koran these guys are hearing other peoples interpretation of the Koran.

Mind you, I suspect many of the ISIS foot soldiers don't GAF what the Koran says as long as they can indulge in whatever slaughter and pillage they want.

Jus5mins are you saying that all Muslims are as extreme as ISIS? coz if you are you are just very misguided,

It's very clear that I'm saying nothing of the sort, not least as muslims are more likely to be killed by ISIS than any other single group.

All I'm saying is that narrative that the brutal behaviours described above are some how the whole fault of the non islamic world overlooks the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Most of the current extremism is Sunni and if you look at the pipeline of radicalisation there has been a long standing effort for the last 20+ years to radicalise young men enough to get them to leave their countries for Jihad training abroad.

The events in Syria were largely fuelled by the number of trained jihadists that were already there - the seeds of the current conflict can be seen in the "preachers" who were teaching hatred in the streets in Europe well before 9-11. The collective failure to tackle the extremist preaching and tolerate open threats of murder (e.g. salman rushdie) just created the conditions for these people to fill the jihadi pipeline required for future discourse. If as a society we believe that public death threats to Jews / Homosexuals / Christians are unacceptable we should prosecute those who do this irrespective of their belief in religious doctrine in exactly the same way racist beliefs have been tackled over the last 20-30 years. Pretending these things aren't happening won't make the problem go away.

Just remember

'Jean Charles de Menezes 22 July 2005'

Hope the 'Shoot to kill' policy does not happen

[img] [/img]

The police mistook him for the guy on the right. There was no warning, the police just shot him.

You can't do nation building without a population who all want roughly the same thing.

Rebuilding postwar Japan: Easy. Moulding Shias, Sunnis and Kurds into one nation: Tricky.

There was no warning, the police just shot him.

And what if it was him, and they hadn't?

Sometimes you don't have the benefit of all the information, nor that of time, nor that of hindsight - you're left with a binary decision of acting, in the possibility that you are wrong leading to tragic loss of innocent life, or [b]not[/b] acting, in the possibility that it results in far, far greater tragic loss of innocent life. What ever you decide, you're damned either way.

When we're done with war on Islam, let's get started on radical Buddhism.

http://warisboring.com/articles/in-myanmar-buddhist-extremists-whip-up-anti-muslim-hate/

just5minutes

So how do you explain that these "behaviours" have been present for around 1,400 years now - pretty much since the Shia and Sunni split?

That's a good 1,250 years before oil was even discovered, let alone foreign companies profiting from it - it also doesn't explain why these same extreme / medieval behaviours are to be found in more than 40 countries now, even those in which oil has never been found and which have never been involved in western military action.

Cast your mind back to a time pre September 11. Were we all living in fear of Islamic extremism? Were muslims "the enemy"? Perhaps my glasses are rose tinted but I don't really remember any Muslims living in the UK or Europe having to appologise for the deeds of their middle eastern or African counterparts. Were they all sitting waiting, harbouring grudges that they would eventually vent? Or were they, as they are now, just a peaceful minority with a few radical outliers?

As for 1400 years of behaviors, no doubt a Muslim would quickly remind you about the crusades. Is that an indicator that Christians are inherently violent war mongering sectarians? If you really want to go back in history and look for an explanation lets go back and blame the Mongols. The middle east and the Islamic cultures therin were leading the world in science, maths, astronomy....had Gengis Khan not decimated them they would probably be a dominant force in the world.

I suspect many of the ISIS[s] foot soldiers[/s][b] leaders and those with power, money and sex to gain [/b]GAF what the Koran says as long as they can indulge in whatever slaughter and pillage they want.

And what if it was him, and they hadn't?

You're right, a few dead civilians shot by the police is a price worth paying to keep our country safe 😕

@ninfan It wasn't the one they were supposed to follow, though was it.

Is this going to be a case of 'Police can shoot anyone they want, just as long as it aint me!'

Jean was someones child, doing no harm, just going about his life. There was no reason to shoot him, they could have stopped him at anytime (see the reports).

Your glasses are most certainly rose-tinted Jimjam!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Having said that I don't think for one moment that the majority of people now see muslims as the enemy, or at least I hope not. What's required is a coming together of those who have moderate tolerant views (i.e. the whole of society excluding the extremists) and a shared effort to root out and deal with extremists.

You're right, a few dead civilians shot by the police is a price worth paying to keep our country safe

So how do you explain that these "behaviours" have been present for around 1,400 years now - pretty much since the Shia and Sunni split?

Even today we are still busy bombing them and invading their countries so either side can, and do, play the they are the baddies card.

a few dead civilians shot by the police is a price worth paying to keep our country safe

Do you think a repeat of the alternative, as witnessed a week before is preferable?

Put yourself in gold commanders shoes for one minute

Option a) the bloke is innocent
Option b) dozens more innocent dead bodies all over the place

Clock is ticking, you have ten seconds to say go or no go, then we lose him.

Tick tock, tick tock.

@ninfan It wasn't the one they were supposed to follow, though was it.

Hindsight whilst sitting in a comfy armchair is a very comfortable place to be isnt it?

Tick tock, tick tock.

[b]Boom[/b]...or not?

You can happily replay the same scenario with an airliner headed towards London that is not responding to air traffic control, or any one of a thousand scenarios, you act, or you don't act. Neither potential outcome is paletable.

Jus5mins at the same time you can't deny that western policy in the middle East is the perfect recruitment tool for Jihadis, each of the 7/11 bombers blamed the war in Iraq in their suicide videos,
Western bombs dropping on the middle East is what ISIS wants!
The Paris attackers used Syria as their justification...

2 years ago we wanted to bomb Assad and arm the rebels, now we are going to bomb the rebels and help out Assad....

There was report on terrorism casualties over the past year published yesterday. 32,600 worldwide. The vast majority are Muslims being killed by other Muslims. Nearly 10,000 in Iraq alone which was the number 1 nation. There are daily suicide bombings there including in and around Bagdad.

[url= http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/news/1283 ]Global Terrorism Index[/url]

Also bribery, arming the people you want in power in the hope that those who oppose the wests demands for free range to the countrys rsources, than finding out the person you helped get into power, gives you the two fingered thank you.

The west has not got clean hands, and thoughs that think it has are very mistaken. History that is taught in school is extremely biased.

As ever, those that do the dirty work are often not the ones who have anything to gain, only to lose.
The nut jobs that drive this ideology and actions however are all gaining massively from it - see the bank raids, the power trips and the sex slaves they are taking...

I don't buy the idea that the heart of ISIS is somehow insincere. Blowing up a Russian Airliner, killing and maiming in Paris. It all adds up to the oft quoted Atlantic Magazine article being correct, and that the ISIS top brass really do want to provoke a massive battle at Dabiq as the "prophecy" says. Of course that could be wrong.

Cast your mind back to a time pre September 11. Were we all living in fear of Islamic extremism? Were muslims "the enemy"? Perhaps my glasses are rose tinted but I don't really remember any Muslims living in the UK or Europe having to appologise for the deeds of their middle eastern or African counterparts. Were they all sitting waiting, harbouring grudges that they would eventually vent? Or were they, as they are now, just a peaceful minority with a few radical outliers?

Well said JimJam.

2 years ago we wanted to bomb Assad and arm the rebels, now we are going to bomb the rebels and help out Assad....

just5minutes

Your glasses are most certainly rose-tinted Jimjam!

I'm not so sure. Going by that wikipedia link in the decade preceding 9/11 you had one bomb attack in London, one in NY and one in Paris. In the decade preceding that, one in the UK, none in the U.S.

I don't think I was wrong.

each of the 7/11 bombers blamed the war in Iraq in their suicide videos

And if they hadn't been able to blame that, what other justification might it be in the video?

Nasty joke? offensive cartoon? The Joos?

Extremist nutters can always find some form of twisted logic to justify their actions.

Extremist nutters can always find some form of twisted logic to justify their actions.

Extremist nutters can always find some form of twisted logic to justify their actions.

True, including the need to destroy imaginary WMDs.

Assad isn't really fighting IS, his attention is focused much more on the FSA. IS helped out Assad by fighting and defeating the FSA in the East

Until ISIS took Palmyra and started pushing towards homs

A big old game of winner takes all Monopoly?

Like ignoring what they stated the causes/reasons were and suggesting it was something else and the attacks inevitable?

By which measure Anders Brevik really [b]was[/b] one of the Knights Templar, pledged to save his nation from communism and multiculturalism...

He certainly thought he was* and it would be foolish of me to act like you and make up another reason that he did not give.

* I have no idea what he thought as i have not studied the right wing nutter to the depth you have. TBH I have not studied him at all but i do know that is not his name.

Well, Norwegian prosecurors and security services seem to agree that the Knights Templar didn't exist, and that he was in fact just a sad, angry. lone fantasist who sought to blame all his problems on other people.

But then , if there really was a conspiracy like that, then you would expect them to over it up wouldn't you?

*edit - just spotted that junky, genuine autocorrect error thanks to iPad, changing it now.

he was in fact just a sad, angry. lone fantasist who sought to blame all his problems on other people.

Jean was someones child, doing no harm, just going about his life. There was no reason to shoot him, they could have stopped him at anytime (see the reports).

He ran from the police, with a rucksack, a few days after multiple suicide bombings on the Tube. Tragic, but you have to admit he didn't help himself. The policeman had to make a terrible decision and make it fast, and considered hindsight is no place to judge him from.

Some more Epyptian TV for you JY, conspiracy theories to make @jive jealous. Broadcast 3 days ago. Seems there are reports going round that Paris was the work of a Bhuddist group.

Al-Bhagdadi is actually a jew called Simon Elliot and ISIS stands for Israeli Secret Intelligent Service

[url= http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5169.htm ]MEMRI[/url]

Menezes entered the Tube station at about 10:00am, stopping to pick up a free newspaper. He used his Oyster card to pay the fare, walked through the barriers, and descended the escalator slowly. He then ran across the platform to board the newly arrived train. Menezes boarded the train and found one of the first available seats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Pursuit

Documents and photographs leaked to ITV News also confirmed that Mr de Menezes did not run from the police, as had been reported, had used his Tube pass to enter the station, rather than vault the barrier, and had taken a seat on the train before being grabbed by an officer.

He didn't run from the Police.

He also wasn't carrying a rucksack, was he?

He ran from the police, with a rucksack...

Edit - Too slow, story of my life.

He ran from the police, with a rucksack,

not true, but the police new it was incorrectly reported in the press and let the information stay out there so its now known as 'fact'
the inquest judge also noted that the police colluded to lie about whether they identified themselves before holding him down and shooting him

I thought he had not run, and the police lied saying he had jumped the barriers and ran to try and justify their actions.

His death was a massive cock up for which there was no excuse.

....but to be fair, the Police must have thought he was going to blow up because it's hard to see any other motive for killing him. I'm guessing a complete communication cock up, which meant the officers in the train were so keyed up that they failed to spot the absence of any potential for a concealed bomb.

If many of us make a mistake at work, nobody dies... We're the lucky ones.

Fair enough. That was my recollection, sorry for not fact-checking.. A cock-up indeed.

police lied saying he had jumped the barriers and ran to try and justify their actions.

Not sure if the police ever actually said that initially, or if they did mistakenly say it and not retract it immediately, or if someone else said it but they didn't deny it. IIRC it was an eye witness who first said it.

Like all these things, there's often a whole shed load of confusion and 'fog of war' (for want of a better expression) whereby things get speculated on and then repeated as fact, and the police, for various reasons, feel unable to just shut up and say nothing until the facts have been established (which may take some considerable time) - you only need to look at the deaths of Mark Duggan and Ian Tomlinson for that (from all sides) in spades.

He did not run. The media bandwagon backtracked on that statement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/06/jean-charles-de-menezes-death-anniversary_n_7714488.html

In the pics, you will see it is the police jumping the barriers not jean

He ran from the police, with a rucksack,

not true, but the police new it was incorrectly reported in the press and let the information stay out there so its now known as 'fact'

This is one of the failings of our media - when the paper (I forget which) ran that story they were quoting an un-named source within the met.

UK papers quote un-named sources with such regularity in anything from cases like this to stupid celebrity gossip that we don't notice they do it anymore.

For 'un-named source' you are supposed to read 'someone on the inside who's life or livelihood would be at stake if their identity was revealed' but the reality is 'if you knew who we were quoting you'd laugh and dismiss everything you've just read' either because its the PR department, the cleaner or someone from the pub.

You'd think if a paper really believed and depended on the integrity of an un-named source and their information the first thing they'd do is expose that source as liar the moment it became clear the story they'd reported was bullshit

Jim Jam - I'm not so sure. Going by that wikipedia link in the decade preceding 9/11 you had one bomb attack in London, one in NY and one in Paris. In the decade preceding that, one in the UK, none in the U.S.

I don't think I was wrong.

But you've missed the other attacks on european and american citizens . Does it really matter where the attacks were - the only constant is that citizens of countries in the west are seen as fair targets irrespective of where they are.

1993 - Attack on CIA in the USA
1993 - bomb at world trade centre in USA
1994 - bombing of an embassy in London
1994 - attack on air france flight
1995 - two bombings in France
1995 - bombing of US Air Force personnel
1996 - murder of 15 Greek tourists
1997 - murder of c50 european tourists at Luxor
1998 - bombing of US Embassy
2000 - attack on USA Warship

etc etc.

just5minutes

But you've missed the other attacks on european and american citizens . Does it really matter where the attacks were - the only constant is that citizens of countries in the west are seen as fair targets irrespective of where they are.

For the most part attacks on embassies and bases on foreign soil. As I commented "I don't recall an atmosphere of fear of attacks from Islamic extremists pre 9/11" and I'd stand by that. I didn't say there weren't attacks.

Obviously the US and UK's post 9/11 actions have gotten us to where we are today.