[Closed] "Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

Genuine LOL at that

May be a wee bit sweary

FWIW Never met up with STW ers and not got on...... if we dont its you and not me 😉

May be a wee bit sweary

FWIW Never met up with STW ers and not got on...... if we dont its you and not me

Served my time on the local Council from 15 yrs old & now work in a prison, of course It'll be sweary. Also I'm not arsed about insults as I get them every single day,(& have had them since I started work) just hope your'e not. 😉

I've paid my deposit to Ton. 😀

Oh shit I forgot to pay

Best e-mail him

See you there hopefully get some more to go as well

I'm hoping to get another 2 guys from work to come as well. Theyr'e a lot lot worse than me.

So I'll just leave this here

[img] [/img]

Just like to say,

Hats off to the French for their no messing, get in and slot them attitude.

Best result. In stark contrast to Abu Hanza who was allowed preach terrorism here and to clog up the UK courts for years in extradition proceedings before being sent to the USA to be convicted.

08.25 BREAKING Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) claims responsibility for Charlie Hebdo attacks; threatens further bloodshed. (from The Telegraph)

Interesting times we live in.

Could Operation Cyclone be the origin of Al Qaeda?

Bin Laden* potentially CIA funded? *Tim Osman?

Similar things still happening today?

So, I'm summary, sticks and stones will break my bones but cartoons will kill me dead?

Liberty > Security . ...

Winners:
The state - having caused the problem through mass-immigration, the state will now have even more powers of surveillance over us all.
Security companies
The nutcase right.

Losers:
Pretty much everyone else.

What you have to ask your self is for a peaceful religion,when was the last time you have seen a high ranking spokesman of the islamic faith condemn an act off terrorism or actually done anything about it.
And not one world leader has asked why.

Perhaps one in which I put forward the French government view that covering one's face in public is not acceptable whether it's with a religious garment, or a scarf and hoodie. There are limits to what a secular state can tolerate.

So I suppose I'll have to abandon my cycling anti-smog mask now, then?

Also: Unusual to extract comedy from such a tragic situation, but I noticed that the Special Forces entering the warehouse where The Brothers KaraMeOut were holed up, were being shown how to get in by a bloke in a "hi-viz" jacket... Blinkin H&S gets everywhere.

What you have to ask your self is for a peaceful religion,when was the last time you have seen a high ranking spokesman of the islamic faith condemn an act off terrorism or actually done anything about it.

Your problem here is that there aren't actually any "ranks" as such in islam - just a network of lightly-connected preachers and those paying attention to them. Whilst christianity is well structured with clearly defined levels of responsibility (despite it's fractured nature), no such equivalent exists in islam.

Given that, it's unclear to me what exactly you expect a bunch of virtually independent preachers to "do" about it except preach. I think you'll find that there has been much of that in the past two or three years from the Quilliam Foundation and elsewhere, including ad hoc projects like the Poppy-patterned headscarf, for instance.

I think you and those like you who are coming out with this trite sort of statement should do a little self-education first.

It can pay dividends, in my experience. 🙂

Hi. Sorry I'm late to the party. I've just caught up with the thread, all 28 pages of it, and would like to thank you all for some interesting, informative and in some cases surprising reading. There are a few comments I'd have liked to have responded to, but now that they're ten pages back I guess the moment has passed.

Binners, remind me next time I see you, as the consistent voice of reason and sensibility in this discussion I should very much like to buy you a pint (or a pie).

One thing I would like to pick up on is the photo JHJ posted of the little girl "burned by US drones", an image so important that he felt the need to post it three times on one thread.

As it turns out, the girl in question wasn't burned by drones, she was injured during fighting between the ****stani military and the Taliban. The "drone strike" story is a result of misreporting by CNN, something which they've subsequently recanted.

Ironically, she was actually flown out by US missionaries to a hospital in Texas for surgery and treatment, something the hospital offered to provide for free. Oh, and it's an image from five or six years ago.

No doubt JHJ will now tell me that that's what They want me to think and I should open my eyes and wake up, probably accompanied by a picture of Jimmy Savile in the same room as Prince Andrew or something, but them's the facts.

Perhaps you'd like to reveal your sources Cougar?

Are you implying that drone strikes don't kill children and civilians?

Or that arms sold by Prince Andrew don't kill innocents?

[url= http://my.firedoglake.com/etisdale/2012/01/01/cnn-and-u-s-denials-of-drone-strikes-in-****stan/ ]This is an interesting take on events surrounding the picture in question[/url]

From what I can see, quite a lot of radicalisation begins in prisons.not surprising that those who commit terror crimes have a criminal inclination. There's a starting point.
Essentially this won't be solved by blowing places/people up, or capitulation. Everyone is not suddenly going to hold hands. I can only see the end of this resulting from a mix of intelligence operations for those completely brainwashed and hell bent on violence and some hearts and minds for the rest.
I'll stick my neck out here, and I'm likely to take some flak for it, but this idea that we are a multicultural society is misleading. In the main, integration is dreadful. There are Muslim areas (often further sub-divided further into Somali, ****stani etc areas), white areas, black areas, etc etc. As long as this is the case we are going to get nowhere IMHO. To be truly multicultural, we gots to spread that shit out.
I was amazed at NI, they still have prod and catholic areas, and schools (that really surprised me). So you could have a catholic kid, living in a catholic area, went to a catholic school then gets a job in a catholic run company. His interaction with the prods is next to nothing, is he likely to be open minded towards them? (and vice versa prod/catholic)
Anyway enough of my rambling....

Perhaps you'd like to reveal your sources Cougar?

Five minutes' research rather than blindly posting an image I found on Facebook.

Are you implying that drone strikes don't kill children and civilians?

Or that arms sold by Prince Andrew don't kill innocents?

Yes, yes, of course, that's [i]exactly[/i] what I said. Jesus, it's no wonder you buy in to conspiracy theories with such fervour, you're a gold medal Olympian at making shit up. You could put 2 and 2 together and come up with the square root of -1.

Five minutes' research

You're free to share the results of your research for all to see you know...

after all, you did state your account as fact...

Here is an opinion:

Glenn Greenwald: “The amount of gullibility it takes to believe that the U.S. is merely killing “Terrorists” — over and over and over and over — is just staggering (and for those who do believe that there are so many Terrorists trying to attack the U.S. even after a decade of supposedly killing them over and over, you might ask yourself: why are there so many people so eager to attack the U.S.?).“

Hmm, didn't the US (and UK) lie about NSA/GCHQ... and WMDs... and babies in incubators etc etc?

You're free to share the results of your research for all to see you know...

No, I'm just going to do what you always do; handwave, tell you to do your own research and add a coda of "makes you think, doesn't it." The truth is out there!

Here is an opinion:

What does that have to do with the image I'm discussing?

Hmm, didn't the US (and UK) lie about NSA/GCHQ... and WMDs... and babies in incubators etc etc?

What does that have to do with the image I'm discussing?

Can you tell us who gave the account you state?

Actually, don't answer that. It's just going to derail the discussion off into one of your flights of fancy and that's not the point. Forget I said anything.

Can you tell us who gave the account you state?

I can, yes, but I'm not going to. Can you cite a [i]credible[/i] source which asserts that the claim you made (three times) is correct, other than ones repeating CNN's initial report which they've since retracted?

Gah. Must not get drawn in. That's my last word on it.

Mr. Woppit a bit like yours then. For a start they could start preaching that it is wrong. 2 they could start informing on such parties you can't tell me that in such close communities they don't know who they are locally.
And as for researching this you shouldn't have too , I cannot recall the last time I have seen anyone from the Islamic faith denounce these acts on major public media, or is this because the media do not wish us to see it or the Islamic faith do not disagree with these acts.
Ill carry on waiting for this to be seen in the media.

Jesus wept jivehoneyjive, do you have to argue every bloody point just to shoehorn your conspiracy theories in? I find your questioning of the reality of the Parisian Cop being shot insensitive and insulting, and the way you're attempting to swerve Cougar's point that the picture you posted three times wasn't what you claimed is almost laughable. To a point, I think it's right to not always take things at face value, but come on man, you're taking this to a whole other level. Just accept that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's a fairly good chance that it is a ****ing duck!

And as for researching this you shouldn't have too , I cannot recall the last time I have seen anyone from the Islamic faith denounce these acts on major public media,

Well I could "reveal my sources", but then 1: I've already mentioned two examples and 2: I don't see why I should do your homework for you.

A bit like Cougar and the remarkably unfocused jivebunny.

Have a nice day.

What a bloody mallardy.

Quackery is everywhere...

To be fair, it's not important (in the grand scheme) whether that particular girl was injured in a drone strike, since she was only ever an emblem to represent all the civilians injured or killed in drone strikes. It's just arguing about detail and ignoring the actual point.

But, but,

[img] [/img]

(But yes, you're right.)

Damn and blast you Cougar. You've got me trying to think of more water fowl based puns now, when I'm fairly sure I have less interesting things to do.

Waddle it take?

I got nothing

Cougar and jive funny, earlier...

[img] [/img]

Most. Tenuous. Duck. Reference. Ever.

2 they could start informing on such parties you can't tell me that in such close communities they don't know who they are locally.

Yes every single muslim knows who all the terrorists are and exactly what they plan to do but they just dont tell. its either that or terrorists are a bit secretive and keep away from the moderates.

And as for researching this you shouldn't have too , I cannot recall the last time I have seen anyone from the Islamic faith denounce these acts on major public media,

What have you been doing for the last 5 days then?
and 10 seconds later of intensive googling

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-killings-arab-states-jihadi-extremist-sympathisers-isis ]Charlie Hebdo killings condemned by Arab states – but hailed online by extremists[/url]

Wunthahsand!

This thread has had some surprisingly right-wing comments for the citizens of the Socialist Republic of Singletrackworld.
It strikes me that some people are being reactionary.
If the STW massive continues to go to the right then I will be forced to cross-over to the left, as I like my own company.

It's on a higher plane.
[img] [/img]

I got nothing

Right, time to summon the bi-curious Muslim swan.

Well at least what Im having at the Chinese later tonight is sorted. Thanks chaps!

Ah the old ones are the best mitch - do you have a link to the thread by any chance?

If you look closely at woppits picture, you can see that the chap in the background is clearly wearing a mask, and has what looks like a gold tracksuit on under his uniform. He may also be smoking a cigar and sporting much golden jewellery. This would undoubtably explain Howard's startled / pained expression.

I don't JY. Can't even remember what started it - was it the guest house that refused to let the gay couple stay there?

Let's all kiss an make up

[img] [/img]

They can break your arm with their wing you know!

Here, I think.

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/christian-hotel-ruling/page/6#post-2196687

I don't think I've ever been referred to as the voice of reason before Cougar 🙂

This is a subject I feel very strongly about. We live in a free society because millions fought and died, and continue to do so, to grant us those rights. And free speech is central to that. I am free to say whatever I like, within clearly defined legal limits (so no incitement to hatred for example). These limits are set by our democratically elected government, and enforced by an open and accountable judicial system.

But we ALL enjoy those same hard-won freedoms. It is a universal right afforded to us ALL. So radical Islamic preachers are free to rail against Israel. Nick Griffin can spill his racist bile. Farage gets to rant his small minded untruths about Europe. There are all manner of unpleasant people poring forth all manner of stuff that all manner of people find offensive, including me.

But we all have to accept that as a price worth paying. There can be no exemptions. No matter how loudly, or violently, certain people protest. If we as a society bow to any one group, then we have surrendered one of the fundamentals of our society, and insulted the memory of those who won is these freedoms, at such a cost.

Let's all kiss an make up

Quick! that picture needs an inane cutesy phrase printed across it in white letters. Upload it to Facebook fast before a middle-aged woman with a fondness for cats does so before you!

There can be no exemptions

Binners, does that mean you disagree with the laws in Germany for people who deny the Holocaust?

In reality there are always going to be exemptions/exceptions, and the idea of a democracy with full freedom of speech is utopian.

Like I said: those limits are set, and clearly defined, by our democratically elected government, and enforced by a fair and open judicial system. As you would expect in a free society. So I'm happy with that. I accept that. So must everyone else.

You don't like it? Lobby your MP to change the law. Our laws are constantly changing and evolving anyway to reflect the society we live in.

Binners, does that mean you disagree with the laws in Germany for people who deny the Holocaust?

I certainly do, if people want to deny it and shout about it - fine
It gives others the perfect opportunity to rebuke it

I've given it all of 4 minutes to come up with a response to binners and all I can muster is "spot on".

But while I'm here I would also like to applaud the efforts of satirists everywhere, who follow a long and noble tradition stretching back to Hogarth and, earlier, the court jester.

Binners, does that mean you disagree with the laws in Germany for people who deny the Holocaust?

You don't like it? Lobby your MP to change the law. Our laws are constantly changing and evolving anyway to reflect the society we live in.

I don't trust the state to protect freedom of speech. I think we live in an interesting time, on the one hand we have governments and legal systems suppressing freedom of speech through a combination of legislation and political correctness.

Simultaneously the internet has created the largest 'public sphere' in human history.

i'd argue that as far as freedom of speech is concerned, modern means of communications mean that governments have less control than at any point in history. Obviously they don't like this. But in a democratic society there's very little, in the grand scheme of things, they can do about it.

And if the atrocity in Paris has done one thing, it's awoken us to the need to defend our hard won freedoms from those who would seek to limit them, whether that be governments of religious zealots

I agree binners, there is certainly a government vs internet war going on. That's why I am concerned about the reaction to the Paris Shootings, in how the government are going to use it to gain greater powers of surveillance.
So if say I am a government employee, and I say negative things about the state on the STW Forum, or about the running of the hospital where I work, all this can be tracked online by the state, who can then harm my job status/prospects etc. Infact, if I know they can snoop easily on me, I would probably resist from making those negative comments in the first place. Considering around 50% of the UK is employed in some capacity by the state, this would be a very worrying development.

Ironically (for the let's ban religion folk), religion provides probably the simplest solution here. The basic/central tenet of love thy neighbour/do unto others etc is the easiest way to avoid all this. Funny that....

I wonder why Clegg did not defend Dave Whelan's right (sic) to offend the Jews and Chinese. The Lib Dems were quite clear on that case, even writing letters about it. Which one is it nick?

The basic tenet of religion is kill the unbeliever. The love stuff only applies to fellow religionists.

The basic/central tenet of love thy neighbour/do unto others etc is the easiest way to avoid all this. Funny that....

You don't need to be religious to get that, humanists and atheists understand that as well.

I'm all for freedom of speech as long as we can make an exception for that Katie Hopkins off of the apprentice.

if I know they can snoop easily on me, I would probably resist from making those negative comments in the first place.

It's probably safest to do this anyway.

I never post anything online that I wouldn't want to be linked back to me, even in "private" forums, just in case. I also refrain from discussing personal situations except under exceptional circumstances.

Lots of people seem to forget themselves and act as though they're in a bubble. I often see Tweets / FB posts with vague passive-aggressive comments like "oh my god, I can't believe what she's done now, the bitch" and I just despair. It just creates tension and bad blood; half the people reading it are wondering what the juicy gossip is or are busy making up their own stories, the other half take it personally and wonder why this person is having a go at them.

If you put something out on the Internet, you really should be treating it as though it's in the public domain by default.

The basic tenet of religion is kill the unbeliever.

Never heard that on my Theology course, guess it's all a bit more simple than I realised.

Is it just me, or do all the religion is good vs religion is bad debates on here conjure up memories of sitting in the Sixth Form Block at School?

Indeed, some do Tom. Plenty of NT example of Jesus showing love to those made outcast by the secular society and to other religions too 5E.

And the ranking of love thy neighbour is pretty high on the priority list, isn't it?

I wonder why Clegg did not defend Dave Whelan's right (sic) to offend the Jews and Chinese.

Because they're both recognised as races rather than just a belief in the supernatural, and racial abuse is specifically covered in law?

Never heard that on my Theology course, guess it's all a bit more simple than I realised.

Judaism is both a race and a religion.

I suspect if he said something negative about non-Christian religious groups, he would also have been in trouble.

More likely that Whelan is a funder of the Tories.

But this is clearly inconsistent with his comments yesterday. And the LDs pointed to the fact that the comments were "offensive". So it's either a crystal clear as he tried to pretend yesterday or it's not. Interestingly uncle Vince was clearer and more honest than his leader on this.

So we have a letter that says

"I hope that you agree with me that these anti-Semitic and racist comments have no place in modern British society, and as such I hope that you also agree with me that you must now give up any money that you have received from Mr Whelan and consider which charitable groups would be better recipients of it.

"Failure to act swiftly in this matter will show a lack of leadership. It will not be possible for you to simultaneously condemn offensive remarks while accepting large sums of money from those responsible for them."

Note the distinction made between Jews and race here and comments on condemnation

Versus

"Here’s the bottom line, Omar, at the end of the day in a free society people have to be free to offend each other. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other. We have no right not to be offended.

"That fundamental principle of being free to offend people - and not saying somehow that you have a right not be offended in a democratic, open society such as ours is exactly what was under threat by these murderous barbarians.

Not as simple as Nick likes us think with his bottom line

The basic/central tenet of love thy neighbour/do unto others etc is the easiest way to avoid all this. Funny that....

Plenty of NT example of Jesus showing love to those made outcast by the secular society and to other religions too

Bit harder if to use the OT though to prove this
I am aware JC created anew covenant
FWIW revelations leads to the lord being a bit wrathful to the non believer [ and those who believed badly as well]

To be fair, "the bible" (and many other religions' central texts) and "plenty of examples" go hand in hand. I could probably use it to prove that the moon was made of cheese if I looked hard enough.

The problem (or indeed, the solution) isn't the source material, it's in its interpretation. So whether your personal agenda is to love thy neighbour or murder thy cartoonists you'll probably be able to find justification for your actions in your "good" books. And therein lies the rub, really.

He's watching you Junkyard. Watching you and gently hissing, raising a well manicured and ever so slightly limp wing with which to strike you in a flurry of sexually confused flaps.
Just putting it out there...

I have the strangest...

Strangest what Cougar? Strangest growth? Strangest attraction to a fat bald bloke from Yorkshire? Strangest urge to rush at people whilst hissing? I need answers dammit!

True, hence the reason why I highlighted one of the two commandments that certain religions consider to be the greatest. Difficult to trawl through all of it (I never have) so always a help if they have a "get started quickly" guide to get you going, hey?

Clegg is correct in one sense (my and Vince's view) re the clear and categorical claim starting "you cannot have freedom....."

Indeed you cannot and we do not. We have considerable restrictions on our freedom which "liberals" should be aware of. And the first casualty of terrorism is usually liberty/freedom.

I think one of the standout features of islam is how touchy it makes it's followers. Also christianity, to a slightly lesser extent.

As an atheist, I find the deference given to religion to be offensive. My reaction, however, is not to burn books, demonstrate with placards calling for the castration of the Salvation Army or shoot people.

You know - I think your beliefs are risible gibberish. O.K., so you're offended - and?

[img] [/img]