pap

I used to be an atheist. Back on the ol' agnosticism now. Don't get me wrong. I've no time for organised religion or whatnot. Just think that it's a bit arrogant for a 5'4" mush with a limited understanding of the universe to proclaim that there definitely isn't a god.

We'll miss you, Andy!

This is an interesting blog piece. It pre-dates this week's events, and features a slot on Charlie Hebdo. https://theflowerthrowers.wordpress.com/tag/charlie-hebdo/ The blog casts doubt on the idea of freedom of speech applying in all directions. Edit: Guardian article detailing Siné sacking from Charlie Hebdo. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/03/france.pressandpublishing

Completely trivial, but asked my Pakistani grandad what he thought about Love Thy Neighbour during the 1970s. Said he liked it, and that you had to be able to take a joke.

Took me ages, but I finally deciphered your cunning code

A small minority that control large parts of Syria and Iraq, previously (and perhaps still) funded by proxy by nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. Remember William Hague making the case for British troops to fight beside those attacking Assad? Our Al-Qaeda allies? Little happens in a vacuum.

It's an anagram!

I've been reading Germany: Memories of a Nation. It doesn't claim to be a history of Germany. Rather, it observes the country through its historical artefacts, be that architecture, literature or lost parts of the country. Fascinating book about a fascinating country. It's currently got me a little obsessed with Konigsgrad, the one-time seat of German royalty, now completely Russian, renamed Kalinigrad and part of an exclave. Definitely worth a look if you're interested in our Germanic cousins.

Big business getting involved now. Paypal founder becomes legal marijuana's biggest investor. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/08/cannabis-investor-peter-theil-paypal-founder

I don't take any buctootim criticism seriously, tbh. The bloke has been trying to diss me for years, yet only really manages to hurt himself. His attack on my appearance was glorious.

Answers strawman with more strawman. Contact the scientific community. Perpetual motion machines are possible, as long as they produce shít.

I take it your anger detection skills are sourced from the same place as your "empty platitude" detection skills.

Again, strawman nonsense. Where did I say that the case should have received the same level of attention? Get better or go home, Tim.

So you keep saying, but the opposite is true. When challenged, you run away. See the Israel and Gaza thread. Still waiting for instances where I've been "frequently wrong" about that.

You're arguing a point I never made. Was it, or was it not, a record haul of bomb-making chemicals? If you have something to dispute there, fair play. Otherwise, stop being a useless contrarian. The underlying point being made is that Islamic terrorism is prioritised on news agendas. It's not even the number one cause of terrorism in Europe.

Google better, Tim. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jul/31/ukcrime.thefarright

His point is well made though. This case sticks in the memory too. http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/uk-white-supremacist-bomb-factory.html Largest haul of bomb-making chemicals in the UK. Two white supremacists arrested. Barely reported.

Anger? Nah. I'm intrigued as to your expertise on the matter. I'm sure the intelligence services would be very interested in someone that can gauge the opinions (empty or not) of all Muslims. Is it just Muslims, or can you do others as well? The likely answer is you're doing the usual trick of making ignorant, unsubstantiated and fearful remarks. If you don't have any basis for your point, that's fine. Just wanted to point it out. Again.

Who the fúck are you to dismiss what someone has come out and said? How do you know these are empty platitudes? In one sense, it's encouraging. Typically you have to have everything explained to you. I'd like to encourage this new found confidence in expressing your opinions. Can you show us your working out? If that's your standard, give it up. I doubt that there are many religious organisations that'd be prepare to vilify their most sacred figures just to look good. To quote the great Cap'n Mal, my days of not taking you seriously are at a middle.

First, 10/10 for the strawman attempt. I believe that Sour Mash was asking everyone to explain the contents of a Stop The War article, seemingly indecipherable unless imperfectly regurgitated by a member of the SaintsWeb collective. My points on this thread have consistently been about the dangers of generalising against an entire faith based on the actions of its most extreme adherents. Foreign policy has helped to drive that, increased the number of extremists and created power vacuums that have allowed organisations like ISIS to thrive, elements of which were funded by proxy by Western interests. The journalists and cartoonists may have been the specific focus, but this was a highly symbolic attack with broader motives than avenging a cartoon or as shurlock suggests, the content of a speculative history fiction book.

Serious questions don't usually come with insults attached. Interesting choice of swear filter avoidance, btw.

Linked the original source on this site before, so it is. The US state department even acknowledged the offer, but they didn't consider it serious, apparently. Probably because the hawks wanted to carve up the Middle East.

Indeed. I think that one of the most worrying things about some of the comments on here, and indeed, much of the way the threat is covered, is that they have no historical context whatsoever. People forget that we lived alongside Muslims for over 45 years before 9/11, and while we've had isolated incidents of terrorism from Islamic countries, these have usually been state sponsored. I'm talking the shootings outside the Libyan embassy, Lockerbie, etc. Prior to the open invitation of the 1990s for extreme Islamic groups to move to Londonistan, I'd never heard of radicalisation or home-grown Islamic terrorism. I can't remember people being that arsed about Muslims in particular, and I keep an ear out for that sort of thing. Ignorant c**ts would use "Paki" as a catch all term for anyone brown, but targeted criticism toward Islam itself? Nope. The forebears of IS were heroes in the 1980s when they were giving the Bear a bloody nose in Afghanistan, being supplied by the US via Pakistan. Even during the first Gulf War, there was no general briefing against Muslims. There was no need, the action was seen as both legitimate and limited. Kuwait was liberated, but Bush Snr famously didn't finish what he started. Now you can get away with being a liberator. Hell, there are even some perks. Invasion is a different matter, particularly since both invasions were unnecessary, pre-planned, and proven to be based on a crock of shít. Invading Afghanistan was never a pre-requisite for bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. The Taleban were willing to hand him over before the invasion started. We all know the complete tissue of lies Iraq turned out to be, completely fabricated to serve a pre-existing agenda. Over a million have died as a result of that policy. With those numbers, it is inevitable that many of those left behind are going to have hardened attitudes toward the West, and that some of those are already going to be in the West, subject to the racial profiling and casual harassment that our mainstream media seems to have encouraged and legitimised. Cause and effect. Only really discernible with that historical context, innit?

STW's take:- http://stopwar.org.uk/news/paris-massacre-lessons-that-need-to-be-learned-by-our-war-making-governments