Guan 2.0

German women, Austrian women, Danish Women, and Swedish women, being raped and sexually abused. That's just the crimes that have come out in the last week. It's a bit more than 'having their arses groped'. The choice to do that has nothing to do with us living comfortable or 'Cushty' lives as you put it, and they, nor do we bear not encourage the blaming of victims for the for the crimes of others.

FootballItalia posted that story 5 minutes after I did! The info didn't stay in the club very long at all!

Don't be surprised to see part of the money we've saved on Caulker go into his pay off (it's been hinted at to me)

The kind of result that warms you on a wet and cold night!

If you are going to use the numbers provided by Rape crisis, you should also list the criticisms of their methodology they use in coming to their collusions. They don't actually count the numbers of rape victims in the UK, so saying that approx 85,00 and 12000 men are raped is just a best guess. They in fact use the accounts of women who have been raped, and often those who have supported them through therapy and recuperation, and extrapolate the numbers of women raped across the population from there. The problem with this is that they are tainting their results by using a biased (statistically speaking) source, and then presenting it as the everyday experience of all women. Asking a Rape victim if she has ever been raped, and her support network if they know of any woman who has ever been raped, is only ever going to provide one answer, and it presents a distorted view when submitted as a blanket conclusion. Also, counting individual rapes as rape victims. If a woman is raped by a violent male figure (who she feels unable to escape) 30 times in a week, then she has been raped 30 times, that is not 30 victims that need to be extrapolated up across the study. And while the statistics on reported rapes used by Rape Crisis were from 2013, a number of the papers used to provide evidence for attitudes towards rape were published in 2005 and earlier. Given that these studies can take 2-6 years to complete before publishing we are talking about studies that may not have even been conducted this side of the millennium, and therefore would not pass modern scholastic standards on Confirmation bias and illusory correlation. Looking closer, some of the sources used from 2007 onwards are little more than review papers of others much earlier work. These are just some of the reasons that the Rape Crisis numbers are not given more attention by the Public, Media, and Government, and unfortunately, is also used by some to diminish the traumatic process that many rape survivors go through. I also support those who argue that the Government should fund a full study under academic standards, rather than an NGO with little accountability. But the new issue facing Northern and Western Europe today is the willingness of some from Asia and Africa to become part of organised gangs that prey on young European woman, looking to Rape and abuse them, at the same time as robbing them of their valuables and self-worth. And unfortunately it was not inevitable, as the Finnish Police force's proactive approach proved. This could have been averted, and it is strange that when discussing this, the fact that the culture of some of the offenders host nation posits that a women and her testimony are worth 1/2 or 1/4 of a man's (depending if you prefer the Qur'an or Hadith) and that unaccompanied women are seen as incapable of being raped, is never mentioned by policy makers.

(Information that has been passed on starts) Not just Les Reed. We are a club with multiple departments, all of which are talented in collating and reviewing information, and making recommendations based on that information. In the past, how much attention players pay to their reviews has been a good indicator to the expected level of future commitment (Lallana). At the moment, our reviews are pointing to a number of worrying factors. We are not playing to the clubs preferred formation, despite purchasing players identified as being able to do so. Our training regimes are very segregated, and our post match analysis software is pointing to mistakes being repeated time after time. The path from the youth team to the first has been apparently shut, and those parents who advised their children to choose SFC over other suitors for reasons of development and who were already angry being misled, are now furious over Koeman's public statement on the subject. SFC is not an unfeeling corporate machine, and in times of goals aplenty and top eight places there is leeway on our methods, but given that most departments have voiced concerns over the direction and atmosphere of the first team, and those who are seemingly barred from joining it, adding to Koeman's unwillingness to commit and our horrific run of results (Information that has been passed on end) I would not be surprised if anything less than 6 points in the next 2 games sees Ronald stay until the summer. I am waiting on confirmation, but i enquired as to whether feelers have been put out over a new manager as of yet.

I can't speak for anyone else on this thread, but I that borders should not be shut completely unless there is a national crisis in place. Instead, I would prefer conditionally open or controlled borders, as is the norm in this country. I wish we had the infrastructure to lift more from the shelter zones, as one thing i agree with the Government on is helping those individuals who are most at risk and in the greatest peril. However, as someone who is left of centre socially an politically, it was not hard to see problems arising. Preliminary reports by the UN and the EU into the origin and demographics of the 2015 migration showed that a fair proportion of those entering Europe (and others, such as Slavs from inside Europe), were not from Syria, or indeed from active areas of conflict. It also showed a skewed proportion of young men without a higher education. But the message Promoted by Western and Northern Europe leaders was one of weel educated, helpless refugees fleeing conflict, in contradiction to their own evidence, and this was treated as dogma when engaging with the Press and existing population of Europe. The first major schism from the fabricated reality arose when these peaceful refugees started using violence (inwardly and outwardly) to regularly break the rule of law (including the same law they were seeking shelter under), destroying documents, and demanding access to countries with the best benefit package. I have every sympathy with those in Syria living under fear of death, and those who have made it to safety. I have nothing but contempt for those who have used abuse, intimidation and extortion to break into Europe, and now seek to visit every kind of violence upon its citizens, nor those who would mask their crimes. P.S. I am not suggesting you are the one masking any crime!

Nope, not sore about anything, as you have already shown you don't care for precedents or real world examples. Never let it be said you aren't a special case SOG, so just for you, and assuming you cannot fathom even base material, here is a breakdown of posts, just for you. Exhaustive in every sense of the word. P.S. Before i forget, congrats on derailing the thread again. Feel good about yourself. How are we getting closer to the 'Trump' question? Do you questioning the current policies wants to Ban all Muslims? Do you think this is a binary choice? As in a border is either open or closed with no measure in-between? Where does Batman say all countries should close their borders? Where does he go on to say borders should be closed to everyone? So as you see SOG, there are many 'False positions' above which you project on to batman as if they were his own. They were in fact, imagined by you, seemingly in response to questions never asked. So in my post, I answered those questions on batman's behalf, albeit in a sardonic manner, using the only examples of reply he could give which would slightly match the implied position. I know you find it hard to keep up SOG, so we'll recap. Batman was bemoaning the abuses visited upon young woman in Cologne, you then posted a reply that implied he was nearing Donald Trump's Idealogical policy sphere, and that he wanted to close all borders to everyone, and then I provided the only quotes that would make sense of your reply in any way, admittedly with an air of acerbic flourish. Oh and the Straw refers to the idea of the Strawman fallacy, but let's play along and pretend you can't comprehend that. So, now we have the previous posts in context, on to your most recent diatribe. More fun for all on this thread. It's strange, for all the others on this thread, no matter their viewpoint, there is only a general of confusion coming from you. It's almost as if you deliberately misunderstand world-views, and ignore or alter those opinions that do not agree with you. Well the paragraphs above are a breakdown of all the posts, so even you can go one line at a time and catch up. And here we have it, the crux of your online persona, which so closely resembles that of a troll. . Nothing is nuanced, there are no shades of Grey, just one of two options. If you disagree with the manner in which SOG assumes something, you must be in sympathy of the most extreme option. Why do you guess? Why not pick up on cues in the text (primary level stuff btw, and that's a fact, not an insult). When I wrote about "Controlled borders and conditionally open borders" in the very reply you are mentioning, did you even consider it, for a second? You say you've read it twice, which can only mean you filter out multifaceted approaches to situations at hand. Basic knowledge of differing solutions to a problem are key to any discussion, and if you want to debate someone on their stance, it's best to have rudimentry awareness beyond a two-choice paradigm. It's nice of to to couch your language as one who is offended. Yes, despite your best efforts to spam the board in your little war of attrition with misconceptions and false assumptions, quite literally boring people off, I will continue to post when you pull 'facts' from nowhere. How very dare I! Again, no. You asked for other examples of atrocities that have had such media coverage, I listed Spanish civil war, Vietnam war, Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, First World War and 'The falling man' on September 11th just off the top of my head as historical precedent, and provided images. You ignored their validity and just made the bizarre complaint that we hadn't talked about them on the thread, unwilling to admit the fact that had those subject been the topics of discussion, then doubtless they would have been brought up. Enjoy your night. And my regrets to the rest of the posters who had to read this.

Just going over yet another one of your posts, where you've invented a position to argue against, and claimed someone is proposing something they haven't actually given backing to, and given the quotes which would justify it as anywhere near your interpretation. It's a simple device to show how ludicrous your post was. Most people would comprehend this, but I know you like to play dumb(er?) in situations like this. P.S. "What is it you're are talking Guan? You might want to review the dosage" makes no sense. Did you mean taking? If so, ironic from a man who sees non-existent arguments everywhere.

Yes that's exactly what he said. Exactly that. Batman stated (and I'm sure you can quote him) "There is a binary choice when it comes to borders. Open or closed. Those are the only two options. Controlled borders and conditionally open borders are concepts which no global organisations have recognised as a concept or term and have been around since the the introduction of borders as we understand them today. I love Donald Trump and agree with everything he says. One thing I can't grasp is that I sometimes feel like I'm made of straw". Doomed by his own words.

Lack of clarity over his own future from Koeman himself - the club cannot be expected to delay that when the results are so bad.

And to ring in the New Year, ISIS Murder Five men and promise fresh attacks on Britain. Now featuring young indoctrinated paramilitaries. The whole thing is available on zero censorship, though I would caution against viewing. Extremely disturbing.

More likely to be escorted out.

Of course you don't. You have a viewpoint on all current affairs, and a job that leaves you bored, but when it come to areas of the country where extremely high rates of child abuse have taken place, garnering widespread and high profile coverage, and debated in parliament and police reform inquests, but the issue must have just passed you by. Perhaps you were looking the other way that week. Oh, and you haven't googled anything about it scince it's been mentioned. It's almost ludicrous enough to make me refuse to answer the rest of your fanciful little diatribe, but it does seem like that's what you wish for, so here goes. Of course my friend, of course. I'm also willing to believe that Hillsborough means only the home of Sheffield Wednesday to you, and Trojan Horse is only associated with Troy in your mind. But hell, i'll bite and cut and paste the exact order of words you typed into your response, but somehow neglected to google http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Rotherham%2C+Rochdale%2C+Oxford+ only the 900,000 results for 5 seconds of effort, so it was obviously just a small local news thing, eh? Fella? Why not end it with 'Pal' and use the full on lexicon of The Sun? As I posted earlier, the display of images that show the aftermath of unjustified slaughter and mayhem are regrettably the only way to convey the full savagery of the perpetrators, and the right to show them has been fought for by those who would not see the Truth censored. The Falling Man (September 11th Attacks), The Falling Soldier (Spanish Civil War) and Phan Thi Kim Phuc (Vietnam war) (the young girl famously running burnt and naked from a napalm air strike attack on her village) are just three such examples. The press fought for and won the right to broadcast the utter inhumanity shown to the victims of the Rwandan Genocide. The holocaust was denied until the unfiltered images came out of the concentration camps. The Bataclan photo is just as necessary, no matter how difficult it is to look at. Top marks for shifting the onus to those who inform others of atrocities, from those who carry them out. The uncensored truth matters, especially during a open and frank discussion on the aftermath of the Paris massacre, whether that's on a subforum or elsewhere. But I know you don't actually care about any of that, and were just trying to get in a cheap dig because someone called you on trivialising targeted child abuse by pretenting you had never heard of it in named areas of the country, or subsequently taken 5 seconds to google the areas mentioned to you. You made untrue allegations about other poster's remarks, and when I and others reposted or pointed to the post numbers and it was shown they did not say anything of the sort, you ignored it and carried on regardless. This thread has all the posts still if you want to go back and look. But I realise if more than one person points this out they are a bully. There is more than one family with fifteen children, in the world that is. What does this have to do with anything?

No, I generally don't get a bee in my bonnet about anything, I just dislike those who spam threads endlessly hoping that if they repeat the same phrases ad nauseum, people will get tired of the onslaught and leave the thread, or think "Hmm, didn't agree with the argument the first hundred times, but the second century really knocked my existing beliefs for six". As for Ideology, if there's a god of serial contrarians who fancy themselves iconoclasts, then surely you worship at his alter. You say you resent being called a troll, yet in the run up to military strikes in Syria you were happy to invent phrases and positions that other posters had not expressed, and then argued against them. Most damning of all, just 4 posts previously, you wrote this: As amusing as your flippant response might be to you, I'm not sure the victims of horrific gang-rape, long term beatings and burnings would find your feigned ignorance as humorous. And you have the gall to bring up taste and decency about a factual account of a massacre, presented without editing for reasons of verity?

It's always so trying with you... 1. When did I call you a 'Leftie'? 2. When did I say anything about Harman? 3. When did I talk about segregated meetings? 4. If those comments aren't addressed to me, why mention them in reply to my post?

I can't tell if SOG is a deluded but principled individual, ignoring reason in favour of an idealogical standpoint, or a network of trolls operating a parody account.

Indeed. The UK and other NATO signatories are reported to be back-channelling with Russia even as I type. It's a blatant attempt by Turkey to split the permanent members of security council along cold war lines, as recent events had forged a loose understanding. That, and Turkey has been unable to funnel as many supplies, men, and ISIS Oil Drums back and forth across the border.

Initial reports suggest a bank robbery. Nothing concrete thus far.

Daily Mail accused of paying for, and then destroying, CCTV evidence of attacks on the Cafe district. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/24/daily-mail-cctv-video-paris-attack Absolutely deplorable stuff, even more so because its an actual accusation backed up by plausible collation of sources, and not a sly rhetorical device used to detract from an atrocity, plucked from thin air.

I see that you have chosen to use feigned ignorance as a shield against criticism. Very well. You knew that you couldn't openly question the authenticity of the images, it is a photo taken in the aftermath after all. So instead you make grubby accusations without any basis, hoping to taint it, as when you said: "I do wonder however just how those pictures became such public property? If some official gave them to the media and some money changed hands ... well then I would hope that most on here would agree that this would be distasteful - to put it mildly". This after claiming that no-one needed to see the photo. Good of you to decide for everyone that it was unnecessary and off-limits. "Others may feel that publishing/broadcasting images of the Paris massacre victims (for example) is both offensive and unnecessary - afterall we do very well know what happened without having to see it. " Attempted stealth censorship and denigration at its, well, not finest - but certainly its most sloppy and self satisfied. An Image that i CHOSE to post on here? How very dare I. By the way, you can just say "mountain from a molehill", but i know your posts are thin on actual content. It's strange, your idle thoughts look just like the attempts of a derogatory mind making grubby insinuations about materials which show the full scale of an atrocity that you've spent the thread equivocating about, in which anybody viewing it might then unconsciously associate it with being a form of paid propaganda, rather than a visual witness statement. Again, a well known and hollow rhetorical device. Ironically the painting you that you chose to post to depict Christian violence, Le massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy by François Dubois, was created by a man who was not verified as being present for the event, but did lose a relative to it. But I guess important issues like neutrality and veracity of information don't matter as much when you post images, as much as half baked aspersions do when others who disagree with you, post material that clashes with your viewpoint. How about a police officer who shared the image? Or does that description sit ill with you, as your language puts the source in the realm of bureaucracy and paid informers and/or terrorists. In fact, the image is a snap shot on a mobile phone, not any high resolution crime scene photo, so your allegation doesn't hold water on that front, and the image has since been shared freely across social media and websites, before being picked up and censored by the mainstream media, so monetization seems unlikely if not impossible. You are looking to establish unreasonable points based on a flawed presumption. You have spent a thread based around the reporting of, political and personal response to, and proposed reaction to a carefully orchestrated and pitiless massacre, carried out by a De Facto state that enforces Islamofacist ideals, by posting images of Nazi apparel and 16th century paintings when posters were discussing modern Christian equivalents to ISIS, desperately trying to lessen the debate by sniping at various posters and trying to jam other threads into this one, derailing the topic by likening disreputable and unsubstantiated hypotheticals to points of order that must be addressed, and trying to detract from the main discussion by creating side issues where there are none. Despite this, you somehow seek to present up as the great iconoclast, or worldly (or should that be wordy?) arbiter of virtue. Which, given your actual contribution to the conversation thus far, is staggering.

As Stalin is oft quoted as saying (most likely inaccurately), "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic". History has shown us that the higher the death toll, the harder it is for the public at large find to to truly comprehend the depths to which oppressors, murderers, and torturers will sink to achieve their aims. ?You make the claim that . But the truth is in the Image that coveys the horror in one shot, not a description that may be edited for reason of decency, or use poetic reflection to disguise the scope of the carnage in fear of causing 'distress'. No words can aspire to encapsulate the unforgiving reality of the 'Bataclan Photo'. This is pretty poor fare. The position you're trying to use as a reason to invalidate the image is nothing more than a hypothetical scenario you've conjured up from thin air. This is not the first time a false stance has been suggested, that detracts from the known facts of the massacre on this thread, but I would hope it is the last. After the Lockerbie Bombing, the photographer who captured the immediate aftermath and the effect on the local population received no remuneration after his Photos were wired out and used in papers worldwide. He never chased it up, as he reconsigned exactly what it was he was portraying, and that it was what the world needed to see. During the First World War, Mail sent home was censored, and D-Notices were used to suppress any images that the government found 'Unhelpful', usually any that the depicted the monstrosity of the Western Front, or repugnant conditions it was fought in, and the levels of inhumanity needed to survive. Images had to be smuggled, and this led to a widespread ignorance of the War and its toll on the veterans who returned, especially concerning shell shock, and what we would today classify as 'PTSD'. Ironically, after these lessons from history, there are sections of the public and the media arguing that we should protected from 'harmful' news and media. For what ultimate purpose, I won't speculate. But it does remind me the instructions (particularly #6) given to prisoners of the Khmer Rouge during the Vietnam war and Cambodian Genocide at Security Prison 21.

Your statement is full of contradictions. You say that your main point is about how effective the strikes are perceived as, then say it depends on the fact that the strikes don't work if civilians are harmed. You then seemingly believe that that the opinion of Ayman (not his real name) that Is not pertinent information, despite being a voice from an activist who risked his life to provide the information, and it showing the strikes were targeted against military targets (I have no information yet about any possible collateral damage), and that at the time of his report, ISIS members had been killed and not civilians. You somehow claim You had started your comment to which you attached the link and quotes with But in spite of that statement, you either copy and pasted around the information from ground sources, or copied the whole text and decided to delete it, despite it meeting your own criteria on western forces targeting the correct people. You then end taking a cheap parting shot by asking which part of "The west having to tread carefully in any military actions in the middle east do you disagree with?", possibly to hide the fact you had just tried to cover your deliberate excision of relevant information, and subsequent confused attempt at re-definition. All this despite the fact i had said nothing of the sort, or alluded to it. I've noticed this tactic of obfuscation and deflection, and the attempt to create a non-existent opinion to argue against, so I'll ask again A) Who has said we shouldn't tread carefully in any military actions in the middle east? B) Do you believe that information from ground sources on Civilian casualties is relevant to the perception from ground sources and civilians or not? C) If you do believe it is relevant, why copy around it when you present your argument?

Wow. That's some pretty selective editing. I've restored the section in blue that mentions the targeted strikes by the coalition (including France) which the Syrian activists proclaim have not targeted civilians, but have killed ISIS members. Inexplicable that you somehow skipped the section directly between the two paragraphs in your copy-paste, as if it didn't fit the framing of the viewpoint you were advocating for. A) Who has said we should bomb every town in Syria? B) Who has said that making 'Piles of bodies' is a solution to the current wave of attacks? C) If you are referring to the French Air Force bombing the ISIS Stronghold and de facto capital of Raqqa, are you equating targeted strikes on military strikes, to the picture above where concert goers and civilians where subjected to torture and slow slaughter in the name of religion? D) If you're not actually using false equivocation, then why make such facetious remarks on a thread discussing a massacre, unless you wish to derail it or create a false position to argue against? E) Why do you advocate for the suppression of an image that shows the true cost of a massacre against concert goers by religious fanatics, and claim it is due to respect for the victims, when earlier you suggested immediate negotiations with people who use execution and torture as a day-to-day function of Government. Given that dead had not been buried yet, do you not think that this insensitive to the injured and families of the dead F) If you don't advocate this, do you believe that the only acceptable images and articles are those that pursue a pretence of feigned normalcy? Are you saying that when the public see images of Massacres they are just 'gawping', and not in fact, trying to understand the extent of brutality and inhumanity visited upon a group of concert-goers, and by extension, the level of future violence that threatens all those who do not obey the tenet of Islamic state? When we were undertaking our module on 'International relations and conflicting Crises' we had two experts, one from BBC North West, the other a Journalist during the Rwandan Genocide. The Journalist spoke of the frustration of those on the ground, as they were unable to convey the true levels of depravity taking place, as the Government of the day argued that their reports were 'Unpleasant'. Despite an eventual relaxing of the rules (bodies were able to be shown face down with bloodstains, but wounds were a no-no, the journalist called this pose 'False sleepers'). Due to understanding that was reached under Chatham house rules, and with help from sympathetic regulators, these rules were pushed and eventually broken. The BBC director mentioned hat after the Second World War, people were in denial over the atrocities committed by the Nazi's until they saw the mountains of naked, rotting bodies that had been left in their wake. He wished that there was a recognition of this fact in upper management of all the broadcasters in this era, as people do not bleed pixelated blood when you slice their stomach open, and their heads to not automatically blur when you shoot a bullet through them. Which is what some would have portrayed, rather than show the reality of the massacre , which happened only six (6 )days ago.