CHAPEL END CHARLIE

As has been mentioned above the NATO Treaty - to which Turkey is a signatory - explicitly mandates the concept of mutual defence. Article 5 of The North Atlantic Treaty: So Putin will no doubt milk this incident for all its worth. He will threaten and cajole and few sabres will be left unrattled. However, he is highly unlikely to really do much because if he were to launch a retaliative attack on Turkey then the consequences for Russia (and everyone else) would be enormous.

Yet more graphic images of violence I'm afraid - but this time from the mean streets of Chicago rather than Paris: The ''dashcam'' video is silent, but note that the (black) teenager involved in this appalling 2014 incident doesn't appear to present any kind of immediate threat and is perhaps killed simply for not following police instructions while holding a knife. Please also note that after falling to the ground the policeman then continues to shoot the (now defenceless) 17 year-old as he lays there bleeding. Atypically, the officer concerned has actually been charged with 'First Degree Murder' by the DA. However, despite the evidence it seems that the prospects of a conviction remain very much a 'open question' at this time given the past record of similiar prosecutions in the USA.

History shows us that restless young men going away to fight in other peoples wars is a recognisable phenomenon that we see repeated time and time again - think the International Brigades and the Spanish Civil War for example. Why on earth a few British-Muslim families - mum, dad, old folk, children and all - should think it desirable to relocate to a warzone as manifestly dangerous as Syria is at this time remains rather less easy to understand.

I went out and saw 'The Dressmaker' yesterday evening. A film so very strange that I really don't know what to make of it in all honesty! But if I said that this movie is one of those ''once seen, never forgotten'' experiences you sometimes encounter in the cinema then that will have to suffice for the time being at least. PS - that Kate Winslet is a lovely thing

The most important 2015 SDSR development is I think acquiring new Boeing P8 'Poseidon' maritime patrol aircraft. The decision to scrap this vital capability, back in the 2010 SDSR, was a shockingly bad one that should never have been even contemplated. Retaining more (tranche 1) Typhoon aircraft in RAF service is also welcome - the old plan to reduce the air force to a mere six fast jet squadrons was rather worrying. The stated aim to ultimately order over a hundred F-35 fighter aircraft is pushed so far into the (unpredictable) distant future as to be virtually meaningless. Although I note the promise of a cheaper frigate type is offered, I'm less happy to learn that the Royal Navy's vital Type 26 programme is to be FURTHER delayed and reduced in scale to just eight hulls now. Ordering more (virtually useless from a warfighting perspective) OPV's just in order to keep the Scottish yards busy in the meantime is perhaps the worst outcome of this SDSR. The cost of renewing our nuclear deterrent is now estimated to be at least some £31bn - thirty one thousand million pounds! A eye-watering pile of cash by any measure. As for the Army, its disappointing to see that overall manpower numbers remain unaltered and details are lacking on how these new 'strike' brigades will effect its existing force structure. However, the renewed emphasis on supporting our Special Forces is probably wise given the situation we face.

How uncharacteristically gracious of you - I'll make a Gentleman of you yet. But I'll probably wait until I have something to apologise for before offering you one.

If you are feeling a certain touch on your shoulder tonight CB, well that will be the 'Hand That Mocks You' that Percy Shelly so memorably wrote about a little while ago.

Well that post was from yesterday, and as you are still on here tonight desperately trying to wiggle out of it, then ''continue to argue'' seems a pretty fitting description of your behaviour on here. But when you find yourself 'in a hole' you should carry on digging is my advice to you ... your contortions are afterall at least amusing me on a night when there is nothing worth watching on the TV.

I'm more than happy to oblige you CB. You will deny it - of course you will - but methinks any fair minded observer is bound to conclude from this contribution that you are here at least attempting to suggest that Christians are less prone to acts of mass violence than Muslims are. If you didn't think that then please explain why you asked the question in the first place?

As you should very well know from previous conversations we have had, I'm always more than happy to discuss the actual evidence because ''the truth shall set you free'' as someone once wrote in a interesting old book. Indeed, I stand ready to do so now if you have an factual contribution you want to make.

I must say that your postings tonight are becoming increasingly erratic and bad tempered. You did post a challenge yesterday that, lets face it, you thought would be far more difficult to answer than the record shows it subsequently became. That (ill-advised if I may say so) post does reveal the mindset you bring to this debate I think - i.e. you really believe that Muslims are more inclined to acts of mass violence. That's aright, you may not be the only person on here who thinks this way - whether they express their true view openly or not. But to deny the obvious does your case no favours at all.

If I come across as 'superior' then that was not my intent. The trouble is that I tend to argue cases on the evidence and some on here take offence (too easily I sometimes think) at having their assumptions challenged. They should probably try to relax a bit more.

So you don't have any actual examples of this alleged ''misrepresenting'' I have supposedly been engaged in then.

I just checked, and I'm pleased to report that my old body shows no signs of being ''ripped apart'' that are immediate obvious. I'm also sorry that my efforts have not impressed you so far. Apart from not sharing my opinion, what is it exactly that you are objecting to?

Well I'm sorry to see that you have abandoned argument in favour of silliness so early this time. But I'm sure that if you really strain the old 'grey matter' to the limit then you should be capable of summoning up some kind of point.

Again too vague. You need to specify which specific conversation you are referring to and I will then address the point.

Well it seems clear that yesterday at least you doubted that Christians were as liable of conducting 'massacre' type behaviour as Muslims are. But if you can summon some alternative explanation that paints you in a better light - one that is remotely plausible that is - then by all means do so.

It means exactly what it says and I'm sure everyone agrees that extremism - from whatever source - is indeed a serious problem confronting the world today.

Please specify where in this thread exactly I have deliberately misrepresented something you have posted.

Sorry, but being naturally inclined towards an interest in history I tend to look at the world from what might be described as a 'longer term' historical perspective, rather than reacting only to yesterdays headlines. But 'each to his own' as they say!

Unfortunately you have immediately invalidated this post by including the words ''sensibly minded'' and ''Fry and Hypo'' in the same sentence.

But you are - I think - despite arguing the toss all day now telling this forum that you don't think that Muslims intrinsically hold a higher potential for violence than other faiths do. But only yesterday you were busy on here issuing challenges daring others to name massacre incidents that Christian were responsible for. I put it to you that the implications of that post are clear enough and indicative of your true mindset.

Again, that is kind of a 'narrow' point given the long - and on going - history of multi-faith violence in the world.

Careful - that post was directed at CB not you. Please reassure this forum that you are two different people aren't you?

But you so seldom clarify anything. Your regular tacit on here is to avoid answering reasonable questions - such as the one I asked you this morning - or some bogus pretence that your have been misrepresented in some way. This latter behaviour being more than a little 'rich' by the way given your posting history.