Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

Typical Goatboy drivel.

That's the spirit!

I'm just here to snipe at others like the rest.

if that is the case, how come you have posted almost 3x as much as the next person

That's rich.

That's rich.

But accurate.

There is one group of people who deserve to be listened to more than anyone in or about Syria: Syrian civilians. They are the pawns in all this: barrel-bombed from their homes by Assad's helicopters, brutalised and murdered by IS, and now hated by elements in Europe and the US as they attempt to escape an impossible situation, not unlike those who clung to the outside of the upper floors of the twin towers on 9/11.

Fortunately, the voice of Syrian civilians are starting to be heard. Here is one of them, Abu Mohamed, the leading figure in the remarkable citizen-journalist organisation Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently.

He gave a speech to the Dutch parliament earlier this month. Allowing for the fact that he is speaking in a second language, it is not crystal-clear expression of a view I've heard many times from Syrian civilian groups: that Assad and IS have colluded to destroy people's lives. He is also frighteningly prescient about what happened in Paris, predicting a major attack on a European city by IS fanboys.

It's worth a read - and certainly more so than the petty squabbling on here.

http://www.raqqa-sl.com/en/?p=1529

Heartbreaking, Verbal. What a brave man.

A reminder of what a powerful tool the internet has been for civilian power.

Heartbreaking, Verbal. What a brave man.

 

A reminder of what a powerful tool the internet has been for civilian power.

Indeed, Lou. I also think his speech and his twitter feed points to a military strategy that the West can adopt that would actually do something to protect the Syrian civilian population. A rigorously enforced no-fly zone would take Assad's barrel-bombing helicopters out of the sky. The bombs are not dropped on IS-held territory, and are used exclusively against civilian populations.

A no-fly policy, therefore, would be a military action with a clear humanitarian aim. It needn't be the only spoke to the wheel, and it doesn't deal with IS - but it's sad that this idea has gained no traction at all so far, let alone discussion, among Western powers active in Syria/Iraq.

The other thing to consider with barrel bombs is that many of them are dropped on some of the most extraordinary historical sites in the world, including world heritage sites. The citadel and the souk in Aleppo for example, which are both World Heritage sites, have been, respectively, severely damaged and completely destroyed. I've been to both, and they were unforgettable places. Heaven knows what can be done now to restore them. Syrians themselves drew enormous pride from their architectural and archaeological heritage, which is second to none. Assad and IS, on the other hand, are an alliance intent on destroying not only lives but the physical world of ordinary people.

And in case someone feels the need to reach for that tiresome meme of 'it was the West wot done it', the Assad family has form on this. Hama in central Syria was once the preserve of a beautiful system of medieval water wheels, which are now of course in ruins. In 1984, Hama was also the location of a huge massacre of civilians by Assad senior. Most of the bodies were dumped in a mass grave, as I discovered too late. On our first night in the city a few years ago, we were directed by our government minder (a spy, basically) to stay in a luxury hotel in Hama called the Sham Palace. It was completely deserted, and I asked why. The guide fell silent. Our Palestinian driver quietly told us the reason the following day. The hotel was built on top of the mass grave, as an insult to the victims and their families of the Assad massacre. No one but Assad's entourage and outsiders were permitted to stay there. We had inadvertently colluded in humiliating the city's people. It's still chilling to think of that incident.

Anything that relieves the suffering of a people who do not want to be refugees - who do not want to leave a place they deeply love, and who desperately want to rebuild it - would be a huge step.

I doubt it'll happen.

Indeed, Lou. I also think his speech and his twitter feed points to a military strategy that the West can adopt that would actually do something to protect the Syrian civilian population. A rigorously enforced no-fly zone would take Assad's barrel-bombing helicopters out of the sky. The bombs are not dropped on IS-held territory, and are used exclusively against civilian populations.

 

A no-fly policy, therefore, would be a military action with a clear humanitarian aim. It needn't be the only spoke to the wheel, and it doesn't deal with IS - but it's sad that this idea has gained no traction at all so far, let alone discussion, among Western powers active in Syria/Iraq.

 

The other thing to consider with barrel bombs is that many of them are dropped on some of the most extraordinary historical sites in the world, including world heritage sites. The citadel and the souk in Aleppo for example, which are both World Heritage sites, have been, respectively, severely damaged and completely destroyed. I've been to both, and they were unforgettable places. Heaven knows what can be done now to restore them. Syrians themselves drew enormous pride from their architectural and archaeological heritage, which is second to none. Assad and IS, on the other hand, are an alliance intent on destroying not only lives but the physical world of ordinary people.

 

And in case someone feels the need to reach for that tiresome meme of 'it was the West wot done it', the Assad family has form on this. Hama in central Syria was once the preserve of a beautiful system of medieval water wheels, which are now of course in ruins. In 1984, Hama was also the location of a huge massacre of civilians by Assad senior. Most of the bodies were dumped in a mass grave, as I discovered too late. On our first night in the city a few years ago, we were directed by our government minder (a spy, basically) to stay in a luxury hotel in Hama called the Sham Palace. It was completely deserted, and I asked why. The guide fell silent. Our Palestinian driver quietly told us the reason the following day. The hotel was built on top of the mass grave, as an insult to the victims and their families of the Assad massacre. No one but Assad's entourage and outsiders were permitted to stay there. We had inadvertently colluded in humiliating the city's people. It's still chilling to think of that incident.

 

Anything that relieves the suffering of a people who do not want to be refugees - who do not want to leave a place they deeply love, and who desperately want to rebuild it - would be a huge step.

 

I doubt it'll happen.

But Damascus HAS to burn - the bible saiz so.

Turks booed and disrupted the minutes silence in their game against Greece tonight. More sign that even though not all of them are prepared to go out and kill people, that a vast number of them do hold similar views. F*ck Islam.

LOL The game was held at the Istanbul Basaksehir stadium which was a 17,000 sell out against Greece (the saints v pompey of international relations) total population of Turkey est. 77,695,904. How does 15,000 Turkish fans booing (if they all booed) back up that statement in anyway. Distasteful as it is (but we've all seen people do ****y things at football games) it's hardly a yardstick with which to judge a "vast number"

I saw on the BBC yesterday a 'vox pop' taken on the streets of Guildford in which the interviewer asked locals whether they agreed or not with those calling for our armed police to be equipped with fully automatic weapons in the light of the current situation. At this time our armed police only carry semi-automatic weapons of course, and might therefore find themselves at a significant disadvantage if faced with a gunman armed with a fully automatic weapon. The good people of Guildford seemed to think that this would be a gross overreaction, principally because surely their corner of Surrey is not very likely to become the target of terrorism is it?

Well, methinks that not only is it perfectly possible that terror might strike somewhere away from London, the historical fact that at least some of these locals (quite remarkably) seem to have forgotten is that Guildford itself has suffered a terror attack not so very long ago - as anyone who remembers the IRA's notorious 'pub bombings' campaign of 1974 will surely attest. You'd think that even those too young to recall the 70's might know what happened in Warrington as recently as 1993.

It seems to me that the time when most of our police could go about their job unarmed is coming to its end I'm sorry to say. It seems however that this nation will have to wait until after a Paris style attack happens here before the British people are shaken out of their cast-iron sense of complacency in this regard.

LOL The game was held at the Istanbul Basaksehir stadium which was a 17,000 sell out against Greece (the saints v pompey of international relations) total population of Turkey est. 77,695,904. How does 15,000 Turkish fans booing (if they all booed) back up that statement in anyway. Distasteful as it is (but we've all seen people do ****y things at football games) it's hardly a yardstick with which to judge a "vast number"

Well said that man!

I saw on the BBC yesterday a 'vox pop' taken on the streets of Guildford in which the interviewer asked locals whether they agreed or not with those calling for our armed police to be equipped with fully automatic weapons in the light of the current situation. At this time our armed police only carry semi-automatic weapons of course, and might therefore find themselves at a significant disadvantage if faced with a gunman armed with a fully automatic weapon. The good people of Guildford seemed to think that this would be a gross overreaction, principally because surely their corner of Surrey is not very likely to become the target of terrorism is it?

 

Well, methinks that not only is it perfectly possible that terror might strike somewhere away from London, the historical fact that at least some of these locals (quite remarkably) seem to have forgotten is that Guildford itself has suffered a terror attack not so very long ago - as anyone who remembers the IRA's notorious 'pub bombings' campaign of 1974 will surely attest. You'd think that even those too young to recall the 70's might know what happened in Warrington as recently as 1993.

 

It seems to me that the time when most of our police could go about their job unarmed is coming to its end I'm sorry to say. It seems however that this nation will have to wait until after a Paris style attack happens here before the British people are shaken out of their cast-iron sense of complacency in this regard.

I'm two minds about these things on the one hand was a country we need to take these things seriously but as I said earlier in the thread I really don't like the idea of us giving up our British civil liberties.

If we start arming British police with automatic weapons along with other measures being mooted it feels like we are letting the extremists win. For me it's not as black and white a situation as some want to make it.

Indeed, Lou. I also think his speech and his twitter feed points to a military strategy that the West can adopt that would actually do something to protect the Syrian civilian population. A rigorously enforced no-fly zone would take Assad's barrel-bombing helicopters out of the sky. The bombs are not dropped on IS-held territory, and are used exclusively against civilian populations.

 

A no-fly policy, therefore, would be a military action with a clear humanitarian aim. It needn't be the only spoke to the wheel, and it doesn't deal with IS - but it's sad that this idea has gained no traction at all so far, let alone discussion, among Western powers active in Syria/Iraq.

 

The other thing to consider with barrel bombs is that many of them are dropped on some of the most extraordinary historical sites in the world, including world heritage sites. The citadel and the souk in Aleppo for example, which are both World Heritage sites, have been, respectively, severely damaged and completely destroyed. I've been to both, and they were unforgettable places. Heaven knows what can be done now to restore them. Syrians themselves drew enormous pride from their architectural and archaeological heritage, which is second to none. Assad and IS, on the other hand, are an alliance intent on destroying not only lives but the physical world of ordinary people.

 

And in case someone feels the need to reach for that tiresome meme of 'it was the West wot done it', the Assad family has form on this. Hama in central Syria was once the preserve of a beautiful system of medieval water wheels, which are now of course in ruins. In 1984, Hama was also the location of a huge massacre of civilians by Assad senior. Most of the bodies were dumped in a mass grave, as I discovered too late. On our first night in the city a few years ago, we were directed by our government minder (a spy, basically) to stay in a luxury hotel in Hama called the Sham Palace. It was completely deserted, and I asked why. The guide fell silent. Our Palestinian driver quietly told us the reason the following day. The hotel was built on top of the mass grave, as an insult to the victims and their families of the Assad massacre. No one but Assad's entourage and outsiders were permitted to stay there. We had inadvertently colluded in humiliating the city's people. It's still chilling to think of that incident.

 

Anything that relieves the suffering of a people who do not want to be refugees - who do not want to leave a place they deeply love, and who desperately want to rebuild it - would be a huge step.

 

I doubt it'll happen.

As I understand it, this is also Hilary Clinton's view on the situation? (No fly zone). I've read so many different view points over the past few weeks, I'm not even sure where I stand on it anymore, beyond, I believe the need for a sustained effort. Some good (amongst multitudes of evil) was done in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there must be a way for the West to aid strong local democratic governance in a more effective way than they did previously.

I also think our governments need to do a better job of explaining all of this (whatever 'this' is) to their people, because the conversation for many doesn't seem to have moved on over the past decade, which is depressing.

And boy, are we ever in need of a strong progressive opposition in the UK....

I'm two minds about these things on the one hand was a country we need to take these things seriously but as I said earlier in the thread I really don't like the idea of us giving up our British civil liberties.

 

If we start arming British police with automatic weapons along with other measures being mooted it feels like we are letting the extremists win. For me it's not as black and white a situation as some want to make it.

I too value our old British traditions and am also reluctant to doing anything that means we are effectively 'dancing' to a tune played by terror. However, when/if a Paris style spree attack happens over here then the 'first responders' on the scene of the action are highly unlikely be some elite and heavily armed SAS squad, or even one of our few specialist police counter-terrorism teams. No, the first there will most probably be the nearest copper at hand - who let's face it will probably be unarmed and therefore incapable of stopping the attack rapidly. Time is of the essence here.

I understand that some constabularies have only a dozen or so 'armed response' officers on duty at any one time. It may take these officers 20 minutes perhaps to get to the scene and when they get there not only may they find themselves outnumbered possibly, they may also be outgunned too because their semi-automatic weapons can't match the firepower of those the terrorists may be armed with. This situation is surely both unwise and untenable.

Obviously we're a hell of a long way from the old 'Dixon of Dock Green' style policing here and I dare say we all regret the fact that the world has developed this way. But if you ask someone to do a job, then should you not also give them the right tools they require to do it?

LOL The game was held at the Istanbul Basaksehir stadium which was a 17,000 sell out against Greece (the saints v pompey of international relations) total population of Turkey est. 77,695,904. How does 15,000 Turkish fans booing (if they all booed) back up that statement in anyway. Distasteful as it is (but we've all seen people do ****y things at football games) it's hardly a yardstick with which to judge a "vast number"

It's actually anti-PKK chanting, not booing. But let's not let that stop us from judging the whole of the muslim world, eh.

Distasteful as it is (but we've all seen people do ****y things at football games) it's hardly a yardstick with which to judge a "vast number"

Fair enough, probably just use the worldwide, wide-spread terrorism to do that.

Oooh carefully now that sounds suspiciously like you're labeling all Muslims the same.....which of course no one has done on this thread

Oooh carefully now that sounds suspiciously like you're labeling all Muslims the same.....which of course no one has done on this thread

LOL The game was held at the Istanbul Basaksehir stadium which was a 17,000 sell out against Greece (the saints v pompey of international relations) total population of Turkey est. 77,695,904. How does 15,000 Turkish fans booing (if they all booed) back up that statement in anyway. Distasteful as it is (but we've all seen people do ****y things at football games) it's hardly a yardstick with which to judge a "vast number"

Is 17,000 not a decent enough sample size to gather views on something then? I would say it is.

How many people have said that? Maybe one poster? And absolutely no one was trying to use stats to prove that all Muslims are a threat. Not a single poster. Nice of you to join another crusade by pointing out the flipping obvious. Thanks for enlightening us with brand new information like "not all Muslims living in Britain are a threat to the West." Who knew!

Well to be fair, there are bloody loads of people all over Facebook who seem to think this or some variant of it.

Verbal

I don't always agree with you many of your posts but in this thread I found your posts excellent and informative

Cheers

Well to be fair, there are bloody loads of people all over Facebook who seem to think this or some variant of it.

Then maybe we should point it out on there rather than here.

Oooh carefully now that sounds suspiciously like you're labeling all Muslims the same.....which of course no one has done on this thread

No it doesn't. Again I don't agree with Sour Mash here but he is clearly not labelling all Muslims the same.

What don't they feel safe from, terrorist attacks?

Probably not, given that Muslims die in terrorists attacks too. What do you think?

I'm two minds about these things on the one hand was a country we need to take these things seriously but as I said earlier in the thread I really don't like the idea of us giving up our British civil liberties.

 

If we start arming British police with automatic weapons along with other measures being mooted it feels like we are letting the extremists win. For me it's not as black and white a situation as some want to make it.

wander around london and you see them all over the place anyway

So then my happy little band of campers, no mention so far of the cartoon in the Daily Mail? How do well all feel about that?

LOL The game was held at the Istanbul Basaksehir stadium which was a 17,000 sell out against Greece (the saints v pompey of international relations) total population of Turkey est. 77,695,904. How does 15,000 Turkish fans booing (if they all booed) back up that statement in anyway. Distasteful as it is (but we've all seen people do ****y things at football games) it's hardly a yardstick with which to judge a "vast number"

Fair enough, probably just use the worldwide, wide-spread terrorism to do that.

No its not. Do you struggle with basic English?

You think wide spread terrorism is a yardstick to judge the vast number of Muslims seems pretty clear to me. Clearly I should have said vast number instead of all.

wander around london and you see them all over the place anyway

Apparently all those HK MP5s are semi automatic not the full auto version.

No it doesn't. Again I don't agree with Sour Mash here but he is clearly not labelling all Muslims the same.

Really? I'm not sure how else to interrupt using worldwide terrorism as a yardstick to judge a vast number of Muslims can be interpreted...though I concede I should have said vast number not all.

Apparently all those HK MP5s are semi automatic not the full auto version.

Don't see why a policeman would need a fully automatic weapon. In a crowded area they would probably kill a fair few civilians.

Really? I'm not sure how else to interrupt using worldwide terrorism as a yardstick to judge a vast number of Muslims can be interpreted...though I concede I should have said vast number not all.

Depends on your definition of vast number I suppose. I would tend to agree that the word vast appears to be a generalisation which I would disagree with. I would go with significant minority.

You think wide spread terrorism is a yardstick to judge the vast number of Muslims seems pretty clear to me. Clearly I should have said vast number instead of all.

So then my happy little band of campers, no mention so far of the cartoon in the Daily Mail? How do well all feel about that?

Why are you still here you liar and what has that got to do with this thread?

Then maybe we should point it out on there rather than here.

If by "we" you mean you and SOG, leaving you with little time to progress endless tedious sidelines on here, I'm all for it.

I too value our old British traditions and am also reluctant to doing anything that means we are effectively 'dancing' to a tune played by terror. However, when/if a Paris style spree attack happens over here then the 'first responders' on the scene of the action are highly unlikely be some elite and heavily armed SAS squad, or even one of our few specialist police counter-terrorism teams. No, the first there will most probably be the nearest copper at hand - who let's face it will probably be unarmed and therefore incapable of stopping the attack rapidly. Time is of the essence here.

 

I understand that some constabularies have only a dozen or so 'armed response' officers on duty at any one time. It may take these officers 20 minutes perhaps to get to the scene and when they get there not only may they find themselves outnumbered possibly, they may also be outgunned too because their semi-automatic weapons can't match the firepower of those the terrorists may be armed with. This situation is surely both unwise and untenable.

 

Obviously we're a hell of a long way from the old 'Dixon of Dock Green' style policing here and I dare say we all regret the fact that the world has developed this way. But if you ask someone to do a job, then should you not also give them the right tools they require to do it?

I was inspired to have a look at what weapons the UK police have access to. Apparently there is no set standard each regional force makes their own choices with regards to what weapons to issue but looking at the list UK police have access to some pretty good weapons mostly German and Austrian make including weapons used by European armies like the G36

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

I'd hazard a guess that the training firearms officers have would help to overcome any perceived inequalities between weaponry against opponents with less training and likely hoped up to boot.

I reckon you have a point about response times. As you say most likely the first people on the scene will be the local beat/traffic officer. Following the logic of giving them the tools for the job we would have to move to arm all UK police as they are most likely to be first on the scene. It's worth noting that French police are armed as a matter of course but they couldn't prevent the attack in Paris. The cold hard truth is that an attack like Paris most of the damage was done in the first few minutes before police arrived regardless of weapons available an instance like this authorities can only really react after the fact.

I'm still not sure I'd like to see all British police armed as standard (just looking at the what's wrong with America thread shows up some of the pitfalls) I'd certainly have no problem with increasing specialist firearm teams around the UK if police forces felt they need to.

Why are you still here you liar and what has that got to do with this thread?

You really are starting to show your true colours now aren't you? Good, we are making progress. It has everything to do with this thread. Have you seen it and if so what are your thoughts please?

Iran seeks to join international coalition battling militants

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-iran-seeks-to-join-international-coalition-battling-militants-as-part-of-significant-10461307.html

The quote you replied to said "a vast number of them hold similar views". A vast number clearly do, hence the sheer volume of terrorist attacks. We're not talking about the odd one of two nutters here. And that's before you get onto the many thousands at just one particular football ground that don't even deem these victims worthy of respect for a minute's silence.

In terms of people directly involved in the execution of terrorist acts we are talking about double digits, maybe triple digits, out of 1.6 billion muslims. Not "a vast number".

There will be others, knowingly and unknowingly supporting it in terms of finance and logistics, but the suicide bombers outside the Stade were less effective than the ones in Four Lions, and in terms of loss of life, they'd run out pretty quickly sacrificing 3 bombers for every 1 civilian.

As far as the minute's silence in Turkey, I didn't see it, I'm not sure chanting "God is Great" is necessarily a bad thing and could be misinterpreted, and either way, what football fans believe and what they actually do in crowds are often not the same thing at all.

You really are starting to show your true colours now aren't you? Good, we are making progress. It has everything to do with this thread. Have you seen it and if so what are your thoughts please?

It's not a nice cartoon and it's unnecessary. I'll continue to call you a liar thanks whilst you continue to post on this thread and ignore your embarrassment from earlier.

In terms of people directly involved in the execution of terrorist acts we are talking about double digits, maybe triple digits.

I stopped taking you seriously after that sentence to be honest.

You think there have been more than 999 ISIS-supporting suicide bombers in the west?

Iran seeks to join international coalition battling militants

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-iran-seeks-to-join-international-coalition-battling-militants-as-part-of-significant-10461307.html

Excellent news. This is exactly what should be happening. I hope they are warmly welcomed.

In terms of people directly involved in the execution of terrorist acts we are talking about double digits, maybe triple digits, out of 1.6 billion muslims. Not "a vast number".

 

There will be others, knowingly and unknowingly supporting it in terms of finance and logistics, but the suicide bombers outside the Stade were less effective than the ones in Four Lions, and in terms of loss of life, they'd run out pretty quickly sacrificing 3 bombers for every 1 civilian.

 

As far as the minute's silence in Turkey, I didn't see it, I'm not sure chanting "God is Great" is necessarily a bad thing and could be misinterpreted, and either way, what football fans believe and what they actually do in crowds are often not the same thing at all.

I would suggest the number doing that is far higher. Besides, he didn't say those who were directly involved in the execution of terrorism did he? Apologies if he did but I took it to encompass all those who support it either through their actions or their views. I would guess that number is a large amount. Possibly not vast though but that's a matter on opinion as vast isn't really quantifiable.

It's not a nice cartoon and it's unnecessary. I'll continue to call you a liar thanks whilst you continue to post on this thread and ignore your embarrassment from earlier.

Not nice and unnecessary. Well that's something I suppose. Oh, and I am not the least embarrassed and am really not bothered by you calling me names.

You think there have been more than 999 ISIS-supporting suicide bombers in the west?

Why are you attaching criteria to it? There is a large number who are involved in all manner of terrorist activities in multiple countries. No one said that all of them would be IS supporting, suicide bombers or be in the west.

You think there have been more than 999 ISIS-supporting suicide bombers in the west?

It's actually anti-PKK chanting, not booing. But let's not let that stop us from judging the whole of the muslim world, eh.

And herein lies the problem. A massive religion with all kinds of diversity within it, but it becomes defined by a small number who have nothing to do with the main and peaceful element. It doesn't take much for things to be misinterpreted to suit an agenda. Earlier I brought up the cartoon that was in the Daily Mail today because it underlines what all too many are thinking right now. It was good to see that social media have picked up on it and have mirrored it to a similar Nazi cartoon about the Jews from the 30s. It doesn't seem to have caused much concern here though. I have also received a number of requests on Facebook asking me to sign a petition to ban the burka as they represent a security risk! WTF? More so than hoodies and balaclavas and raincoats? People with guns and bomb vests are a security threat. They can be hidden under all kinds of clothing cant they?

So you've gone from those carrying out terrorist acts, to "ISIS supporting suicide bombers in the west". As I say, couldn't take your post seriously to be honest.

Well, no, that's what I was talking about in the first place, what's happened is you've misinterpreted it.