Sour Mash Posted 18 November, 2015 Share Posted 18 November, 2015 That's quite a list and would include Ireland, Spain and the USA and as most of the Paris attackers came from France and Belgium those two countries a well I guess. Actually I'm all for the last one as it would really bugger up spurs defence. This whole thread has been a bit of a struggle for you hasn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 18 November, 2015 Share Posted 18 November, 2015 I'm pretty sure no one is arguing Islamic Militants have nothing to do with Islam.... Plenty have http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/theresa-slams-perverted-paris-attacks-6842397 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 18 November, 2015 Share Posted 18 November, 2015 This whole thread has been a bit of a struggle for you hasn't it. Not nearly as much of a struggle as it's been for you though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 18 November, 2015 Share Posted 18 November, 2015 On Friday night you stole the life of an exceptional being, the love of my life, the mother of my son, but you won't have my hatred. I don't know who you are and I don't want to know - you are dead souls. If this God for which you kill indiscriminately made us in his own image, every bullet in the body of my wife will have been a wound in his heart. So no, I don't give you the gift of hating you. You are asking for it but responding to hatred with anger would be giving in to the same ignorance that made you what you are. You want me to be afraid, to view my fellow countrymen with mistrust, to sacrifice my freedom for security.You have lost. I saw her this morning. Finally, after many nights and days of waiting. She was just as beautiful as when she left on Friday night, just as beautiful as when I fell hopelessly in love over 12 years ago. Of course I'm devastated with grief, I admit this small victory, but it will be short-lived. I know she will accompany us every day and that we will find ourselves in this paradise of free souls to which you'll never have access. We are two, my son and I, but we are stronger than all the armies of the world. I don't have any more time to devote to you, I have to join Melvil who is waking up from his nap. He is barely 17-months-old. He will eat his meals as usual, and then we are going to play as usual, and for his whole life this little boy will threaten you by being happy and free. Because no, you will not have his hatred either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 18 November, 2015 Share Posted 18 November, 2015 For those who previously were unaware of the cartoon, (i hadn't seen it), the cartoon is below. I can't speak to exactly what the cartoonist was reaching for, but my inference (and i realise this is my opinion only) is that the cartoonist is labelling all Migrants that are being processed throughout the EU as out-and-out Jhihadis, otherwise sinister 'Fellow Travellers' or a literal pack of rats. It's as nonsensical as it is mean spirited. However, I find some of the other reaction just as wilfully blind. Imagine on the Piano, Flowers will defeat Bullets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VPpoQwicmE, Free hugs, Ignoring Allahu Akbar chants during a minutes silence for the victims of Islamist violence etc.. These are beloved by the a section of the public, who for some reason feel a shield of goodwill would shelter them from any danger. I wonder if those in the Bataclan would have rather had an Armed Policeman on hand while they were being literally gutted on the floor, tortured for the amusement of religious fanatics, or if they thought that flowers and candles would prove a sufficient deterrent to such actions occurring. I felt the Heavy Bombing of Raqqa was actually a measured response given the circumstances. For free speech to take place, the original materials must be made available. Great, let's make piles of bodies like that in every town in Syria. That'll fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 Great, let's make piles of bodies like that in every town in Syria. That'll fix it. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 Just a quick question JonnyB you come across as a staunch supporter of the IRA Do you think the Government should rescind the protection given to the IRA fir all the atrocities they committed ? You should do some deeper research about The iRA , Bloody Sunday . I will never trust a priest over their . Many will have dark secrets in their cupboard also are you saying it was okay for the IRA to murder the innocent children and grandad children? As for Syria the French are not bombing every town over their . Their sorties are targeted . Britain is doing its best on the Iraqi side . But I agree we should have the odd sorted into the other side if the border . IS are some of the most evil ****s in the world and not just that region. Another suicide bomber has struck innocent people in Nigeria today . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 They are amongst us.... http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/brothers-from-portsmouth-are-jailed-for-plotting-terrorist-acts-1-7073197 I think 6 years for aiding and abetting ISIS is a disgrace. They could be back out on our streets in 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 I'm in full support of attacking IS in Syria as long as it is part of long term plan to wipe them out that is going to be implemented in full. Just throwing bombs around in retaliation just to keep the public happy could just make the chances of a Paris style attack even greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 They are amongst us.... http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/brothers-from-portsmouth-are-jailed-for-plotting-terrorist-acts-1-7073197 I think 6 years for aiding and abetting ISIS is a disgrace. They could be back out on our streets in 3 tbf there were violent jihadists living in this country but the brothers enabled their travel to Syria where they were killed. Its kind of a good news story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 Interesting study of attitudes to IS in different countries. Most had negative attitudes to IS except in Pakistan where although only a minority declare support over nearly thirds say they 'dont know' which reads to me to be more like 'rather not say'. Also intresting is that in countries with mixed religious beliefs the Muslims werent much more supportive than Buddhists or Christians, which suggests lack of access to information in country. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 (edited) I'm in full support of attacking IS in Syria as long as it is part of long term plan to wipe them out that is going to be implemented in full. Just throwing bombs around in retaliation just to keep the public happy could just make the chances of a Paris style attack even greater. Agree I have problem with military action but if the western nations don't get it right they risk causing more problems than they solve. I saw this on the BBC Raqqa activists criticise 'ineffective' air strikes on IS http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34855514 Ayman (not his real name) says the air strikes by France and other members of the US-led coalition against IS have intensified in the past three days, with about 15 a day targeting the group's positions. But for Ayman, the coalition air strikes have not been very successful and he believes that more are needed to combat IS. He also alleges that Russian and Syrian government air strikes on Raqqa have not been targeting the extremist group. "All their attacks have been against civilians," he says. "They have caused a lot of massacres." "The Russian bombing in western Raqqa - which they claimed was against IS - was far away from any IS locations," he adds. Russia has strongly denied causing civilians deaths, describing such reports as "information warfare" designed to discredit its operations in Syria. Edited 19 November, 2015 by doddisalegend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 tbf there were violent jihadists living in this country but the brothers enabled their travel to Syria where they were killed. Its kind of a good news story. If we are at war with ISIS, then surely they should be chucked in a POW camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 19 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 19 November, 2015 It may be just me, but I find the constant forwarding of the picture of the dead in Paris disrespectful and distasteful. I also would be interested to know how piling up bodies in Syria of innocent civilians is going to help the situation. I assume it meant all Syrians as there was no distinction made between them and the terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScepticalStan Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 It may be just me, but I find the constant forwarding of the picture of the dead in Paris disrespectful and distasteful Not at all. As has been said in response to the father-and-son video. What do you think those dead guys would have rather had in their last terrifying thirty seconds of their lives? Flowers or guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 19 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 19 November, 2015 Not at all. As has been said in response to the father-and-son video. What do you think those dead guys would have rather had in their last terrifying thirty seconds of their lives? Flowers or guns? I am sorry I don't understand your point? Do you think that they and their loved ones would want pictures of their dead bodies being gawped at on a football forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScepticalStan Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 I am sorry I don't understand your point? Do you think that they and their loved ones would want pictures of their dead bodies being gawped at on a football forum? Oh woops. Looks like the second part of my post was chopped off as I posted it (being at work I must have taken my eye off the ball). The point I was making was that there is a shock value in displaying the carnage done by these animals. The love-and-peace attitude that some have taken is delusional at best and dangerously complacent at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 19 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 19 November, 2015 Oh woops. Looks like the second part of my post was chopped off as I posted it (being at work I must have taken my eye off the ball). The point I was making was that there is a shock value in displaying the carnage done by these animals. The love-and-peace attitude that some have taken is delusional at best and dangerously complacent at worst. I take your point. I used to see some gruesome pictures when I worked for the CPS and I don't think you ever really can get your head around how horrific these scenes are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 Interesting article on China's views on ISIS after they executed a Chinese (and a Norwegian) hostage today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-china-blog-34865696 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 Agree I have problem with military action but if the western nations don't get it right they risk causing more problems than they solve. I saw this on the BBC Raqqa activists criticise 'ineffective' air strikes on IS http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34855514 Ayman (not his real name) says the air strikes by France and other members of the US-led coalition against IS have intensified in the past three days, with about 15 a day targeting the group's positions. "There have been no civilian casualties, but unfortunately we can't calculate the losses among IS members as they are not releasing any information," he says. Earlier, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that at least 33 IS militants had been killed since Sunday night. Most of them, it said, had been manning checkpoints in and around the city that were bombed. But for Ayman, the coalition air strikes have not been very successful and he believes that more are needed to combat IS. He also alleges that Russian and Syrian government air strikes on Raqqa have not been targeting the extremist group. "All their attacks have been against civilians," he says. "They have caused a lot of massacres." "The Russian bombing in western Raqqa - which they claimed was against IS - was far away from any IS locations," he adds. Russia has strongly denied causing civilians deaths, describing such reports as "information warfare" designed to discredit its operations in Syria. 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. It may be just me, but I find the constant forwarding of the picture of the dead in Paris disrespectful and distasteful. I also would be interested to know how piling up bodies in Syria of innocent civilians is going to help the situation. I assume it meant all Syrians as there was no distinction made between them and the terrorists. 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? I am sorry I don't understand your point? Do you think that they and their loved ones would want pictures of their dead bodies being gawped at on a football forum? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 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. Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 If we are at war with ISIS, then surely they should be chucked in a POW camp. That would be cushier and easier to escape from than prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 19 November, 2015 Share Posted 19 November, 2015 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. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3184598/More-450-civilians-including-100-children-killed-led-coalition-airstrikes-against-ISIS-report-says.html. Not really I left a link to the full article for people to read and my point was nothing to do with how effective the air strikes are, or are not, but how the are perceived by those on the ground so the bit you highlighted was irrelevant to me because I was highlighting that the civilians there feel the airstrikes are ineffective (regardless of what the reality might be) which is the main point of that whole article. Those airstrikes might be spectacularly successful but it doesn't help much in gaining the hearts and minds of the local non-Isis population of Syria if they feel they are the ones being bombed. The whole point being that military action by the west has to be carefully judged any good will from killing a couple of hundred Isis fighters will be wiped out by one stray bomb on a civilian family which is also great propaganda for the recruitment of new Isis members. So which part of the west having to tread carefully in any military actions in the middle east do you disagree with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 Agree I have problem with military action but if the western nations don't get it right they risk causing more problems than they solve. I saw this on the BBC Not really I left a link to the full article for people to read and my point was nothing to do with how effective the air strikes are, or are not, but how the are perceived by those on the ground so the bit you highlighted was irrelevant to me because I was highlighting that the civilians there feel the airstrikes are ineffective (regardless of what the reality might be) which is the main point of that whole article. Those air-strikes might be spectacularly successful but it doesn't help much in gaining the hearts and minds of the local non-Isis population of Syria if they feel they are the ones being bombed. The whole point being that military action by the west has to be carefully judged any good will from killing a couple of hundred Isis fighters will be wiped out by one stray bomb on a civilian family which is also great propaganda for the recruitment of new Isis members. So which part of the west having to tread carefully in any military actions in the middle east do you disagree with? 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 "There have been no civilian casualties, but unfortunately we can't calculate the losses among IS members as they are not releasing any information," he says. Earlier, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that at least 33 IS militants had been killed since Sunday night. Most of them, it said, had been manning checkpoints in and around the city that were bombed. 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 the bit you highlighted was irrelevant to me You had started your comment to which you attached the link and quotes with Agree I have problem with military action but if the western nations don't get it right they risk causing more problems than they solve. I saw this on the BBC. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 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? A) When is it required for someone to say something on a thread before you can make a point? If you go back early in the thread a couple of people have made similar comments about military action. B) Who is being selective now I see you are ignoring the quotes from the guy about Russian airstrikes on civilian areas. Also despite the line you've highlighted (one of many) the guy in the article does not feel airstrikes are working seems to pretty much answer this point that the effectiveness of the airstrikes militarily does not directly equate to their perceptoin on the ground.effect the perception on the ground on the ground among C) I don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 Best half hour I've seen on TV about this was "This week" last night . Andrew Neil gave a great opening speech against ISIS , with good contributions from Portillio , Liz Kendall and some army bloke whose name I didn't catch because Mrs duck started nagging on for a few secs . Star of the show talking some real sense was George Galloway . Showed lefties everywhere how poor Corybin really is . Said you have to be unequivocal when talking about protecting the nation ,said he would shoot to kill them with his own hands and watch them die in the street. Talked of the many varied reasons for the conflicts , about forming an alliance with Russia and other sensible things . Very impressive contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 Andrew Neil's rant... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oONoFFK5H0k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 20 November, 2015 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. A) No one B) #755 for the reference to piles of bodies in Syria, right under your picture. C) No D)??? No idea what you are talking about E) What a very, very strange remark. I have never suggested immediate negotiations with these people and if you go way back I said that at some point we would have to find a way of living together and that would involve negotiations/dialogue. I wasnt just talking about ISIS I was talking about the whole Middle East situation. What has looking for a solution to find peace got to do with you posting pictures of the massacred bodies before they even buried as you said? I think the relatives and loved ones of the dead would be very happy if this situation never happened again, wouldn't you? F) Again I fid this remark odd. After what has happened how can anyone feign normalcy? You don't have to see graphic pictures, and by the way, the picture you posted is the only one I have seen, to know what went on and be horrified by it. Do you really think you have done us all a favour by showing us this picture? If one of those bodies had been a loved one I would be furious at you right now. Your further attempts to justify putting this picture on here doesnt wash with me I'm afraid. Do you really think that we don't understand the enormity of what happens in these attacks? To equate this situation with the holocaust is just crazy. We don't need to be convinced that this is happening. We have seen enough pictures, not as graphic as yours, to know what is going on. I don't have to see a picture of a head on the ground to believe that terrorists are beheading innocent people. I don't have to see a picture of bodies in the concert hall to believe that many died there at the hands of terrorists. Thanks for your attempts to enlighten me Guan, but I am afraid I still find your use of that picture disrespectful and distasteful and will leave you with this thought - how would you feel if that picture contained an image of you mother, father, sister, brother, wife, girlfriend, friend? Would you still think it ok to post on a football internet forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 20 November, 2015 Andrew Neil's rant... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oONoFFK5H0k Now go away before I taunt you somemore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 Great few posts Guan. Shown some of the liars on here up that's for certain. I can see why you would post this picture here and it isn't something I had seen. It's a powerful image and does bring the reality of the atrocities home to a much greater extent than mere words would so thanks for that. If anything it further underlines how futile negotiation with these type of people would be at the present time and how empty headed it is to suggest such a thing is currently possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 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? I find your reaction to Jonnyboy's simple post to be more than a little OTT - indeed it is perhaps a overreaction. It seems to me that what we see here is the employment of hyperbole in order to make point - i.e. ''bomb every town in Syria'' is not intended to be taken literally, but is rather a deliberate exaggeration posted in order to make a more general point. Think of it in the same way as when people sometimes say things like: ''I've told you a million times ...'' for example. Now to be fair you are very far from being the other person on here of late guilty of refusing to accept, or comprehend perhaps, when hyperbole is obviously used in debate. But hyperbole really is not that difficult a concept to get your head around I think and those who like to seize on it to make spurious misrepresentations of what others really are saying is becoming a rather tiresome aspect of 'Lounge' behaviour frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 20 November, 2015 Apparently there has been a terrorist attack in a Mali hotel this morning. 5 dead so far. And thanks for the Mods for putting the distressing images warning on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 20 November, 2015 Great few posts Guan. Shown some of the liars on here up that's for certain. I can see why you would post this picture here and it isn't something I had seen. It's a powerful image and does bring the reality of the atrocities home to a much greater extent than mere words would so thanks for that. If anything it further underlines how futile negotiation with these type of people would be at the present time and how empty headed it is to suggest such a thing is currently possible. Wow, I think you need to change your name from Hypochondriac as you do really seem to have a problem. They would be great posts but for the fact that they were wrong. As for your obsession with calling people names, you should have left that behind in the playground. Sticks and stones and all that. If you really needed to see that picture to understand the horror of what went on I guess you don't have much of an imagination. I am sure you would have been delighted if that picture had included a member of your family. Nice try again at hammering home a point with a sledgehammer. Do you really think that we have not talked to people in the past who have carried out such atrocities at some point in the conflict? But that is not the point here. The point here is that, yet again, you haven't understood the original point and you go off on one on what you think you know. You really aren't very good at this are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 Wow, I think you need to change your name from Hypochondriac as you do really seem to have a problem. They would be great posts but for the fact that they were wrong. I disagree. You would think they were wrong but that's because they show you up. His posts raised some good points and I found them interesting. As for your obsession with calling people names, you should have left that behind in the playground. Sticks and stones and all that. Guilty conscience? I didn't refer to you nor call you names. If you really needed to see that picture to understand the horror of what went on I guess you don't have much of an imagination. I don't routinely go around imagining bloody scenes of mass murder. I definitely think an image is a hell of a lot more powerful than words on a screen. I am sure you would have been delighted if that picture had included a member of your family. Not sure how that is relevant. Nice try again at hammering home a point with a sledgehammer. Do you really think that we have not talked to people in the past who have carried out such atrocities at some point in the conflict? We spoke with the Nazis after we had defeated them. Talking beforehand went badly and simply gave them more time to prepare for war. It's naive in the extreme to suggest talks and this point. But that is not the point here. The point here is that, yet again, you haven't understood the original point and you go off on one on what you think you know. You really aren't very good at this are you? I said I found Guan's posts interesting and I agreed with them. There is no 'point' to understand in this context. I really won't take posting advice from a confirmed liar on here thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 20 November, 2015 (edited) You keep calling me a liar. I would say that is name calling even if you don't. It is also incredibly childish. As for the National Socialist Party in Germany, apart from Appeasement do you really think there were not further efforts to stop the war even after it started? There were further attempts to work with moderates on the other side to bring about a faster resolution to the war. Interestingly President Obama doesn't seem to be overly keen to put his troops into Syria and is looking at other ways apart from bombing to find a solution to this conflict. Even the Queen has taken tea with people who are responsible either directly or otherwise for terrorist atrocities in Northern Ireland. Things and situations change. As for the graphic and disturbing picture, I notice you haven't responded to my point about how you would feel if one of those bodies belonged to someone you know and care about. It is relevant because these people have loved ones elsewhere who might well be very distressed to come across these images on the internet even if you and Guan are not. If you are cool with that image on a football internet forum that is your opinion, which is fine. I am not happy with it and that is just my opinion too. Edited 20 November, 2015 by sadoldgit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 You keep calling me a liar. I would say that is name calling even if you don't. It is also incredibly childish. It's incredibly accurate. Where's the post soggy? You ignoring it and pretending you had answered doesn't make it less true. As for the National Socialist Party in Germany, apart from Appeasement do you really think there were not further efforts to stop the war even after it started? There were further attempts to work with moderates on the other side to bring about a faster resolution to the war. And it had no effect whatsoever until they had been defeated on the battlefield. I presume from your stance that you would have delayed going o war with Germany in the hopes of finding a peaceful resolution then? Nobody likes going to war, it's not a choice that anyone wants but it's better than A) dong something totally ineffective which is as good as sitting on our hands whilst IS grows stronger or B) Seeking pointless dialogue whilst IS expand into other areas of the Middle East and continue to brutalise citizens. Interestingly President Obama doesn't seem to be overly keen to put his troops into Syria and is looking at other ways apart from bombing to find a solution to this conflict. No one has mentioned Western troops on the ground at the moment. The stance of the US proves my point. The fact that they are both supporting rebels as well as conducting their own bombing raids proves that they believe that military aggression against IS is a vital part of the strategy to defeat them. If they didn't believe that then they wouldn't be doing it. Even the Queen has taken tea with people who are responsible either directly or otherwise for terrorist atrocities in Northern Ireland. Why are you equating this situation with the IRA again? Many posters on here have already explained to you why IS are completely different from the IRA so either you re ignoring these posts or deliberately being ignorant of that fact. Things and situations change. They do but we aren't talking about IS in thirty years time. We are talking about the very real threat from a group who you cannot negotiate with because they do not have a tangible cause they are fighting for in the same way that past terrorist organisations have. It really isn't a difficult concept to understand and it's been explained to you a number of times now by better posters than myself. I have to assume you are incapable of understanding. As for the graphic and disturbing picture, I notice you haven't responded to my point about how you would feel if one of those bodies belonged to someone you know and care about. If you are cool with that image on a football internet forum that is your opinion, which is fine. I am not happy with it and that is just my opinion too. I did respond. Unlike you I don't refuse to respond to things and then claim I have. I didn't see how it was relevant to the discussion. It was a powerful picture that shows very quickly the scale of the atrocity. I'm glad that Guan posted it because it shows what these monsters are like and why we cannot sit down and have tea with IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 20 November, 2015 How could it not be relevant to the discussion? I was asking you how you would feel if your loved ones were in the picture and whether you would still be happy for it to be published. It really isn't a hard question to answer. If you really think that anybody on here needed that picture to know what monsters those people are then I think you do the posters a disservice. You accuse me of making things up, feel free to find where I have said lets sit down and have a cup of tea with ISIS. As for you calling me a liar, you have done so several times on here and on another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 20 November, 2015 Why are you still here you liar and what has that got to do with this thread? In this particular post you not only call me a liar (see above) but you also seem to have a problem with me expressing an opinion on a forum that I have paid £5 to join and am at complete liberty to express an opinion. I think we can safely say that whatever shred of credibility you had has been shot to pieces. Checkmate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 How could it not be relevant to the discussion? I was asking you how you would feel if your loved ones were in the picture and whether you would still be happy for it to be published. It really isn't a hard question to answer. If you really think that anybody on here needed that picture to know what monsters those people are then I think you do the posters a disservice. You accuse me of making things up, feel free to find where I have said lets sit down and have a cup of tea with ISIS. As for you calling me a liar, you have done so several times on here and on another thread. I don't see why inventing a fictional scenario makes the image any less important as a tool to show the reality of this atrocity. It's impossible to know how I would react if it were a family member but I would like to think that I would think in a very similar way unless the image was being shared to be ridiculed or to support the actions of the terrorists. As this is very clearly not the case here then I personally see no problem with it. I note you made no attempt to address any of my other points? I didn't accuse you of saying that, like your pompous friend Chapel End Charlie says, I was using hyperbole to make a point. I called you a liar because you asked for examples about where you had lied on this thread. I pointed one out to you and asked you to show proof of the claim you made in the form of a post and you have still failed to do so. You later claimed that you had already answered it but failed to show any post where you had done so, thus the only conclusion that can be drawn from that exchange is that you were inventing claims and lying and once you realised your error you ignored the very reasonable requests for evidence in the hope that no one would call you out on it. So the claims of being a liar are very valid. Unless you can show me a post to refute that claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 In this particular post you not only call me a liar (see above) but you also seem to have a problem with me expressing an opinion on a forum that I have paid £5 to join and am at complete liberty to express an opinion. I think we can safely say that whatever shred of credibility you had has been shot to pieces. Checkmate. What are you wittering on about now? I never denied calling you a liar, but I never referred to you nor called you any names in post 780. You were the one who responded and started bringing your earlier misdeeds in this thread up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 I find it very disappointing that a thread about a massacre of innocents should deteriorate into an interchange of personal insults. Time for an end, I feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 I find it very disappointing that a thread about a massacre of innocents should deteriorate into an interchange of personal insults. Time for an end, I feel. It's the internet, it's no surprise unfortunately. People say "you wouldn't say that if you were talking in the pub", they're right. What you'd say is "I disagree, you're boring me now, I'm getting another drink" and then come back and talk about something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 20 November, 2015 I find it very disappointing that a thread about a massacre of innocents should deteriorate into an interchange of personal insults. Time for an end, I feel. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 (edited) I find it very disappointing that a thread about a massacre of innocents should deteriorate into an interchange of personal insults. Time for an end, I feel. Indeed. (Soggy is a liar though.) Edited 20 November, 2015 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 And the situation in Mali hotel - the gunmen are apparently releasing hostages if they can quote from the Quran. Nothing to do with Islam of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 There is a case to be made that we should not be protected from the uncensored truth of the world and we need to see everything in order to fully comprehend the horror of it. 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. I'm agnostic whether reproducing those horrible images of the Bataclan Theatre is justified or not. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 There is a case to be made that we should not be protected from the uncensored truth of the world and we need to see everything in order to fully comprehend the horror of it. 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. I'm agnostic whether reproducing those horrible images of the Bataclan Theatre is justified or not. 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. Of course but we have no proof that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 And the situation in Mali hotel - the gunmen are apparently releasing hostages if they can quote from the Quran. Nothing to do with Islam of course That depends if you're referring to Islam or 'Islam'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 The BBC's Andrew Neil, not exactly being overly reticent in expressing his personal opinion on the France v ISIS question. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andrew-neil-skewers-isis-scumbags-6865871 I should cancel that summer holiday in the Middle East if I were you Andrew ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 20 November, 2015 The BBC's Andrew Neil, not exactly being overly reticent in expressing his personal opinion on the France v ISIS question. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andrew-neil-skewers-isis-scumbags-6865871 I should cancel that summer holiday in the Middle East if I were you Andrew ... He could well have a fatwah put out on him by now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now