Paris Shootings

No. You had a problem with the march don't you? That's why you are finding every despeerate reason to sneer rather than accept it for what it was.

I think it nicely exposes where sympathies lie doesn't it?
 
I think I will leave this to others now. A vacuous smelly student and an authoritarian fantasist are not really are no who you would want to get stuck in a lift with
 
Are you insinuating that my sympathies lie with the Islamic extremists? That's quite a leap from the reality what's been posted here.

In my posts, I've said that there was an impressive turnout and that there were a lot of good intentions amongst the marchers.

However, at the same time, I'm questioning the validity of the vehement assertion that it was a glorious, unqualified success. The reasons for suggesting it wasn't are actually easy to come by - there is no desperate grasping when they're just landing on a plate.
 
clivex said:
Perhaps you should see it for what it really was? A huge fck off to the Islamists and their apologists.
Click to expand...

It isn't Clive, that's just the point. The "huge" **** off is in your imagination.

Do you seriosuly think the Islamists of the world are a changed forced today? Do you seriously think they're cowed by the prospects of 500,000 more French taking to the streets of Paris than countryside alliance supporters in London? They know full well that if they put out some kind of rally in support of Allah they'd eclipse that number. Indeed, they do so every year at the Hajj

It was worth doing as a show of numbers, and for what its worth, I do think something has changed. I think it's more likely to be an awakening to a threat, and perhaps a preparedness (as yet untested) to do something, but I don't think this is seismic yet. I'd probably describe more of a stirring, but I've yet to be involved with any mass protest or petition that ever changed the attitude of the people you were protesting. I wouldn't expect this to be any different.
 
Bachelors Hall said:
Way to back up your emotively driven points by calling people names and chucking your toys out of the pram.
Click to expand...


No chucking toys and I will say once and for all that I find the discussion about whether the march was worthwhile or not pretty tasteless and will not get involved, as I suspect most others won't. In fact the description autistic comes to mind and whilst I feel a little sorry for those that fret over such matters (unless the suspected sympathies are real) I try not to sit next to them on the bus.
 
Last edited:
So we should all have uniformed opinions and attitudes towards global events? I think you're missing one of the many points the march was aiming to support.

Also, in what taste would you describe denigrating a mental illness?
 
Actually .... who was this aimed at?

Not me - I've got a particularly cynical view of our political leaders and that isn't about change. Neither was the march aimed at the hardline jihadists overseas. If anything they'll draw strength from it, but they weren't about to change either.

For the last decade we've been fighting a rear guard action to try and contain the battle to foreign theatres. I did flirt with the idea once that perhaps the invasion of Iraq was a stroke of genius designed to create a honeypot battlefield on terrain we could better handle, in a theatre we could better support. I found the argument that George Bush was nuts and obsessed with oil and Saddam more compelling though. This rearguard is running out of steam however, as the frontline slowly moves nearer to our own streets. This is where the future conflict will be fought. The French have 10,000 troops reportedly patrolling France today. The British has a total of 80,000 in the standing army. Go and figure out the maths.

That being so, a march like this has to be aimed at the waverers within our own societies who might be wondering if they should embrace radical Islam. What they're seeing (hopefully) is a widespread disapproval albeit I'd be happier if I could see evidence of their own mothers taking to the streets, and a bit more anger in what often looks like soundbite condemnation. On reflection, I'm actually reminded of Marie Corrigan and Betty Williams. They might have won a Nobel prize, but in the wider scheme of things, I think you'd be hard pressed to suggest their contribution had any link to the final settlement and the Good Friday Agreement. However (and here's the rub) did the zeitgeist that they helped to create in the mid 70's prevent just one single impressionable youth turning to the paramilitaries? We don't know, and this is always a problem with measuring preventative interventions. We can measure when something happens, but we can't really measure outside of conjecture the extent to which something hasn't

Still, I'm actually getting a little bit fed up of being told "this isn't Islam and these people don't represent Islam". Sadly, these well meaning folk are very often it seems prioritising the reputation of their own religion first, and there is just something about the way they trot this line out that slightly disturbs me (not that I have too many better suggestions). What I mean is I'm not really too bothered about what Islam is or isn't. I'd be more impressed if I could see some substantive action from within the community to police it (beyond multi-discplinary talking shops convening at the local council every month)

I think another possibile benefit of the march could be the demonstration that our democratically elected leaders walk arm in arm with us, on the same streets as us (not that they do of course - but we'll save that for another day). The image should compare favourably alongside corrupt dynastic monarchs living in vast complexes of palatial oppulence

Ultimately though (well in the short term) I do wonder if tonight's turnout in Dresden isn't actually going to be of greater significance. No idea how that might go, but it's one I've had my eye on occasionally since early December (even if I clear don't know what day of the week it takes part on! - I thought they were Sunday's)

Ultimately though, I'm not sure yesterdays march is going to change much, but do also sense that perhaps there is the beginnings of stirring that wasn't there as recently as 5 years ago
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
When you want 'fair and balanced' reporting that concentrates on the facts, look no further than Fox News, and their experts
Click to expand...

There's some hysterical activity on Twitter at the moment as Fox news's PR team desperately try and fight a damage limitation exercise against the hastag #foxnewsfacts

Some brilliant parodies of the Queen being forced to wear a jihab (headscarf) the radicalisation of jam pots (gingham fabric with elastic bands) a 1980's synth band called Koran Koran

One person has tweeted "don't tell Fox News about the Black Country", which prompted Fox to respond with "we have no record of calling Africa the Black country. Remove your tweet or face legal recourse"

Fox serving up an object lesson is how not to manage a PR disaster. Even David Cameron has made appearance calling their expert "an idiot". Actually their corrections team who identified Nick Clegg as David Cameron have now conceded that they originally put up a picture in error of "prime ministers deputy, Ed Miliband"
 
Last edited:
Clive,
Is there something wrong with you? You are behaving like someone with huge anger issues insofar as your responses to BH and Warbler are bordering on crazy, and drawing concluions based on things they neither said nor inferred. You need to calm down.

All BH is suggesting (and I agree with him) is that the march was politicised (it was by definition the second you have political leaders, some of whom cause strong feelings) and that it doesn't solve any problems (it doesn't). Clive, I am not sure how much you know about France's social problems (it's not completely about religion, although there is a huge correlation) but these are there today as they were a week ago. The march will have no effect on Jihadists (it will amuse them at best, if not it will galvanise them); it was done for France as a nation to show some unity. That might give some closure, it might make people feel better after a few dreadful days, even for those at a distance from it all, but it doesn't solve any issues. Not only that, but there is no talk or even seemingly an inclination to get to the root cause of all of this. It is within most countries in Europe now, and needs addressing in a sensible, reasonable way. It is (and no doubt will continue to be) left to extremist, racist parties to discuss this alone, and it will be they alone who people concerned turn to. No-one has any issue with a march (bar a wish it wasn't politicised, which is their right) but it should be allied to at least an attempt to find a solution to the root cause of all of this, not just trying to fight at its end state, which is fighting terrorists on the streets of Europe.
 
Last edited:
Hamm said:
Clive,
Is there something wrong with you? You are behaving like someone with huge anger issues insofar as your responses to BH and Warbler are bordering on crazy, and drawing concluions based on things they neither said nor inferred. You need to calm down.

All BH is suggesting (and I agree with him) is that the march was politicised (it was by definition the second you have political leaders, some of whom cause strong feelings) and that it doesn't solve any problems (it doesn't). Clive, I am not sure how much you know about France's social problems (it's not completely about religion, although there is a huge correlation) but these are there today as they were a week ago. The march will have no effect on Jihadists (it will amuse them at best, if not it will galvanise them); it was done for France as a nation to show some unity. That might give some closure, it might make people feel better after a few dreadful days, even for those at a distance from it all, but it doesn't solve any issues. Not only that, but there is no talk or even seemingly an inclination to get to the root cause of all of this. It is within most countries in Europe now, and needs addressing in a sensible, reasonable way. It is (and no doubt will continue to be) left to extremist, racist parties to discuss this alone, and it will be they alone who people concerned turn to. No-one has any issue with a march (bar a wish it wasn't politicised, which is their right) but it should be allied to at least an attempt to find a solution to the root cause of all of this, not just trying to fight at its end state, which is fighting terrorists on the streets of Europe.
Click to expand...

dont be ridculous. Everyone knows that the march will not change everything overnight including the marchers. So what? Im certainly not engaging with those who for peculiar reasons wish to sneer

Root cause? Ever heard of islam?
 
clivex said:
I find the discussion about whether the march was worthwhile or not pretty tasteless and will not get involved, as I suspect most others won't.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with the above. I too am becoming disinclined to partake further.
Bottom line is, one of two possibilities: First is, as suggested by some on here, that every national leader who attended the march was motivated by personal political gain. Yes, each and every one of them; how unlikely is that?
The second possibility is that some ( and perhaps all) of them were desirous to be there as an act of solidarity and out of a genuine feeling of compassion and humanity, and also of course to represent the general consensus/feelings of their own particular country's citizens.
I prefer to believe the latter. I still have some faith in common human decency; anyone proposing the first possibility is quite likely a nihilist and a cynic. IMHO, of course.
 
Yes . Im off it too. To rubbish the march because of few politicians were there is crass in the extreme. Going on about oslo...

But one thing is certain. The success of the march has genuinely bothered some
 
clivex said:
dont be ridculous. Everyone knows that the march will not change everything overnight including the marchers.
Click to expand...

Arguing with yourself again Clive?

How do you reconcile your concession that it "will not change everything overnight", with "The march sends a clear message that they and we will not be intimidated by a disgusting branch of a generally intolerant religion. It was powerful. It was more than the cartoons. They need to clearly know the contempt we hold for them".

Now I can accept that you have the scope within "everything" and "overnight" to frame the answer, but is that the boundary that you're setting. What exactly do you think it achieves? You say it "will not change everything", which would suggest of course that you think it will change something, as this is the possibility that you're leaving open. What?

If you think it's likely to be intimidating active jihadists, then you're likely to be well off the mark. I'd imagine if anything they're emboldend, and as Hamm says, laughing at people waving pens in the air. If you think it might cause some of the waverers to reconsider, then that might have credibility, but we don't know as we're measuring conjecture without any demonstrable cause and effect. These sorts of policy decisions have to be taken on trust to a greater or lesser extent as we can never know for certain what would have happened with or without. FWIW, I think it possibly is a sign of a shifting in the zeitgeist of Europe, but I'm not about to go all orgasmic over it, nor accord it a status that it probably hasn't achieved. The CND marches in Germany in the early 1980's were bigger, but they had no effect on anything either

Any sneering is largely in your imagination, but lets let you convulse with that and work yourself up into a lather of it. I think those people who can put the march in perspective have the better grasp. As I said, everyone goes back to work and then someone has to ask the question what is to be done? Now that's what needs looking at, and doubtless it will mean another review and report and meetings etc
 
Last edited:
The march was show of solidarity from the French people as simple as that. It hasn't solved anything but was simply to show the world (and very specifically these monsters), that France is united against the evil that was perpetrated last week, and will continue to be united against anyone who threatens it people or its freedom.

From my perspective it was good to see leaders of other countries including Cameron showing that same solidarity. Those who think their motivations were for personal gain are way off the mark in my opinion.

And to turn this into an argument about this being something that has failed because it won't change anything is really badly missing the point.
 
Maruco said:
And to turn this into an argument about this being something that has failed because it won't change anything is really badly missing the point.
Click to expand...

If this is directed at me that is not what I said - I never said the march 'failed' but lamented the fact no-one seems concerned about solving the wider issues.
 
clivex said:
To rubbish the march because of few politicians were there is crass in the extreme. Going on about oslo...
Click to expand...

Oslo isn't to be rubbished in my view Clive. I actually think its relevant and note that you've ducked it, other than flinging muck about. I note this in particular because you were very happy to speculate about what the attitude would be to a hypothetical American baptist church on this thread weren't you?. Let's look again at what you posted

"lets put it this way. If an American baptist church started recruiting and growing in this country where the core beliefs were that gays should be murdered, renouncers killed etc etc ... Would the liberal media be trying to convince us that it's a church of peace ? Would they fck"

Would you accept that this example is consistent with a view that you've often expressed, which is that Muslims get soft soaped whilst right wing agendas get jumped on? The example I gave you therefore isn't based in conjecture. The example I gave you is based on fact. The two incidents happened, and they are separated by a mere 4 years. They occur on the same continent (during the watch of many of the same politicians as it happens). Both incidents involve unarmed people being executed for their beliefs by two different groups/ indviduals. The similarities are really quite stark. In fact they're notable for just how similar they are

On both occasions the respective populations decide to mount rallies of solidarity, and both acheive a similar percentage of turn out per head of population. One of them is stacked out with the politicos, the other is notable by the absence other than Norwegians. Why? One of the things that came out of the Brevik trial of course was just how linked in a network across Europe he was.


 
Last edited:
No one said it was a 100% identikit fit. That being so, I don't accept that one piece of unaligned DNA somehow means that it's "no comparison at all". Plenty of attacks have similarities without being identical, Oslo and Paris have quite a few. Brevik was linked with a support network as it happens, albeit chat rooms rather than known partners (including the EDL as I recall). He was I think most people would accept 'alone' but not completely without contact. He was certainly 'networked' into a shadowy group of right wingers across Europe
 
Last edited:
I reckon it might be ...............
"The prophet has been a frequent target of Charlie Hebdo", ?

Disgraceful, -- using a lower-case "p" for the Prophet !!! .... :ninja:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top