Paris attacks news coverage (MERGED)

[TRUEBRIT66]

1 minute ago, chipdawg said:

Your right; it took a 10 second Google search to find out that what you'd posted was (at least partly) false. I'd seen this days ago on Twitter and had already noted it was wrong and I think it's crass in the extreme to be putting words into the mouth of a dead holocaust survivor. I'm not suggesting you're culpable for that btw as You didn't write the words. As I said though, you're fully entitled to agree with the words written, but I'm also entitled to point out that it's to all intents and purposes, political propaganda

And again Christ are you for real !!!

If it wasnt written by Dr Tanay then yes its crass but you have the same evidence as I a google search.

Remove the top two paragraphs and it could be written by any one and still be relevant. You obviously have read it differently to me if you believe it is propoganda as I see a article crying out for peace and condeming fanatics in any religon or ideology using historical evidence and facts.

 

 

[chipdawg]

13 minutes ago, TRUEBRIT66 said:

And again Christ are you for real !!!

If it wasnt written by Dr Tanay then yes its crass but you have the same evidence as I a google search.

Remove the top two paragraphs and it could be written by any one and still be relevant. You obviously have read it differently to me if you believe it is propoganda as I see a article crying out for peace and condeming fanatics in any religon or ideology using historical evidence and facts.

 

 

Yeah, I agree; for the most part it's could be written by anyone, hence why I've said that you're welcome to put as much credence as you like in the words, I'm not going to pass judgement on that either way. But it's been credited to someone who never said it to give it extra credence- the opening gambit is essentially "here is a preeminent German psychiatrist comparing the problems with Islam with Nazism. Because he lived through Nazi Germany and has an advanced degree, the opinion matters much more". This gives the thing gravitas it wouldn't otherwise have if you knew it was actually written by a right wing blogger and first published in a right-wing Israeli newspaper. However, if you're happy to spread false information without ever asking the question of why? then knock yourself out

For what it's worth I think the article actually raises some interesting points and an interesting philosophy, but I'm not commenting on what is written therein, only who it is attributed to

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I suspect France will soon announce emergency powers, including arrest and detention without charge and will put pressure on Belgium to do the same, if this proves to be the case, how should the UK react?

[Barrs Court Red]

19 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I suspect France will soon announce emergency powers, including arrest and detention without charge and will put pressure on Belgium to do the same, if this proves to be the case, how should the UK react?

Maintain the current threat level, little more. Whatever means we're using to disrupt domestic terror attacks it's working, where as there's little the French can do when terrorists from across an open border decide to take a drive to its capital, for example.

The Guardian is suggesting that the terrorists used their Playstation's to facilitate communication. It just goes to show regardless of electronic surveillance, there's so many out there it's impossible to monitor all.

[PHILINFRANCE]

55 minutes ago, TRUEBRIT66 said:

I felt this was worth posting as comparisons have been made to Nazi Germany in this thread, its the first time its hit me how bad this situation has become....

 The author of this is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist--a man, whose family was German aristocracy prior too World War II, and owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. The Koran does teach peace, and this assertion is both qualified and relevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. Unfortunately, there are currently numerous, indeed far too many, fanatics trying to impose their own misguided views of Islam on the world. 

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. Nonsense. Of course they do not rule: they are simply louder; more outspoken and, of course, radicalised, extreme and, by extension, more violent than their more peaceful fellow muslims. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. Well, of course - see above.

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt. Yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

'I did not speak out - and there was no one left to speak for me' - see below.

Islamic prayers have now been introduced into Toronto and other public schools in Ontario, and, yes, in Ottawa too while the Lord's Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?! To whom? Not to the vast majority of Canadians!). I agree, but think of the 'Trojan Horse' problem in Birmingham. Where was the 'fanatical' British Government/Police Force? Was that the fault of the muslim 'extremists' trying to impose their view or of the PC UK authorities - think northern England (and even Luton etc.) where our muslim friends were 'allowed' to take advantage of 'pretty young white girls'. We have different cultures! If 'we' do not insist LOUDLY that, 'in our country you abide by our rules or leave, how do you think things might change.  

In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of ?no-go? zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuses to acknowledge British law. A slight exaggeration....

As for we who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts -- the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Firstly, and has already been pointed out above, Dr. Emanuel Tanya was not German; nor was he a psychiatrist; nor was he an aristocrat and nor, perhaps most importantly, was he the author of this political diatribe.

Whilst I believe I understand the general point you are trying to make, you perhaps would have been better advised to have quoted Martin Niemoeller, who, incidentally, was German:

 

'First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.'

 

I have erased some of your post, but left the parts to which I should like to refer, simply annotating them in order to respond.  

 

[Kid in the Riot]

8 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

Maintain the current threat level, little more. Whatever means we're using to disrupt domestic terror attacks it's working, where as there's little the French can do when terrorists from across an open border decide to take a drive to its capital, for example.

The Guardian is suggesting that the terrorists used their Playstation's to facilitate communication. It just goes to show regardless of electronic surveillance, there's so many out there it's impossible to monitor all.

Apparently there's 350 Muslims who've returned to the UK from Syria in the past year who are thought to have been radicalised. We simply don't have the resources to monitor them 24/7. A scary thought.

You're right tho, have to assume we are doing a decent job at thwarting similar attacks here - so far.

[PHILINFRANCE]

1 minute ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Apparently there's 350 Muslims who've returned to the UK from Syria in the past year who are thought to have been radicalised. We simply don't have the resources to monitor them 24/7. A scary thought.

You're right tho, have to assume we are doing a decent job at thwarting similar attacks here - so far.

KitR

You mentioned in a previous post that you were scared about next year's Euros due to the prevalence of Kalashnikovs/AK 47s (the same thing).

A terrorist attack like Friday's can never be ruled out, but, in general (if it is any consolation), these arms are only used in the drugs community (Paris/Marseilles) or armed robberies.

Amazingly, both Marseilles and Toulouse - each considered 'dangerous towns' - are wonderful (and relatively safe) places to visit, and I would recommend both - put it this way, at 23H00, I would rather return on foot from a restaurant in central Paris/Marseilles/Lyon/Toulouse than in 'downtown' Bristol (and I would most probably have enjoyed a better dinner).   

[TRUEBRIT66]

11 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Firstly, and has already been pointed out above, Dr. Emanuel Tanya was not German; nor was he a psychiatrist; nor was he an aristocrat and nor, perhaps most importantly, was he the author of this political diatribe.

Whilst I believe I understand the general point you are trying to make, you perhaps would have been better advised to have quoted Martin Niemoeller, who, incidentally, was German:

 

'First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

 

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

 

 

 

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.'

 

I have erased some of your post, but left the parts to which I should like to refer, simply annotating them in order to respond.

 

 

 

"political diatribe" = "a bitter and abusive speech or piece of writing"

Oh come on, can you and Mr Chipdawg actually read a article without attaching some sort of right wing and racist agenda to it?

I repeat............ all I read is a passionate and well written article based on historical facts and present truth calling for peace and unity. 

I find your reply confusing to the extreme. Anyway Im done on this issue if you cant see what the aurthor is getting at, regardless if its Dr Tanay or not then its pointless.

     

[Kid in the Riot]

5 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

KitR

You mentioned in a previous post that you were scared about next year's Euros due to the prevalence of Kalashnikovs/AK 47s (the same thing).

A terrorist attack like Friday's can never be ruled out, but, in general (if it is any consolation), these arms are only used in the drugs community (Paris/Marseilles) or armed robberies.

Amazingly, both Marseilles and Toulouse - each considered 'dangerous towns' - are wonderful (and relatively safe) places to visit, and I would recommend both - put it this way, at 23H00, I would rather return on foot from a restaurant in central Paris/Marseilles/Lyon/Toulouse than in 'downtown' Bristol (and I would most probably have enjoyed a better dinner).   

Fear not Phil - I'll be in France next summer, this will not put me off. I was in the south last year (Cannes/Nice) and felt completely safe at all times. I know they've been having issues down in Cannes/Nice with jewellery shops being robbed - I think by mafia groups?

I survived Ukraine 2012 as well despite Sol Campbell (I think?) saying England fans would be coming home in body bags!

['Orns]

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I don't think we know a lot of the answers to those questions, as this excelelnt article illustrates: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/aug/13/mystery-isis/

 

Thanks Kid, not read all of it yet, but will continue that tonight

[PHILINFRANCE]

3 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Fear not Phil - I'll be in France next summer, this will not put me off. I was in the south last year (Cannes/Nice) and felt completely safe at all times. I know they've been having issues down in Cannes/Nice with jewellery shops being robbed - I think by mafia groups? Indeed, and mainly from Eastern Europe and the Balkans - hence the prevalence of AK47s.

I survived Ukraine 2012 as well despite Sol Campbell (I think?) saying England fans would be coming home in body bags!

Both Cannes and Nice are fine (stay clear of the suburbs), if ludicrously expensive - if you have the time and effort, try and rent something in 'Provence'; just a few miles further into the lavender fields; much cheaper and more interesting. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

37 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

Maintain the current threat level, little more. Whatever means we're using to disrupt domestic terror attacks it's working, where as there's little the French can do when terrorists from across an open border decide to take a drive to its capital, for example.

The Guardian is suggesting that the terrorists used their Playstation's to facilitate communication. It just goes to show regardless of electronic surveillance, there's so many out there it's impossible to monitor all.

I suspect that the French probably believed that to be true as well after changes implemented after the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

Historically the 1995 Metro attacks was a wake up call for France, whose security services had become lazy and complacent after years of no attacks, they ramped things up significantly, so much so that the in 2001 whilst basking in the aftermath of the good Friday agreement several years earlier the UK security services became equally complacent and never followed up on the French intelligence about the 9/11 bombers.

 

[Aizoon]

4 hours ago, AshtonGreat said:

It's more of an observation than an opinion, but the Germans are now good friends with us, and the Japanese are friends with the US (kind of). 

The Japanese are friends with the Japanese. End of.

Having said which, one of my favourite WWII pictures is of the Japanese Naval attaché to Rome regarding the ruins of the Italian fleet at Taranto, and looking extra inscrutable.

[Aizoon]

21 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Both Cannes and Nice are fine (stay clear of the suburbs), if ludicrously expensive - if you have the time and effort, try and rent something in 'Provence'; just a few miles further into the lavender fields; much cheaper and more interesting. 

Or even Corsica. Friendly and very beautiful. Think a French Ireland.

[Aizoon]

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I suspect France will soon announce emergency powers, including arrest and detention without charge and will put pressure on Belgium to do the same, if this proves to be the case, how should the UK react?

Correct me I'm wrong, but aren't those powers still in place, ready to be activated at the command of Ministers?

[Aizoon]

19 hours ago, Tre Bong said:

Last night I listened to LBC radio, it was a show for muslims to call in a give their thoughts on the event's in Paris, much to his surprise (but not mine) there was a massive lack of comdemnation from muslim caller's.

"Judging from the calls tonight it would appear that to be a good muslim you must support violence" 

Indeed. And who do you think was encouraged to phone in by their "leaders". Do you think the support for Britain First is in proportion to the number of fascists who phone in to LBC radio?

For that matter, do you think the callers to Radio Drivel's 20person really represent the views of Bristol football supporters?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 minute ago, Aizoon said:

Correct me I'm wrong, but aren't those powers still in place, ready to be activated at the command of Ministers?

Well as a commentator said on the politics show earlier, because of Blair/Iraq Mk2, it has become 'trendy' to go to Parliament and ask for a consensus vote on the issue of British participation of bombing raids, in that case Cameron doesn't actually need parliament to vote he can sanction these raids. As for emergency powers I am not too sure.

it was also said that France can invoke article 5 of the NATO charter, 'an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us', something the Yanks did after 9/11.

[Aizoon]

Just now, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Well as a commentator said on the politics show earlier, because of Blair/Iraq Mk2, it has become 'trendy' to go to Parliament and ask for a consensus vote on the issue of British participation of bombing raids, in that case Cameron doesn't actually need parliament to vote he can sanction these raids. As for emergency powers I am not too sure.

it was also said that France can invoke article 5 of the NATO charter, 'an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us', something the Yanks did after 9/11.

Not talking about that, I'm talking about internal security. The emergency legislation from the (hopefully) last IRA bombing campaign is still on the Statute Book, IIRC...

[AshtonGreat]

3 hours ago, Woodsy said:

Way too much to read all the comments

If someone else has already asked this then I apologise.....what is the answer to all of this, without using the phrases:

1. Ban religion
2. Bomb the ******s off the face of the earth

1 I could live with, but it's as impossible as 2

Eventually it's going to come to the UK again, and from all the comments I've seen on various social media over the weekend I get the feeling it's people like us that are going to end up taking revenge / retaliation into our own hands as no one feels that the various governments are doing the correct thing to keep our families safe. That scares the shit out of me. My 12 year old was just off to bed on Friday night when the reports came through, so we switched over to Sky News and watched the latest reports, she just sat there open mouthed at what was going on, asked some really relevant questions that I just couldn't answer, or she looked at me like I was telling lies:

Why do they hate us?
Why are they killing innocent people?
Why France?
Are they going to come here and get us?
What happens if something happens to you / me and we're not together?

So, you're in charge, how the **** do you sort this out?

If you think banning religion (an impossibility, I hasten to add) would lead to peace on earth, you're much mistaken. In many cases, religion is merely a front for greed, selfishness and a thirst for power. Ban religion and those things will still exist.

Practised by good, balanced people, religion is a positive thing.

The best way to solve this crisis (as difficult as it may be) would be to find an alternative source of fuel other than oil. Cos it's all about the oil. 

[chipdawg]

44 minutes ago, TRUEBRIT66 said:

"political diatribe" = "a bitter and abusive speech or piece of writing"

Oh come on, can you and Mr Chipdawg actually read a article without attaching some sort of right wing and racist agenda to it?

I repeat............ all I read is a passionate and well written article based on historical facts and present truth calling for peace and unity. 

I find your reply confusing to the extreme. Anyway Im done on this issue if you cant see what the aurthor is getting at, regardless if its Dr Tanay or not then its pointless.

     

Please point out to me where I labelled you or your post racist. I haven't questioned the content of it, only the source of the words. The only time I've mentioned 'right wing' is in relation to the publishers of the article, which I would stand by anyway. I can see exactly what the author is getting it and as I said, I think it's quite thought provoking (though I ultimately disagree with it), but I'd ask you to question why someone, at some point, has chosen to attribute this to Dr Tanay rather than its original author. What have they gained by doing so? I'm really not entirely sure why you've spat the dummy, when a simple "fair enough, but I still think this article speaks the truth" would have been sufficient

btw for the avoidance of doubt, here's the blog where it first appeared

http://cjunk.blogspot.co.uk/2006/02/why-peaceful-majority-is-irrelevant.html?m=1

['Orns]

7 minutes ago, AshtonGreat said:

If you think banning religion (an impossibility, I hasten to add) would lead to peace on earth, you're much mistaken. In many cases, religion is merely a front for greed, selfishness and a thirst for power. Ban religion and those things will still exist.

Practised by good, balanced people, religion is a positive thing.

The best way to solve this crisis (as difficult as it may be) would be to find an alternative source of fuel other than oil. Cos it's all about the oil. 

I agree! I was making the point that it's, usually, one of the first things people say

Did I read at the weekend that Flamini of Arsenal has owned a company for several years that has created a new type of oil?? May not have been oil, but it's one of the key elements to how we live, going to make him £20bn apparently....

[TRUEBRIT66]

9 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

Please point out to me where I labelled you or your post racist. I haven't questioned the content of it, only the source of the words. The only time I've mentioned 'right wing' is in relation to the publishers of the article, which I would stand by anyway. I can see exactly what the author is getting it and as I said, I think it's quite thought provoking (though I ultimately disagree with it), but I'd ask you to question why someone, at some point, has chosen to attribute this to Dr Tanay rather than its original author. What have they gained by doing so? I'm really not entirely sure why you've spat the dummy, when a simple "fair enough, but I still think this article speaks the truth" would have been sufficient

btw for the avoidance of doubt, here's the blog where it first appeared

http://cjunk.blogspot.co.uk/2006/02/why-peaceful-majority-is-irrelevant.html?m=1

"This gives the thing gravitas it wouldn't otherwise have if you knew it was actually written by a right wing blogger and first published in a right-wing Israeli newspaper. However, if you're happy to spread false information without ever asking the question of why? "

Nuff said !

[Esmond Million's Bung]

14 minutes ago, Aizoon said:

Not talking about that, I'm talking about internal security. The emergency legislation from the (hopefully) last IRA bombing campaign is still on the Statute Book, IIRC...

and I said i'm not too sure about that.

[chipdawg]

6 minutes ago, TRUEBRIT66 said:

"This gives the thing gravitas it wouldn't otherwise have if you knew it was actually written by a right wing blogger and first published in a right-wing Israeli newspaper. However, if you're happy to spread false information without ever asking the question of why? "

Nuff said !

Where is the word 'racist' in that? I don't think that right wing and racist are the same thing, do you? 

[AshtonGreat]

8 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

I agree! I was making the point that it's, usually, one of the first things people say

Did I read at the weekend that Flamini of Arsenal has owned a company for several years that has created a new type of oil?? May not have been oil, but it's one of the key elements to how we live, going to make him £20bn apparently....

Oh sorry bro, I misunderstood your post. Imagine if world war three was started because of Flamini!

 

['Orns]

1 minute ago, AshtonGreat said:

Oh sorry bro, I misunderstood your post. Imagine if world war three was started because of Flamini!

 

A dirty tackle from behind, and BOOM - it all kicks off!

[Esmond Million's Bung]

22 minutes ago, Aizoon said:

Not talking about that, I'm talking about internal security. The emergency legislation from the (hopefully) last IRA bombing campaign is still on the Statute Book, IIRC...

All I can find is this, the 1920 emergency powers act was superseded in by the 1948 act, which was in turn repealed and replaced by the 1964 act and that was repealed in 2004 by the act below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Contingencies_Act_2004

[Aizoon]

14 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

and I said i'm not too sure about that.

Sorry, missed that. I was expecting you to reply to my point at the top of yours

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 minute ago, Aizoon said:

Sorry, missed that. I was expecting you to reply to my point at the top of yours

The post above this post is my best shot.

[Aizoon]

1 minute ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

All I can find is this, the 1920 emergency powers act was superseded in by the 1948 act, which was in turn repealed and replaced by the 1964 act and that was repealed in 2004 by the act below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Contingencies_Act_2004

Thanks. This looks to be the relevant bit:

The second part of the Act provides that temporary emergency regulations are normally made by the Queen through Order in Council or by a Minister of the Crown if arranging for an Order in Council would not be possible without serious delay. Such regulations are limited in duration to 30 days,^[10] unless Parliament votes to extend this period before it expires.