Paris attacks news coverage (MERGED)

[Northern Red]

@ChrisMasonBBC: source tells me Jeremy Corbyn 'savaged' at meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party re remarks to @bbclaurak about shoot to kill.

He could be be out by Christmas. Or Winterval, as he probably calls it.

[cityexile]

1 hour ago, The Batman said:

What you recognise and what I've witnessed are 2 different things. When working for my university, I spent a year with many people who would think Lenin and corbyn were like Mussolini. For them, they don't see the difference between being critical of Israel and blatant hatred of Jewish people. 

I gave up with it all when I went to the national union of student's annual conference (nus said earlier this year Isis was nothing to do with Islam but criticising Isis was islamophobic) where a great number of people were spouting a lot of anti-Semitic bile and despite me bringing it up asking how they could get away with it, it was ignored and I was accused of being racist against them. But here is the thing, had I said what they were saying, the police would have been called and I'd probably still be in jail.

Do you condemn Hamas and Hezbollah's attacks against Jewish people??

The Lenin, Corbyn, Mussolini comment has lost me. Corbyn strikes me as a decent man, a conviction politician in the style of a Quaker. I can respect his deep held views on many things, believe they are genuinely held, but also believe he is deeply unsuited for PM. Given that, I do not believe for one nano second Corbyn has a blatant hatred of Jewish people, if that is what you meant to say.

An NUS conference may not be the best place to see a normal cross section of folk. As such, I take what you say on that one at face value, anti-Semitic tripe should be challenged as such, as should in my view any attack on any group of people purely because of their faith. Must confess, faith is never something I have 'got', but I can still respect those who do have one.

If it helps, sure, happy to condemn any attacks on any innocents going about their lives by any terrorist organisations. That does not stop me believing that the long term solution there must be one that incorporates the two state solution, that guarantees Israels borders, but also give the displaced Palestinians there somewhere to call home. To give but one example, the continued expansion of Israeli housing settlements in to, let's say, disputed land, is deeply unhelpful. I refuse to be labelled anti-Semitic for having that view.

Trying to get back on topic, I am no pacifist, but worry that a rush to war in Syria is exactly what the IS want. It is not even clear to me, other than being against IS, whose side we would be on.

The last major over reaction was the invasion of Iraq. Did that, on balance, help? I am maybe a little surprised that those who have shouted loudest about illegal wars on our cv are those now shouting loudest for us to repeat the mistake?

 

 

[PHILINFRANCE]

52 minutes ago, cityexile said:

The Lenin, Corbyn, Mussolini comment has lost me. Corbyn strikes me as a decent man, a conviction politician in the style of a Quaker. I can respect his deep held views on many things, believe they are genuinely held, but also believe he is deeply unsuited for PM. Given that, I do not believe for one nano second Corbyn has a blatant hatred of Jewish people, if that is what you meant to say.

An NUS conference may not be the best place to see a normal cross section of folk. As such, I take what you say on that one at face value, anti-Semitic tripe should be challenged as such, as should in my view any attack on any group of people purely because of their faith. Must confess, faith is never something I have 'got', but I can still respect those who do have one.

If it helps, sure, happy to condemn any attacks on any innocents going about their lives by any terrorist organisations. That does not stop me believing that the long term solution there must be one that incorporates the two state solution, that guarantees Israels borders, but also give the displaced Palestinians there somewhere to call home. To give but one example, the continued expansion of Israeli housing settlements in to, let's say, disputed land, is deeply unhelpful. I refuse to be labelled anti-Semitic for having that view.

Trying to get back on topic, I am no pacifist, but worry that a rush to war in Syria is exactly what the IS want. It is not even clear to me, other than being against IS, whose side we would be on.

The last major over reaction was the invasion of Iraq. Did that, on balance, help? I am maybe a little surprised that those who have shouted loudest about illegal wars on our cv are those now shouting loudest for us to repeat the mistake?

 

 

I would like to compliment and add to your post for numerous reasons (I have just given you a 'like'), but am too tired to do so this evening - I shall try and do so tomorrow. 

[PHILINFRANCE]

2 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

What you suggest can only be done on home soil, be it the UK, France, Belgium etc. and needs to be fully co ordinated with the Muslim councils of said countries, Isis in Syria and Iraq are a lost cause, if it's true that Putin is going to send 150,000 troops that is good news, Putin is the only one who can bring Iran and Syria itself together to fight Isis and once Syria is purged of Isis, if further rumours are true Assad can be removed and replaced in free elections.

 

And, of course, neither Putin nor his government (and media) are going to worry or proclaim too much should one of their troops shoot and kill an unarmed dying 'enemy' soldier, especially if the latter has just been shot whilst trying trying to kill them. 

[JM91]

7 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

And, of course, neither Putin nor his government (and media) are going to worry or proclaim too much should one of their troops shoot and kill an unarmed dying 'enemy' soldier, especially if the latter has just been shot whilst trying trying to kill them. 

Given what would happen were it the other way round, quite right too.

ISIS kill innocent people for social media response, do the actions on Friday not speak for themselves?

They are not human, they are a cancer and cannot be treated with any respect at all. 

[AshtonGreat]

If you haven't already read this, you need to. It's deeply moving:

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-11-16/husband-writes-defiant-and-touching-tribute-to-his-wife-killed-in-bataclan-massacre/

[Esmond Million's Bung]

11 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

He also has support from some Tory mp's. I'm open minded on the shoot to kill policy, but I do remember the last time we had this, it ended up with a totally innocent Brazilian man getting shot dead in London.

if that is the case they are sad deluded fools, who know nothing. Bearing in the question asked was in an 'ongoing atrocity'.

So exactly what does Corbyn these 'tory' MP's and presumably you suggest?, really that is a reasonable question.

 

Day 1 lesson 1 of firearms training for police and armed forces, in a situation where the person is firing or it is considered that he will fire, shoot to kill, a wounded man can still fire a gun and in the case of a kalashnikov that is 10 rounds per second, so potentially one more fatality per round or 10 fatalities per second, take your pick.

 

There is no way that a shoot to wound policy in a full on shoot out is possibly viable, there is far too much going on, it is stupid beyond belief, the objective is to end the incident as quickly and as safely as possible and whilst Corbyn sits safely in his ivory tower on his huge high horse, he suggests that the people sent in to end the incident should have not only have extra pressure heaped on them but also put not only themselves but also the members of public in mortal danger to make sure a terrorist is not killed.

 

He needs to decide what is more important 100 + innocent people going about their lawful business or a handful of bloodthirsty barbarians and then support those who are prepared to put their lives on the line for members of the public and who actually go fearlessly into these situations, so as idiots like him don’t have to.

 

The point about the Brazilian guy is of course valid and also a very easy target for people who have never and will never have to put themselves in that danger and have to make that sort of split second life changing decision but again sit in their safe ivory towers on their high horses and complain and are also the first people to complain when a terrorist attack happens because of lapses by the security forces.

 

I will ask another question, in a situation like occurred at the Bataclan theatre in Paris, what does Corbyn suggest?, stay outside until the terrorist killed everybody and then go in and try to take them alive?, I will make a bold prediction, it is highly likely that given the confusion and panic and the tight area of a Bataclan type of scenario that the good guys might actually hit hostages, but without intervention many more would die that is the sad reality.

 

Perhaps he’s a Trekkie and believes the technology, set phasers to stun and beam me up Scotty.

 

it's an utter nonsense stance by an ignorant man, support the man politically by all means but at least have the guts to speak up when the man is wrong FFS.

 

 

 

[AshtonGreat]

God, some idiot has just retweeted a story from Vice magazine about a 'depressing' anti-refugee demonstration by right-wing protesters in a tiny village in Scotland.

The population of the village is 1,000. The number of refugees is 150. How anyone cannot understand the villagers' feelings is beyond me. 

[BCFC Jimmer]

3 hours ago, JM91 said:

Given what would happen were it the other way round, quite right too.

ISIS kill innocent people for social media response, do the actions on Friday not speak for themselves?

They are not human, they are a cancer and cannot be treated with any respect at all. 

This is much more complicated than people are making out I'm afraid.

What is the reason they have become so barbaric and evil in the first place? 

The answer is decades of being shafted by the west.  You have to remember that we have a long history of supporting dictatorships in these regions  and even supplying them with weapons.  We have raped them for their oil and resources and constantly oppressed them with violence.  They didn't just wake up one day and decide that they don't like us.

I would be all for taking ISIS out if there was a coordinated plan so that we could have a real chance of eradicating violence in the middle east and terroism for good. The chances of that happening given the arrogance of western countries is probably a thousand to one.

I am not sure what we should do as an alternative but we could start by halting our ridiculous policy of selling weapons to dictatorships and promote peace instead. What I am certain of is that banging the war drum will end in more violence and suffering of innocent people.  The most likely result of another war (which will probably be another shambles ) will be more mass migration and terroism in the next ten years. This is the reason I get so annoyed when people have been blaming the problems on refugues and immigration - Many smart people predicted the mass migration would happen BEFORE we went into Iraq and Afghan.

Also, it was also right wing politicians who so brutally imposed the free market across the world which led to many of the problems in the middle east and the world in general.  Yet, Jeremy Corbyn is the bad guy for wanting peace and a plan to undo the damage the free market has caused to so many. Ridiculous state of affairs when you think about it.

This is an incredibly complex situation.  There is some laughably ignorant comments on here its almost unbearable.

 

 

[Portland Bill]

18 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

if that is the case they are sad deluded fools, who know nothing. Bearing in the question asked was in an 'ongoing atrocity'.

So exactly what does Corbyn these 'tory' MP's and presumably you suggest?, really that is a reasonable question.

 

Day 1 lesson 1 of firearms training for police and armed forces, in a situation where the person is firing or it is considered that he will fire, shoot to kill, a wounded man can still fire a gun and in the case of a kalashnikov that is 10 rounds per second, so potentially one more fatality per round or 10 fatalities per second, take your pick.

 

There is no way that a shoot to wound policy in a full on shoot out is possibly viable, there is far too much going on, it is stupid beyond belief, the objective is to end the incident as quickly and as safely as possible and whilst Corbyn sits safely in his ivory tower on his huge high horse, he suggests that the people sent in to end the incident should have not only have extra pressure heaped on them but also put not only themselves but also the members of public in mortal danger to make sure a terrorist is not killed.

 

He needs to decide what is more important 100 + innocent people going about their lawful business or a handful of bloodthirsty barbarians and then support those who are prepared to put their lives on the line for members of the public and who actually go fearlessly into these situations, so as idiots like him don’t have to.

 

The point about the Brazilian guy is of course valid and also a very easy target for people who have never and will never have to put themselves in that danger and have to make that sort of split second life changing decision but again sit in their safe ivory towers on their high horses and complain and are also the first people to complain when a terrorist attack happens because of lapses by the security forces.

 

I will ask another question, in a situation like occurred at the Bataclan theatre in Paris, what does Corbyn suggest?, stay outside until the terrorist killed everybody and then go in and try to take them alive?, I will make a bold prediction, it is highly likely that given the confusion and panic and the tight area of a Bataclan type of scenario that the good guys might actually hit hostages, but without intervention many more would die that is the sad reality.

 

Perhaps he’s a Trekkie and believes the technology, set phasers to stun and beam me up Scotty.

 

it's an utter nonsense stance by an ignorant man, support the man politically by all means but at least have the guts to speak up when the man is wrong FFS.

 

 

 

All I'm telling you E's is what I've read! Let's face it, the Torys have a majority government, if Cameron had the support of his party then he would call a vote now and win it. So it's pretty obvious he has mp's who won't support him.

 

[TRL]

32 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

if that is the case they are sad deluded fools, who know nothing. Bearing in the question asked was in an 'ongoing atrocity'.

So exactly what does Corbyn these 'tory' MP's and presumably you suggest?, really that is a reasonable question.

 

Day 1 lesson 1 of firearms training for police and armed forces, in a situation where the person is firing or it is considered that he will fire, shoot to kill, a wounded man can still fire a gun and in the case of a kalashnikov that is 10 rounds per second, so potentially one more fatality per round or 10 fatalities per second, take your pick.

 

There is no way that a shoot to wound policy in a full on shoot out is possibly viable, there is far too much going on, it is stupid beyond belief, the objective is to end the incident as quickly and as safely as possible and whilst Corbyn sits safely in his ivory tower on his huge high horse, he suggests that the people sent in to end the incident should have not only have extra pressure heaped on them but also put not only themselves but also the members of public in mortal danger to make sure a terrorist is not killed.

 

He needs to decide what is more important 100 + innocent people going about their lawful business or a handful of bloodthirsty barbarians and then support those who are prepared to put their lives on the line for members of the public and who actually go fearlessly into these situations, so as idiots like him don’t have to.

 

The point about the Brazilian guy is of course valid and also a very easy target for people who have never and will never have to put themselves in that danger and have to make that sort of split second life changing decision but again sit in their safe ivory towers on their high horses and complain and are also the first people to complain when a terrorist attack happens because of lapses by the security forces.

 

I will ask another question, in a situation like occurred at the Bataclan theatre in Paris, what does Corbyn suggest?, stay outside until the terrorist killed everybody and then go in and try to take them alive?, I will make a bold prediction, it is highly likely that given the confusion and panic and the tight area of a Bataclan type of scenario that the good guys might actually hit hostages, but without intervention many more would die that is the sad reality.

 

Perhaps he’s a Trekkie and believes the technology, set phasers to stun and beam me up Scotty.

 

it's an utter nonsense stance by an ignorant man, support the man politically by all means but at least have the guts to speak up when the man is wrong FFS.

 

 

 

Also I wonder what his thoughts are on suicide bombers. Shoot to sound so they can still detonate. The bloke is an absolute fool on this occasion.  I really do wonder what his thought processes were when uttering his opinion

[Esmond Million's Bung]

24 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

All I'm telling you E's is what I've read! Let's face it, the Torys have a majority government, if Cameron had the support of his party then he would call a vote now and win it. So it's pretty obvious he has mp's who won't support him.

 

He doesn't need to put this or Britain's bombing of Isis before parliament that is the point, it has become a 'tradition' because of past crimes of Blair and his co conspirators.

Ground troops is another matter of course.

My problem is the inane comments by Corbyn, who in his stuttering reply never offered an alternative other than prevention is better, no ******* shit sherlock, perhaps even prevention could be easier with support for tougher laws on arrest and detention but he wouldn't even support that, as I said Bill support him by all means but have the guts to recognise when he is clueless, if you are going to oppose everything that is being brought in an attempt to make Britain safer, you have to be able to put forward a logical alternative.

I have just read Colis 1's post and I agree with most of it, sadly Paris proves we are beyond sitting on our hands any longer, sort out what created the breeding ground for barbarians like Isis after Isis has been defeated and we have to defeat them, they are not fighting for an enclave where they can just kill and rape because they enjoy it, they are a threat to the whole world and even Russia and now China recognise this, it's the first time for a long time to have such a world consensus.

Now is not the time to hug a ******* terrorist, he is the leader of the opposition and not the president of the students union, he needs to take his head out of his arse on this matter because he looked yesterday well out of his depth and every inch the reason why the very people needed to elect him will not trust him.

 

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, Collis1 said:

I would be all for taking ISIS out if there was a coordinated plan so that we could have a real chance of eradicating violence in the middle east and terroism for good. The chances of that happening given the arrogance of western countries is probably a thousand to one.

There will be a coordinated plan to take out IS, in fact it sounds like significant progress has already been made particularly as it sounds like Russia and the US have reached some kind of consensus.

IS have pissed off every single world super-power and now they are going to feel the full force of the response. They can and will be defeated in the short-term.

However, the issue of the radicalisation of Islam is going to take probably generations to address. This can't be addressed by external forces alone either and it is about time some of the major players in that region - Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia - took some responsibility in regard to the teaching of Islam.

Saudi Arabia is really the elephant in the room here. They provide much of the funding for IS and practice an extremely intollerant form of Islam themselves yet no-one will confront them due to it being such an oil wealthy country.

It's misguided to purely see 'the arrogance of western countries' as a barrier to peace in the middle east. They need to promote peace from within as well. For starters 'boots on the ground' should come in the form of Turkish, Iranian, Jordanian troops on the ground and not the white faces of western troops, for example...

[Portland Bill]

37 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

He doesn't need to put this or Britain's bombing of Isis before parliament that is the point, it has become a 'tradition' because of past crimes of Blair and his co conspirators.

Ground troops is another matter of course.

My problem is the inane comments by Corbyn, who in his stuttering reply never offered an alternative other than prevention is better, no ******* shit sherlock, perhaps even prevention could be easier with support for tougher laws on arrest and detention but he wouldn't even support that, as I said Bill support him by all means but have the guts to recognise when he is clueless, if you are going to oppose everything that is being brought in an attempt to make Britain safer, you have to be able to put forward a logical alternative.

I have just read Colis 1's post and I agree with most of it, sadly Paris proves we are beyond sitting on our hands any longer, sort out what created the breeding ground for barbarians like Isis after Isis has been defeated and we have to defeat them, they are not fighting for an enclave where they can just kill and rape because they enjoy it, they are a threat to the whole world and even Russia and now China recognise this, it's the first time for a long time to have such a world consensus.

Now is not the time to hug a ******* terrorist, he is the leader of the opposition and not the president of the students union, he needs to take his head out of his arse on this matter because he looked yesterday well out of his depth and every inch the reason why the very people needed to elect him will not trust him.

 

Calm down E's!  If you read my post you will see that I say I'm open minded on a shoot to kill policy. I can't see anything else that I've  said for you to have a blood pressure meltdown!

What I will say though, Cameron has cut the armed and police forces so much that I seriously wonder how we would cope with a major terrorist plot.

A high ranking police official ( can't remember the name) recently stated that the police would not now be able to cope with the riots which started in London and spread nationwide ( a few years ago) if they happened now.

Example, I live in a town with a 40,000 population, we know have 4 ( yes four ) full time policeman at times in this town, an incredible statistic.

As for the army and navy, cut after cut, we know 'need' the Russians to do what we would not be able to do anyway. Very sad state of affairs for Britain as a nation.

[Kid in the Riot]

7 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

Calm down E's!  If you read my post you will see that I say I'm open minded on a shoot to kill policy. I can't see anything else that I've  said for you to have a blood pressure meltdown!

What I will say though, Cameron has cut the armed and police forces so much that I seriously wonder how we would cope with a major terrorist plot.

A high ranking police official ( can't remember the name) recently stated that the police would not now be able to cope with the riots which started in London and spread nationwide ( a few years ago) if they happened now.

Example, I live in a town with a 40,000 population, we know have 4 ( yes four ) full time policeman at times in this town, an incredible statistic.

As for the army and navy, cut after cut, we know 'need' the Russians to do what we would not be able to do anyway. Very sad state of affairs for Britain as a nation.

Whilst I don't agree with the police cuts Cameron has announced 1,900 new positions at GCHQ and if a Paris style attack happen in the UK I believe the policy is that the SAS are on standby and would be deployed immediately if such an event occured.

[Kid in the Riot]

18 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

My point is KITR sees that story as a negative and I see it as positive because they didn't prevail in circumstances where they might have expected to have garnered support on the night.

I think it's a negative story, aside from being utterly lout-ish, disrespectful behaviour from Front Nationale members, it demonstrates exactly the type of social division between citizens of the same country that IS would've hoped their attack led to.

It is merely a crumb of comfort to me that they were shouted down and chased off.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

33 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

Calm down E's!  If you read my post you will see that I say I'm open minded on a shoot to kill policy. I can't see anything else that I've  said for you to have a blood pressure meltdown!

What I will say though, Cameron has cut the armed and police forces so much that I seriously wonder how we would cope with a major terrorist plot.

A high ranking police official ( can't remember the name) recently stated that the police would not now be able to cope with the riots which started in London and spread nationwide ( a few years ago) if they happened now.

Example, I live in a town with a 40,000 population, we know have 4 ( yes four ) full time policeman at times in this town, an incredible statistic.

As for the army and navy, cut after cut, we know 'need' the Russians to do what we would not be able to do anyway. Very sad state of affairs for Britain as a nation.

Bill I am not in meltdown, this is a serious issue and you are entitled to an open minded opinion, sadly Cameron and Corbyn are not, they have to have credible alternatives, other than we will vote against it because it's the tories, which appears to be the case with Corbyn, he has offered nothing but ill informed rhetoric that will ultimately put everyone in serious danger, when he offers a cogent alternative I will read it and judge it on it's merits, his interview yesterday was a stuttering nonsense, not that of a prospective world leader and as I say rather than blindly support someone because they are the leader of a party that you support, when he is wrong he is wrong and he needs to be told.

Your points about cuts are absolutely correct the tory cuts in these areas beggar belief and the tory invention of police crime commissioners a serious and dangerous waste of money, however we are not alone even after Charlie Hebdo Hollande carried on with his savage cuts to the French police service, the police went on strike and demonstrated to no avail but now and not for the first time Hollande has had to perform a complete 360 in light of Friday, it's what politicians do, bolt the stable door after the horse has bolted.

and Bill if you believe that things involving the police in the UK couldn't get a whole lot worse, last week the policing college of Great Britain, a highly expensive government/police funded think tank for policing, suggested that only university graduates should be considered to join the police FFS, well at least the fire brigade will be kept busy with kitchen fires I suppose and any food fights in the refectory will be dealt with in uncompromising terms.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

13 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I think it's a negative story, aside from being utterly lout-ish, disrespectful behaviour from Front Nationale members, it demonstrates exactly the type of social division between citizens of the same country that IS would've hoped their attack led to.

It is merely a crumb of comfort to me that they were shouted down and chased off.

Agree to disagree, is it just a crumb of comfort that the security guard who foiled the suicide bomber getting into the Stade France and was himself a muslim?, or the Ghanian immigrant who died whilst shielding a waitress in one of cafes?, or the other brave mainly men who gave their lives to protect others?.

Not for me all the above and the people holding the candle lit vigil are proof that there is hope and you can stand up to extremists with suicide vests or extremists with flags and flares.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Well at least some of his MP's have got some balls at last, why not his glee club?.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34840708

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/17/hilary-benn-jeremy-corbyn-shoot-to-kill

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/16/jeremy-corbyn-and-hilary-benn-at-odds-over-stance-on-military-action

[Portland Bill]

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8581406

[Esmond Million's Bung]

10 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8581406

Ha, Ha, Ha priceless bullshit from the bumbling leader, his limited brains trust has sought to limit the damage, trouble is Bill the truth is already out there and mark 2 ain't the truth.

[BCFC Jimmer]

31 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Ha, Ha, Ha priceless bullshit from the bumbling leader, his limited brains trust has sought to limit the damage, trouble is Bill the truth is already out there and mark 2 ain't the truth.

Now I don't want to jump the gun here because there is a chance I have got this wrong.  But - EMB - do you not like Jeremy Corbyn?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

20 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

Now I don't want to jump the gun here because there is a chance I have got this wrong.  But - EMB - do you not like Jeremy Corbyn?

Well let me just say this, I live in country with an inept lily livered socialist president who had a chance to tighten security up after Charlie Hebdo and didn't and is partially to blame for Friday's events and is now busily closing the stable door and trying to appear tough luckily the French public don't believe him, perhaps the time he spent shagging any female politician in his party and the occasional power crazed actress and his disastrous failed attempt at taxing the rich, he might have achieved something positive.

So my answer is I do not like any politician who weakens a country's ability to defend itself and makes inane ill informed comments about how people who unlike him do not and would not put themselves in a position to have too make that split second decision just so has he can hug another terrorist.

[BigTone]

This whole thread has descended into something it should'nt

[Barrs Court Red]

1 hour ago, BigTone said:

This whole thread has descended into something it should'nt

And utterly predictable 

[JM91]

8 hours ago, Collis1 said:

This is much more complicated than people are making out I'm afraid.

What is the reason they have become so barbaric and evil in the first place? 

The answer is decades of being shafted by the west.  You have to remember that we have a long history of supporting dictatorships in these regions  and even supplying them with weapons.  We have raped them for their oil and resources and constantly oppressed them with violence.  They didn't just wake up one day and decide that they don't like us.

I would be all for taking ISIS out if there was a coordinated plan so that we could have a real chance of eradicating violence in the middle east and terroism for good. The chances of that happening given the arrogance of western countries is probably a thousand to one.

I am not sure what we should do as an alternative but we could start by halting our ridiculous policy of selling weapons to dictatorships and promote peace instead. What I am certain of is that banging the war drum will end in more violence and suffering of innocent people.  The most likely result of another war (which will probably be another shambles ) will be more mass migration and terroism in the next ten years. This is the reason I get so annoyed when people have been blaming the problems on refugues and immigration - Many smart people predicted the mass migration would happen BEFORE we went into Iraq and Afghan.

Also, it was also right wing politicians who so brutally imposed the free market across the world which led to many of the problems in the middle east and the world in general.  Yet, Jeremy Corbyn is the bad guy for wanting peace and a plan to undo the damage the free market has caused to so many. Ridiculous state of affairs when you think about it.

This is an incredibly complex situation.  There is some laughably ignorant comments on here its almost unbearable.

 

 

You're clearly on a different planet.

Disagreeing with you is not ignorance, when will socialists learn that?

I can't see how anyone, anywhere can defend Corbyn for his resonse, he is in a position of power and influence and it is complete and utter neglect to come out and say what he has.  He is a protester, not a leader.

One has to presume he is trying to sell copies of his sequel childrens' book "The Terrorist who came to Tea"

[screech]

3 minutes ago, JM91 said:

You're clearly on a different planet.

Disagreeing with you is not ignorance, when will socialists learn that?

I can't see how anyone, anywhere can defend Corbyn for his resonse, he is in a position of power and influence and it is complete and utter neglect to come out and say what he has.  He is a protester, not a leader.

One has to presume he is trying to sell copies of his sequel childrens' book "The Terrorist who came to Tea"

Seriously mate I wouldn't bother, it's impossible to break through with these people, they are incapable of free thought, they only know if person X from the Labour party/ Liberals say it, it's good. Outside of this narrow list they must be a racist/bigot/homophobic/little englander/nazi/fascist pig, or if you're lucky you could be accused of all of these in one thread.

[howey_ducky]

2 minutes ago, screech said:

Seriously mate I wouldn't bother, it's impossible to break through with these people, they are incapable of free thought, they only know if person X from the Labour party/ Liberals say it, it's good. Outside of this narrow list they must be a racist/bigot/homophobic/little englander/nazi/fascist pig, or if you're lucky you could be accused of all of these in one thread.

Only up until the muck really hits the fan.  They then claim no responsibility for helping to cause the problem by burying their heads in the sand and ask the very people they have branded as "racist" etc etc to do the dirty work to put things right.

They are the scum of this country and they brand people like me without any grasp on reality whatsoever.

 

[BCFC Jimmer]

1 hour ago, JM91 said:

You're clearly on a different planet.

Disagreeing with you is not ignorance, when will socialists learn that?

I can't see how anyone, anywhere can defend Corbyn for his resonse, he is in a position of power and influence and it is complete and utter neglect to come out and say what he has.  He is a protester, not a leader.

One has to presume he is trying to sell copies of his sequel childrens' book "The Terrorist who came to Tea"

Yet you didn't address my points. Socialism didn't start this mess, it was free market capitalism that armed and funded dictatorships in the middle east.

It is people on the right that always gloss over this. It is people on the left that warned you that mass migration and terroism would happen as a result of Iraq war and it fell on deaf ears. 

Im not the one on another planet here.

 

 

 

[Moloch]

10 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

if that is the case they are sad deluded fools, who know nothing. Bearing in the question asked was in an 'ongoing atrocity'.

So exactly what does Corbyn these 'tory' MP's and presumably you suggest?, really that is a reasonable question.

 

Day 1 lesson 1 of firearms training for police and armed forces, in a situation where the person is firing or it is considered that he will fire, shoot to kill, a wounded man can still fire a gun and in the case of a kalashnikov that is 10 rounds per second, so potentially one more fatality per round or 10 fatalities per second, take your pick.

 

There is no way that a shoot to wound policy in a full on shoot out is possibly viable, there is far too much going on, it is stupid beyond belief, the objective is to end the incident as quickly and as safely as possible and whilst Corbyn sits safely in his ivory tower on his huge high horse, he suggests that the people sent in to end the incident should have not only have extra pressure heaped on them but also put not only themselves but also the members of public in mortal danger to make sure a terrorist is not killed.

 

He needs to decide what is more important 100 + innocent people going about their lawful business or a handful of bloodthirsty barbarians and then support those who are prepared to put their lives on the line for members of the public and who actually go fearlessly into these situations, so as idiots like him don’t have to.

 

The point about the Brazilian guy is of course valid and also a very easy target for people who have never and will never have to put themselves in that danger and have to make that sort of split second life changing decision but again sit in their safe ivory towers on their high horses and complain and are also the first people to complain when a terrorist attack happens because of lapses by the security forces.

 

I will ask another question, in a situation like occurred at the Bataclan theatre in Paris, what does Corbyn suggest?, stay outside until the terrorist killed everybody and then go in and try to take them alive?, I will make a bold prediction, it is highly likely that given the confusion and panic and the tight area of a Bataclan type of scenario that the good guys might actually hit hostages, but without intervention many more would die that is the sad reality.

 

Perhaps he’s a Trekkie and believes the technology, set phasers to stun and beam me up Scotty.

 

it's an utter nonsense stance by an ignorant man, support the man politically by all means but at least have the guts to speak up when the man is wrong FFS.

 

 

 

The alternative to the "shoot to kill" policy is not a "shoot to wound". As you say, the army and police are trained to aim for the"centre mass" (or body) as it is the largest target.

As I understand it, such a policy is not for emergency situations, such as the Paris massacre, but for everyday policing. In the event of an emergency, the police marksmen are already authorised to "neutralise" the danger. The policy of allowing police to shoot on suspicion that someone is a terrorist is what is being suggested. Previously, this has been used in Northern Ireland, during the Troubles, and around the country following the bombings In July 2005.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/17/shoot-to-kill-what-is-the-uks-policy