snowychap Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) 13 minutes ago, tomaspg said: my dad is Iranian but hes lived in sweden for the last 30+ years, the **** eats more meatballs than the rest of our muncipality combined, so i've always seen him as swedish... That's probably about the best thing I've read in this thread! Edited November 15, 2015 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swerbs Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 France currently bombing the shit out of Raqqa. Not sure if this is the right course of action but is completely understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gharperr Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) 7 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: They wouldn't even know! Do you think MI5 would tell the Sun?? Depends, my parents read the daily fail and they always tell me about how the intelligence services has foiled X amount of attacks in the last god knows how long. And the source just says "top ranking official" (or something similar). So i guess maybe they would? Edited November 15, 2015 by gharperr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 5 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: They wouldn't even know! Do you think MI5 would tell the Sun?? We are going a little far to back up beliefs now. We all know they don't tell us everything! The secret info comes from the ITK's surely we all know that You said 'would not report', that suggests the Daily Mail would chose not to run a negative scary story about bad brown people. If you meant 'would not find out about' that's a very different thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Too long and liberal I guess (and I take issue with its last two paras) but I'll reproduce the Grauniad's editorial: Quote Before we can speak of anything else, we must speak of the victims. Amid all the noise that follows an act of horrific violence, amid the din of debate and argument, it can be easy to stop hearing the pain of the event itself. Paris is mourning the loss of at least 129 people who on Friday were engaged in the harmless, happy business of normal life: eating together, watching football together, listening to music together. Now they are dead, murdered in utterly terrifying circumstances. The survivors, the injured, the entire French people, already wounded by the lethal attacks in January, are reeling from the shock. In their loss, in their grief, in their pain, we are with them. The French president responded to the Paris killings by branding them a declaration of war. That sounds compelling. To speak of Friday night’s shootings and bombings only as crimes, as if they were equivalent to a string of murders by an urban gang, misses something important. They were co-ordinated, meticulously planned and, according to eye-witnesses, staged with a cold, military precision. Not for nothing did Francois Hollande speak of confrontation with the Isis “army”. And yet even if Isis did mean this night of slaughter to be a declaration of war, that does not mean France – or the rest of the world – needs to return the compliment. And a compliment it would be. To declare war against Isis is to flatter it, to grant it the dignity it craves. It accords it the status of a state, which Isis claims for itself but does not deserve. It confronts that murderous organisation on terms of its choosing rather than ours. What’s more, rhetoric of that hue has a recent and unhappy history. In 2001, George W Bush similarly hailed 9/11 as a declaration of war. But the rubric of war, with its implied permission for the most extreme measures, saw the US and its allies make several disastrous decisions. Their impact is felt even now, nearly 15 years later. That category surely includes the forced collapse of Iraq and the subsequent incubation of Isis itself. Declarations of war pose another problem too: who exactly is party to this declaration? Mr Hollande was speaking for France. But the Paris slaughter also felt like an attack on Europe, maybe even on European values. Yet it’s clear that Isis does not confine itself to that target, attacking instead all who stand in the way of its eliminationist brand of sectarian hate. Last Thursday, a bomb in Beirut killed 43 people. The next morning, a suicide bomber killed more than 20 in Baghdad. Both attacks were attributed to Isis. And just over a fortnight ago, a Russian jet carrying 224 people was blown out of the sky over Egypt, also apparently the work of Isis or an affiliate. And, never forget, the most numerous victims of Isis are not westerners but those Muslims unlucky enough to live within their deathly grasp. How then are we to respond? Already there has been a demand, which will only get louder, to change those aspects of democratic and especially European life that make us vulnerable to attack. The urge is understandable. It’s natural and human, when under threat, to want to seal the borders, to halt the tide of refugees, to allow those who would protect us ever greater muscle. In this climate, it can be unpopular to call for consideration and thought. But if we feel European values are in danger, then the last way to defend those values is by dismantling them. The moral case for Europe to remain a place of refuge is unaltered by what happened on Friday. The allegation that one of the killers came to Europe disguised as a refugee is deeply suspect, the supposed evidence of a found Syrian passport highly questionable. Many of those who fled Syria did so to escape Isis. If anything, those refugees have the potential to be a great asset in the fight against that murderous group. In Britain, there will be some who see Theresa May’s new investigatory powers bill in a more urgent light after Paris. But unless and until the evidence shows that bulk surveillance would have made a difference in that dreadful scenario, the argument remains where it was. And our starting point is still that mass surveillance of all of us is neither necessary nor effective. When the intelligence agencies are looking for a needle in a haystack, they shouldn’t be adding more hay. When they need to spy on an individual or group, they should seek – and they will usually get – the legal warrant to do so. And, in case it needs repeating, European societies do not defend their values when they turn on their Muslim fellow citizens – on the contrary, they violate those values. Which brings us to Syria. The defeat of Isis in Syria will not dissolve the threat of jihadi violence, but it is a necessary step on that road. That will surely entail military action, though that does not mean the west has to do all the fighting. Friday’s recapture from Isis of Sinjar in northern Iraq is instructive. The combination of US warplanes in the sky and Kurdish fighters on the ground proved decisive. For all that, the core of the answer must be diplomatic. Saturday’s talks in Vienna brought together disparate antagonists, including Russia, the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia. But perhaps now – as Russia, for example, has seen that its dogged support for Bashar al-Assad comes at a heavy cost – those nations might finally rise to the occasion. This could be the moment when previously warring interests come into alignment. We urge all the governments involved to seize that moment – for the sake of Syria, for the sake of the innocent dead of Paris, for the sake of our common future. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomaspg Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 44 minutes ago, snowychap said: That's probably about the best thing I've read in this thread! haha next time you swing by sweden, let me know, the meatballs my mum will cook up will make want you to switch nationalities too 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomaspg Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 19 minutes ago, snowychap said: wall of text cant say i dont agree with most of it. i dont think theres alot of people that will dispute the first couple of paragraphs. but as you say, the issue arises with the last two ones, in which the most difficult part of the problem is discussed, the way forward. But IMO, pragmaticism has to be the first step, stop the imminent threat to the population at risk, a force to protect the people which stand helpless. When the lives of the innocent are safe, then we can start looking at a solution to the underlying problems. What worries me is that if the west start putting troops on the ground in Syria we wont stop at just protecting people. The lines are very blurry and fragile and as soon as we start stepping over them were looking at a new afghanistan, iraq etc. we cant bomb a country into our own point of view, we have tried over and over again and the result is always the same. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 16, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted November 16, 2015 1 minute ago, choffer said: I know it's easy to blame refugees for what's happened but in reality the perpetrators are exactly the people these refugees have been running from. Exactly. Saw a great cartoon/comic portraying this very issue. I'll see if I can find it. My post from a twitter update a few pages back. Cant we just agree with all western media that Isis are now to be only referred to as 'little girls'? When a term is used enough, it sticks. If the term isis is retired and little girls used exclusively to describe them, we de facto change their name. How macho and egotistical will it be for them to be in the group of little girls? Unfair on little girls. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Can't embed from youtube. Edited November 16, 2015 by snowychap Editor is shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 16, 2015 10 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: New politicians who don't bomb civilisations back to the kind of stone age conditions that breed stone age attitudes would make things a hell of a lot better. For example, prior to the first gulf war, Iraq had some of the best Universities in the middle east, it was proud of them. Good schools open up learning, education changes societies, it changes attitudes, it undermines religious extremism, it encourages equality of the sexes, a respect for sciences and attitudes of freedom of thought and expression. Bombing doesn't do that, bombing brings out the worst in societies, it sends people back to superstition, to hatred, to separatism and to extremism, that's true at both ends of the scale. More bombs won't make Syria better. Making Syria better will lead to less terrorists. Agreed but then Iraq invaded another country, I'm not sure that should be ignored. Oh and used chemical weapons on its own population. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Sorry skipped through the last few pages. So I read that so far all of the suspects are French citizens rather than anyone coming over from Syria. Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 11 hours ago, chrisp65 said: 100% bollocks You think the government could or would even want to stop the Sun and the Mail reporting such a thing? Funny you should say that... Quote Why the Sun sat on a Sharm scoop. NICK PARKER, chief foreign correspondent of the Sun, had shocking news on last Friday’s front page: “Security at Sharm el-Sheikh airport has been exposed as a shambles after guards let Brits jump queues for a £15 fee – without checking their luggage.” A pity he wasn’t allowed to write the story when he first discovered it, a full five months earlier. Clicky 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 4 minutes ago, Xann said: Funny you should say that... Clicky So the butterfly flaps it's wings on one side of the world and hundreds die on the other. Obviously we have no way of knowing whether publishing would have prevented an attack (even if security had been stepped up it's quite likely something else equally severe would have happened) but it just goes to show that everything is more complicated than it first appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 27 minutes ago, omariqy said: Sorry skipped through the last few pages. So I read that so far all of the suspects are French citizens rather than anyone coming over from Syria. Is that correct? At least one of the bombers at the Stade de France is confirmed to have come through Turkey and Greece a couple of months ago as a refugee. I should think it's likely that it's been a mixture of the two, with one French-Algerian family being particularly involved. Whether they'd all met up in Syria to coordinate and plan I guess is still to be confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 58 minutes ago, omariqy said: Sorry skipped through the last few pages. So I read that so far all of the suspects are French citizens rather than anyone coming over from Syria. Is that correct? There was a story in the Metro today that said one of them was recently rescued when his boat capsized off the coast of Greece on his way to Europe. His passport was found on one of the gunmen. I do find it strange how passports seem to show up at these places..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Passports seem to be very resilient Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 1 minute ago, Xela said: Passports seem to be very resilient Don't they just. Made of stern stuff these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LxYoungAVFC Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I think that passeports were found (paris attacks, charlie hebdo) is very suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 It's been done earlier in the thread, that in France the police can stop and ask anyone for ID so it's better for anyone preparing a terrorist attack to carry it with them to avoid suspicion on the off chance they get stopped. Hence why they have passports on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I think when Passports are being found in tact after a multistory building is practically disintegrated shows that these documents are stubborn buggers..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts