The ISIS threat to Europe

[maqroll]

War and instability translates into massive profits for weapons manufacturers and all the industry built up around the war machine. And if that sector of the economy has influence within governments (which it quite clearly does), then governments will gladly do their bidding. Government neither likes nor dislikes war, it merely does what it's told at any given time by the men that control it.

[blandy]

53 minutes ago, BOF said:

there is the environment of fear that war; and the resulting terrorism; creates in the West which makes it very easy for Western governments to bring in all manner of controls over its own populations.  The drip drip closing of freedoms one at a time and the ever-encroaching physical and electronic surveillance, all done with our blessing.  Things you wouldn't get away with implementing without the threat of attack.  Politicians want power.  It's why they're politicians.  Anything that gives them more power is a good thing in their eyes.  I'd say Theresa May was privately rubbing her hands watching Paris unfold. 

I know where you're coming from Brian. I agree with parts of it. I feel from sometimes actual observation of politicians and various VIP visitors when they come to look at things I am/have been involved with, that they like being seen posing with or being given access to hardware or stuff that people just don't get to see. I agree that for a good while across the last several gov's there has been an authoritarian streak that's way too strong - I can't think of the last home secretary that didn't turn into almost a tyrant within about a month. Theresa May is no different. And there have been some proper tubes as defence minister too - Liam Fox being just about the biggest numpty of all of them.

So yes, they want power and it's why they exist, and they want fame and profile. I don't think Theresa May would have "rubbing her hands watching Paris" though. That's too much for me, and as much as I despise the tories and what they do and stand for, I just can't see that would be the case. But I might be naive, there.

lastly, USA - Israel and GB - Saudi relations. I'm not sure they're anything like comparable, in depth or reach or strength, frankly. I also don't see them as being indicators or evidence of a desire to see permanent war in the middle east. I agree that for various reasons those relationships are harmful as well as beneficial and that frequently the harm has perhaps outweighed the benefits in recent times. Israel's car crimes and collective punishments and theft of land and human rights abuses and Saudi's beheadings, human rights abuses, religious intolerance (to put it mildly) plus general bonkersness in many things need to be turned round, but the likes of the US and UK are compromised by those relationships and so don't do what they should.

Still don't see that as wanting permanent war, but we each form different opinions and I respect yours completely.

 

 

[OutByEaster?]

I'm unsure how much of this is tinfoil on the head nonsense (And I'm sure that you'll be happy to help with that), but doesn't perpetual war work like this:

Nations divert money from public funds into private hands in order to pay for war, and they borrow huge sums to finance these billion dollar arms deals - then they take the stuff they've used tax and borrowed money to buy and they blow it up - they no longer have the stuff, they just have the debt.

Meanwhile, some other poor bugger has a big hole in the ground where their roads, railway stations, airports and houses used to be, so these people borrow large sums of money from the banks in order to finance rebuilding. What was once a country without bombs and and a country with nice buildings becomes a country without any more bombs and a country with new buildings - the only difference is that both are now absolutely up to their necks in debt and effectively owned and controlled by their banks. The whole shebang essentially benefitting a couple of hundred incredibly rich financiers. The purpose of war is debt. Debt is the worlds biggest industry.

 

[blandy]

39 minutes ago, maqroll said:

So France and Russia have been bombing Raqqa, which is filled with not only ISIS, but regular citizens. Is there an accounting of "collateral damage" being done? The innocent must be dying at a much higher rate than ISIS fighters who have more freedom of movement and access to vehicles and bunkers.

reading some twitter stuff, the regular citizens (e.g. @Raqqa_SL) welcomed and even wanted more bombing at first "“The strikes have hit Isis...but not enough.” "We don’t like to see people afraid from the Airstrikes and Explosions but we support any action [that] will take #Isis out from #Raqqa.”

And in my paper  it was reported last week that one local said

 “impossible to tell who is doing the bombing, and all has become a horror”. Another tweet said: “The world has to know we’re living between the control of Isis on the ground and the bombardment that arrives from above.”

And now they're getting white phosphorous in munitions used by the russians, as reported by RBSS to the Times, [behind a paywall].

So I dunno if anyone's counting, but it sounds good. The Raqqa is being slaughtered twitter also says the ISIS run away and hide and use human shields, so I guess you're right.

 

[mjmooney]

[darrenm]

1 minute ago, mjmooney said:

I saw that earlier on Facebook and was impressed how they'd made up other equally crazy stories on the front page too. Then I saw the real front page and realised they're real.

O:M:F:G

[Rugeley Villa]

13 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

 

 

ay leave me out of this 

[villakram]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'm unsure how much of this is tinfoil on the head nonsense (And I'm sure that you'll be happy to help with that), but doesn't perpetual war work like this:

Nations divert money from public funds into private hands in order to pay for war, and they borrow huge sums to finance these billion dollar arms deals - then they take the stuff they've used tax and borrowed money to buy and they blow it up - they no longer have the stuff, they just have the debt.

Meanwhile, some other poor bugger has a big hole in the ground where their roads, railway stations, airports and houses used to be, so these people borrow large sums of money from the banks in order to finance rebuilding. What was once a country without bombs and and a country with nice buildings becomes a country without any more bombs and a country with new buildings - the only difference is that both are now absolutely up to their necks in debt and effectively owned and controlled by their banks. The whole shebang essentially benefitting a couple of hundred incredibly rich financiers. The purpose of war is debt. Debt is the worlds biggest industry.

 

Do you know where your nail gun is?

[OutByEaster?]

6 minutes ago, villakram said:

 

Do you know where your nail gun is?

I'm not sure I understand.

 

[villakram]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'm unsure how much of this is tinfoil on the head nonsense (And I'm sure that you'll be happy to help with that), but doesn't perpetual war work like this:

Nations divert money from public funds into private hands in order to pay for war, and they borrow huge sums to finance these billion dollar arms deals - then they take the stuff they've used tax and borrowed money to buy and they blow it up - they no longer have the stuff, they just have the debt.

Meanwhile, some other poor bugger has a big hole in the ground where their roads, railway stations, airports and houses used to be, so these people borrow large sums of money from the banks in order to finance rebuilding. What was once a country without bombs and and a country with nice buildings becomes a country without any more bombs and a country with new buildings - the only difference is that both are now absolutely up to their necks in debt and effectively owned and controlled by their banks. The whole shebang essentially benefitting a couple of hundred incredibly rich financiers. The purpose of war is debt. Debt is the worlds biggest industry.

 

13 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'm not sure I understand.

 

 

So this is an (I guess) attempt at humor. So stateside a couple of yrs ago there was someone, I think, from the financial sector who committed suicide with a nail gun, or at least that's how the story went. The reaction in certain places was along the lines of wtf... there's no way anyone would commit suicide that way ('cause logical thinking and suicide go hand in hand)... ergo CIA hit squad took him out as this guy knew something about the inner workings of the 1% or some such.

Now if one peruses the comment sections of certain websites a standard statement when general DoD/Pentagon/FED related Fookery is in play, is that when someone analyses things pretty accurately, is to warn them to avoid nailguns... the implication being that the MAN is gonna get ya!

Anyway, the long way of saying you're pretty spot on with your debt comment. But it's important we argue about abortion/gun right/etc. instead of the actual problem.

edit: Quick google leads me to believe this be the src. ""Nail Gun Suicide" Banker's Firm Probed Over Missing Millions"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-29/nail-gun-suicide-bankers-firm-probed-over-missing-millions

Their emphasis... quality journalism "The Arapahoe County coroner's office said Talley shot himself in the chest seven times with 2½ -inch finish nails from a nail gun before firing a fatal nail into his head. Police found him dressed for work, sitting in his car in the garage and with the motor running."

Edited November 23, 2015 by villakram

[maqroll]

Brussels brought to it's knees by ISIS.

**** disgusting situation.

[TrentVilla]

 

Meanwhile back in Paris....

A street cleaner has found an abandoned suicide vest packed with explosives and pieces of metal hidden in a pile of rubble on the street.

It would appear there was another attacker/attack planed but they didn't go through with it.

There are some people walking around Paris today who have no idea how lucky they are.

[Ghost]

Seems Turkey has just shot down a Russian fighter jet claiming it violated Turkish air space. 

[Wainy316]

What would the repercussions be here? Why would anyone with a brain cell attack Russia?

[Dr_Pangloss]

Won't end well for Turkey

[BOF]

15 hours ago, blandy said:

I know where you're coming from Brian. I agree with parts of it. I feel from sometimes actual observation of politicians and various VIP visitors when they come to look at things I am/have been involved with, that they like being seen posing with or being given access to hardware or stuff that people just don't get to see. I agree that for a good while across the last several gov's there has been an authoritarian streak that's way too strong - I can't think of the last home secretary that didn't turn into almost a tyrant within about a month. Theresa May is no different. And there have been some proper tubes as defence minister too - Liam Fox being just about the biggest numpty of all of them.

So yes, they want power and it's why they exist, and they want fame and profile. I don't think Theresa May would have "rubbing her hands watching Paris" though. That's too much for me, and as much as I despise the tories and what they do and stand for, I just can't see that would be the case. But I might be naive, there.

lastly, USA - Israel and GB - Saudi relations. I'm not sure they're anything like comparable, in depth or reach or strength, frankly. I also don't see them as being indicators or evidence of a desire to see permanent war in the middle east. I agree that for various reasons those relationships are harmful as well as beneficial and that frequently the harm has perhaps outweighed the benefits in recent times. Israel's car crimes and collective punishments and theft of land and human rights abuses and Saudi's beheadings, human rights abuses, religious intolerance (to put it mildly) plus general bonkersness in many things need to be turned round, but the likes of the US and UK are compromised by those relationships and so don't do what they should.

Still don't see that as wanting permanent war, but we each form different opinions and I respect yours completely.

 

 

As always, a pleasure having a discussion with you   What I will say is I hope I'm wrong and I hope you're right, and I hope that if you are that the powers that be have it in their ability to fix this.  I used a lot of 'hope' there.

[blandy]

15 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'm unsure how much of this is tinfoil on the head nonsense (And I'm sure that you'll be happy to help with that), but doesn't perpetual war work like this:

Nations divert money from public funds into private hands in order to pay for war, and they borrow huge sums to finance these billion dollar arms deals - then they take the stuff they've used tax and borrowed money to buy and they blow it up - they no longer have the stuff, they just have the debt.

Meanwhile, some other poor bugger has a big hole in the ground where their roads, railway stations, airports and houses used to be, so these people borrow large sums of money from the banks in order to finance rebuilding. What was once a country without bombs and and a country with nice buildings becomes a country without any more bombs and a country with new buildings - the only difference is that both are now absolutely up to their necks in debt and effectively owned and controlled by their banks. The whole shebang essentially benefitting a couple of hundred incredibly rich financiers. The purpose of war is debt. Debt is the worlds biggest industry.

 

There's an element of truth in that, definitely. But rather than go even further off topic and discuss at length, I'll just point out a couple of things.

if country a "borrows huge sums to finance buying some tanks and boats and planes and guns" - they generally still have it left at the end of a war they might engage in. They don't "blow it up". True they will use up bombs and rockets and bullets and they might lose some of the tanks etc. but they'll still have most of it left. so saying "they no longer have the stuff, they just have the debt" is incorrect. Let's pick an example - call it Israel, shall we. Or Russia, or the US, or Saudi Arabia or whoever.

And the "other poor bugger has a big hole in the ground where their roads, railway stations, airports and houses used to be.." let's call this place say Palestine - well yes they have a huge hole in the ground etc. It tends to be the case that most of their reparation is paid for not by them borrowing money, but by outside countries, the EU etc. paying for it. I'm not sure that they are "effectively owned and controlled by their banks".

I don't dispute for a moment that war is appalling, horrific, atrocious, that some people have interests in starting or extending war and all that side of it. It is and they do. to go back on topic the French Gov't desire to attack ISIS following Paris is not driven by the motives and factors you ascribe. Sometimes tinfoil is needed. Sometimes it's misplaced.

 

[Demitri_C]

3 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Won't end well for Turkey

This is gonna end badly for thE Turks, bad decision on their part

[AVFC_Hitz]

Yep, hopefully they'll get their arses handed to them.

[chrisp65]

7 minutes ago, AVFC_Hitz said:

Yep, hopefully they'll get their arses handed to them.

.....followed by 75,000,000 Turks walking to Greece.....