Shootings and explosion in Paris!

[BigGully]

So, none of the people are arrested in Turkey were refugees. The Paris attackers were EU nationals, one of whom seems to have been carrying fake ID: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-attack-what-we-know-about-the-suspects.html

Absolute nonsense, we are just at the beginning of a terrorist timeline, even you might acknowledge that there is an uncertain future.

I suspect the the security services are releasing snippets of politically controlled information, I think that there is an inevitable backlash of sentiment on the newly arrived migrants throughout Europe and with no return ever likely this has to be managed.

Somehow Europe found it reasonable to invite 100 000's of unknown Muslims from a country that in places is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalists (and those are the moderates) without any way of knowing if they might have other motives, to not even have any foresight of any possible security risk for me is a dereliction of duty by Merkel and her mates.

I note you mention that the recent terrorists are EU nationals without offering the fact that their origins are from outside the EU from predominately Islamic countries, so the similarities remain but just downstream from the current migrants, for me your point supports the sceptics rather than not.

The other part which I find more worrying is if we agree that those entering or already here are unlikely to strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up at a place me, you and our families may well visit, then with the unavoidable Islamic dynamic we are inviting sympathises, empathises and apologists, not every single one, but enough to make parts of future newly formed communities toxic.

Dont forget that a recent BBC poll of UK muslims said that 78% felt offended by the publication of images of the Prophet Muhammad (that was in respect of the Charlie Hebdo shootings) whilst 11% felt sympathy with those wishing to fight against western interest.

If you would care to translate those conclusions to those arriving from Syria then we have a problem to our culture, beliefs and safety, for you not to even acknowledge the risk shows you are a bit stupid.

 

[kevo]

Horrific detail on the Bataclan attacks:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/20/bataclan-witnesses-recount-horror-paris-attacks

What stands out is that the witness claims he called the police '80 times' after he'd spotted the terrorists waiting in their car but was told they would ring him back, but they never did. Could have saved many lives.

I guess if there are mutliple attacks all the phone lines would be jammed, but this really is something the French emergency services need to address.

 

[Soulman]

Absolute nonsense, we are just at the beginning of a terrorist timeline, even you might acknowledge that there is an uncertain future.

I suspect the the security services are releasing snippets of politically controlled information, I think that there is an inevitable backlash of sentiment on the newly arrived migrants throughout Europe and with no return ever likely this has to be managed.

Somehow Europe found it reasonable to invite 100 000's of unknown Muslims from a country that in places is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalists (and those are the moderates) without any way of knowing if they might have other motives, to not even have any foresight of any possible security risk, for me is a dereliction of duty by Merkel and her mates.

I note you mention that the recent terrorists are EU nationals without offering the fact that their origins are from outside the EU from predominately Islamic countries, so the similarities remain but just downstream from the current migrants, for me your point supports the sceptics rather than not.

For me the other part which I find more worrying is if we agree that those entering or already here are unlikely to strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up at a place me, you and our families may well visit, then with the unavoidable Islamic dynamic we are inviting sympathises, empathises and apologists, not every single one, but enough to make parts of future newly formed communities toxic.

Dont forget that a recent BBC poll to UK muslims said that 78% felt offended by the publication of images of the Prophet Muhammad whilst 11% felt sympathy with those wishing to fight against western interest.

If you would care to transfer any likely conclusion of those arriving from Syria then we have a problem for our culture, beliefs and safety, for you not to even acknowledge the risk shows you are a bit stupid.

Good analysis.

 

[portslade seagull]

HMmm meant to be going to Brussels in a couple of weeks. Not looking good

 

[Buzzer]

Might be a little closer to home. Reports that armed police in London have arrested 3 blokes in a car with Belgian number-plates.

 

[Dandyman]

Absolute nonsense, we are just at the beginning of a terrorist timeline, even you might acknowledge that there is an uncertain future.

I suspect the the security services are releasing snippets of politically controlled information, I think that there is an inevitable backlash of sentiment on the newly arrived migrants throughout Europe and with no return ever likely this has to be managed.

Somehow Europe found it reasonable to invite 100 000's of unknown Muslims from a country that in places is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalists (and those are the moderates) without any way of knowing if they might have other motives, to not even have any foresight of any possible security risk for me is a dereliction of duty by Merkel and her mates.

I note you mention that the recent terrorists are EU nationals without offering the fact that their origins are from outside the EU from predominately Islamic countries, so the similarities remain but just downstream from the current migrants, for me your point supports the sceptics rather than not.

The other part which I find more worrying is if we agree that those entering or already here are unlikely to strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up at a place me, you and our families may well visit, then with the unavoidable Islamic dynamic we are inviting sympathises, empathises and apologists, not every single one, but enough to make parts of future newly formed communities toxic.

Dont forget that a recent BBC poll of UK muslims said that 78% felt offended by the publication of images of the Prophet Muhammad (that was in respect of the Charlie Hebdo shootings) whilst 11% felt sympathy with those wishing to fight against western interest.

If you would care to translate those conclusions to those arriving from Syria then we have a problem to our culture, beliefs and safety, for you not to even acknowledge the risk shows you are a bit stupid.

The refugees are fleeing Daesh and the chaos caused in the Middle East by inept foreign policy, corrupt Gulf states and the rest.

You have failed to show that there is any real link between the refugees and the terrorists other than forged or stolen papers. If you want to have screening of refugees, I don't have a problem with that - it's something the British government have repeatedly refused to do. We could also stop selling weapons to the Saudis. Bahrain and other thugs that bankroll Daesh and AQ, avoid invading other people's countries and work with Russia, Iran and others to produce a response that amounts to more than the division and superstition that the terrorists want to produce.

 

[dingodan]

Why do people keep saying that Cameron asked Parliament for permission to bomb ISIS before. He didn't, he asked for permission to bomb ASSAD, who is fighting AGAINST ISIS.

If Cameron wants to bomb ISIS in Syria now, then that is a 180 on what he wanted before. People (on TV) are talking as though todays circumstances vindicate Cameron, and if only he had got his way last time. But if he had got his way last time, Assad would be gone, and who would have filled that vacuum? ISIS.

It wasn't even that long ago, how can people be so stupid?

 

[Hampster Gull]

It wasn't even that long ago, how can people be so stupid?

I am worried for you that you that you even have to ask the question

 

[dingodan]

Reality check IMO:

 

[Buzzer]

Why do people keep saying that Cameron asked Parliament for permission to bomb ISIS before. He didn't, he asked for permission to bomb ASSAD, who is fighting AGAINST ISIS.

If Cameron wants to bomb ISIS in Syria now, then that is a 180 on what he wanted before. People (on TV) are talking as though todays circumstances vindicate Cameron, and if only he had got his way last time. But if he had got his way last time, Assad would be gone, and who would have filled that vacuum? ISIS.

It wasn't even that long ago, how can people be so stupid?

If, as a lot of people claim, that ISIS are the fault of the West with backing dodgy (but at that time we were unaware just how dodgy) groups against a dictator that routinely tortured his own people and used chemical weapons upon them then I reckon a few things could be claimed here. Firstly, it didn't make trying to unseat Assad from power a bad thing, he is still bad, very bad - just not so bad as ISIS and secondly, if we helped create the situation then it behoves us to look at trying to fix it, especially now that ISIS are bringing the fight to our towns and cities.

I'd also pick up on your point about what would have happened if there had been a vacuum - there was a vacuum and ISIS did fill it. It's not stupidity, IMO, to re-assess the situation and adjust foreign policy to take account of changes, good and bad. I don't want the UK bombing anywhere, to be honest, but I think necessity dictates that ISIS represents the single biggest threat to European safety right now, they are impervious to reason and if we leave it any longer they will get more powerful.

I don't think anyone can accuse Cameron of over-reacting here or even war-mongering. He's the PM and ultimately the defence of this country rests with him. That's some huge responsibility and I don't think he takes it lightly.

 

[Hastings gull]

Why do people keep saying that Cameron asked Parliament for permission to bomb ISIS before. He didn't, he asked for permission to bomb ASSAD, who is fighting AGAINST ISIS.

If Cameron wants to bomb ISIS in Syria now, then that is a 180 on what he wanted before. People (on TV) are talking as though todays circumstances vindicate Cameron, and if only he had got his way last time. But if he had got his way last time, Assad would be gone, and who would have filled that vacuum? ISIS.

It wasn't even that long ago, how can people be so stupid?

I am in now way an expert here, but do people keep saying that? A few years ago, DC was thinking of bombing Assad to help the Free Syrian Army, when very few had heard of Daesch, but the cruelty shown by Assad towards his people received much coverage. So, it follows THEN, that if Assad had been toppled, it would not have been by ISIS, surely, but by the "good" rebels! Obviously the balance might now have changed.

 

[dingodan]

If, as a lot of people claim, that ISIS are the fault of the West with backing dodgy (but at that time we were unaware just how dodgy) groups against a dictator that routinely tortured his own people and used chemical weapons upon them then I reckon a few things could be claimed here. Firstly, it didn't make trying to unseat Assad from power a bad thing, he is still bad, very bad - just not so bad as ISIS and secondly, if we helped create the situation then it behoves us to look at trying to fix it, especially now that ISIS are bringing the fight to our towns and cities.

I'd also pick up on your point about what would have happened if there had been a vacuum - there was a vacuum and ISIS did fill it. It's not stupidity, IMO, to re-assess the situation and adjust foreign policy to take account of changes, good and bad. I don't want the UK bombing anywhere, to be honest, but I think necessity dictates that ISIS represents the single biggest threat to European safety right now, they are impervious to reason and if we leave it any longer they will get more powerful.

I don't think anyone can accuse Cameron of over-reacting here or even war-mongering. He's the PM and ultimately the defence of this country rests with him. That's some huge responsibility and I don't think he takes it lightly.

I don't think he's being a war mongering, nor over-reacting, and I never said that he was. I completely understand the will and perhaps the need to deal with ISIS in Syria. But Camerons suggestion that we do that should come with a serious apology and recognition that his past position, that we should bomb Assad, was foolish. & it was. Assad is not a good guy, neither were Gaddafi or Hussein. What happened to the vacuum created in Iraq? the vacuum created in Libya? Syria would have gone the same way.

I'm not saying that he's wrong for his position now, just that he can't take this position now without acknowledging how wrong he was before. But I guess he can.

 

[dingodan]

I am in now way an expert here, but do people keep saying that? A few years ago, DC was thinking of bombing Assad to help the Free Syrian Army, when very few had heard of Daesch, but the cruelty shown by Assad towards his people received much coverage. So, it follows THEN, that if Assad had been toppled, it would not have been by ISIS, surely, but by the "good" rebels! Obviously the balance might now have changed.

How do you tell a good rebel from a bad one?

"Hi guys, I have some stinger's her to hand out, but only to the good rebels, OK?"

"Now, hands up if you are a good rebel."

 

[symyjym]

Why do people keep saying that Cameron asked Parliament for permission to bomb ISIS before. He didn't, he asked for permission to bomb ASSAD, who is fighting AGAINST ISIS.

If Cameron wants to bomb ISIS in Syria now, then that is a 180 on what he wanted before. People (on TV) are talking as though todays circumstances vindicate Cameron, and if only he had got his way last time. But if he had got his way last time, Assad would be gone, and who would have filled that vacuum? ISIS.

It wasn't even that long ago, how can people be so stupid?

This is spot on.

All this talk about will Russia veto airstrikes “again” is nonsense. The first request for airstrikes was to take out Assad like Gaddafi was taken out, which ended up in a brutal mob lynching. This one is against ISIS and is as you say is a complete U-Turn on his original position.

It's like the narrative will go on to imply that Russia have done a U-Turn, which is a cheap political trick.

 

[Buzzer]

I don't think he's being a war mongering, nor over-reacting, and I never said that he was. I completely understand the will and perhaps the need to deal with ISIS in Syria. But Camerons suggestion that we do that should come with a serious apology and recognition that his past position, that we should bomb Assad, was foolish. & it was. Assad is not a good guy, neither were Gaddafi or Hussein. What happened to the vacuum created in Iraq? the vacuum created in Libya? Syria would have gone the same way.

I'm not saying that he's wrong for his position now, just that he can't take this position now without acknowledging how wrong he was before. But I guess he can.

Fair enough. I misread the tone of your post. Apologies.

You make a very good point. If Cameron was to acknowledge the mistakes of last time and that bombing Assad and arming the rebels made things worse, why he believes it's different this time and also what the boundaries of our involvement are going to be then he could win support from a large section of the British public.

 

[dingodan]

Fair enough. I misread the tone of your post. Apologies.

You make a very good point. If Cameron was to acknowledge the mistakes of last time and that bombing Assad and arming the rebels made things worse, why he believes it's different this time and also what the boundaries of our involvement are going to be then he could win support from a large section of the British public.

That's true. The reason I have been getting annoyed (at the TV, lol) is because the argument being made is that where we are today proves Cameron was right. No, it proves him wrong, I'm not looking to gloat or see him grovel, but for people to be arguing that he (and the interventionists in general) have now been proven right really winds me up.

 

[pastafarian]

The refugees are fleeing Daesh and the chaos caused in the Middle East by inept foreign policy, corrupt Gulf states and the rest.

You have failed to show that there is any real link between the refugees and the terrorists other than forged or stolen papers. If you want to have screening of refugees, I don't have a problem with that - it's something the British government have repeatedly refused to do. .

1/Isnt that the whole point, the bad blokes who have been fighting in Syria and known to the authorities are now returning to their countries hidden amongst the chaos of the refugee situation and using fake passports to get back into Europe.

2/Are you sure about this,I thought the refugees which we have agreed to take from the camps are screened by the UNHCR for criminal activity and war crimes etc.When referred to us they go through a second screening by the Home Office before they are cleared and admitted.
Surely also asylum seekers who enter the UK illegally go through years of verification checks by the Home Office before they are granted refugee status or resident protection rights.
I cant see how this equates to refusing to do any checks?
Glad we havnt gone down the Merkel route and just invited every Tom Dick and Harry to make their way to our country .

 

[pastafarian]

Fair enough. I misread the tone of your post. Apologies.

You make a very good point. If Cameron was to acknowledge the mistakes of last time and that bombing Assad and arming the rebels made things worse, why he believes it's different this time and also what the boundaries of our involvement are going to be then he could win support from a large section of the British public.

Some of this argument seems to be getting lost in translation. Watching question time the other day I was surprised to hear so many of the audience against bombing "the whole" of Syria when the proposal is clearly against attacking solely ISIS,with a view to continued negotiations for a peace with the other parties.
Im hearing it all too often via other sources as well.
Either people are trying to deliberately muddy the waters or Cameron is doing a poor job at getting over exactly what is being proposed.

 

[dingodan]

Some of this argument seems to be getting lost in translation. Watching question time the other day I was surprised to hear so many of the audience against bombing "the whole" of Syria when the proposal is clearly against attacking solely ISIS,with a view to continued negotiations for a peace with the other parties.
Im hearing it all too often via other sources as well.
Either people are trying to deliberately muddy the waters or Cameron is doing a poor job at getting over exactly what is being proposed.

I think people are all war-ed out. Sick of dropping bombs period. We've dropped a lot of bombs over the last couple of decades. Are we safer for it? richer for it? freer for it?

Maybe, arguably, these bombs are ones which should be dropped this time, if anything Cameron may be suffering here from a case of the boy who cried wolf.

 

[Buzzer]

Some of this argument seems to be getting lost in translation. Watching question time the other day I was surprised to hear so many of the audience against bombing "the whole" of Syria when the proposal is clearly against attacking solely ISIS,with a view to continued negotiations for a peace with the other parties.
Im hearing it all too often via other sources as well.
Either people are trying to deliberately muddy the waters or Cameron is doing a poor job at getting over exactly what is being proposed.

I'm not sure the waters need any more muddying. I genuinely think the whole thing is so confusing that people aren't sure who bombed who last time. Maybe the hawks are exploiting this but I do think that we need a lot more clarity from those at the top about this. I'm all in favour of bombing ISIS but I worry about what our involvement is after this. I'm inclined to leave it to the Russians to do the groundwork but then Putin will just reinforce Assad's dictatorship and maybe he'll get a taste for Iraq too.