Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Forget PMQ reactions – the big story this afternoon is the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Forget PMQ reactions – the big story this afternoon is the killing in Paris
Gunmen responsible for deadly attack on #CharlieHebdo are still on the loose, @fhollande says. http://t.co/sBOkqaRg1Y pic.twitter.com/km88JvZmCa
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Both the general law and its Gresham’s corollary point, in contemporary circumstances, towards the resort to physical violence, in the form of firearms or high explosive, as being so probable as to be predicted with virtual certainty. The experience of the last decade and more, all round the world, shows that acts of violence, however apparently irrational or inappropriate their targets, precipitate a frenzied search on the part of the society attacked to discover and remedy more and more grievances, real or imaginary, among those from whom the violence is supposed to emanate or on whose behalf it is supposed to be exercised. Those commanding a position of political leverage would then be superhuman if they could refrain from pointing to the acts of terrorism and, while condemning them, declaring that further and faster concessions and grants of privilege are the only means to avoid such acts being repeated on a rising scale. We know that those who thus argue will always find a ready hearing. This is what produces the gearing effect of terrorism in the contemporary world, yielding huge results from acts of violence perpetrated by minimal numbers. It is not, I repeat again and again, that the mass of a particular population are violently or criminally disposed. Far from it; that population soon becomes itself the prisoner of the violence and machinations of an infinitely small minority among it. Just a few thugs, a few shots, a few bombs at the right place and time and that is enough for disproportionate consequences to follow."
Patrick said:
» show previous quotes
Out of genuine interest - why do you see this new attack as especially different from others in the past or those yet to come? What has this one changed?
The apparent 'professionalism' of those involved. Look at the footage - they've trained to kill. It's not a lone wolf amateur driving into pedestrians in Tours, or someone stabbing a policeman in Lyon.
France's best-known cartoonists for over 40 years.
Thoughts and solidarity goes out to the French people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_France#Post-war_period_and_the_end_of_conscription
However "Ed Miliband wants to Weaponise the NHS" may be coming to a poster near you soon....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA8nABHLQQA
I would say both these things are relatively bad news for Labour and Ed Miliband...
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/News/11704643.Two_Liberal_Democrat_councillors_defect_to_the_Conservative_group/
As for the ones already here, there need to be public cross-partisan campaigns against homophobia, for female equality, for free speech etc openly targeted as Muslims and Muslim areas. Any mosque or Muslim group that opposes these campaigns should be frozen out of any government financing. Oh, and any hint of extremism in Muslim schools should be closed down.
Our government won't do this of course. They're not even prepared to point out that electoral fraud is primarily a Muslim Pakistani problem, or launch a national investigation into the Muslim rape gangs, or permanently close down the trojan horse schools. Our politicians put covering for Muslims ahead of justice and standing up for British principles. That's true of the Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives alike.
David Cameron should stand up today and hold up a copy of the paper showing the cartoons, and say it's important that the attack doesn't limit free speech and hence he's showing it today. But he won't, because the appeasers of Muslim sensitivities will win.
Do you think Nigel Farage would/will?
The abstract concept of "returning IS fighters" is now being played out on the streets. First at the Jewish Museum in Belgium, where a likely returning IS fighter opened fire with an AK and now this in Paris. Same MO. Trained, or at least experienced fighters returning from Syria/Iraq with access to weapons and the intent to bring the fight to the west.
It is why what to do with the returnees is not just an interesting thought game.
(Edited: deleted the albeit justified hyperbole)
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/609/815/941.png
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03156/charlie-hebdo-moha_3156721c.jpg
Those killed were called out by name in Editors meeting inside the office before being shot. Police guards were approached and shot at point blank range as the gunmen entered no sign of a gunfight.
Sky stating they knew precisely who they wanted and it was a very efficient and well planned operation completed calmly and methodically.
Like I said, this changes the game.
anjemchoudary
If freedom of expression can be sacrificed for criminalising incitement & hatred, Why not for insulting the Prophet of Allah? #ParisShooting
50 years ago that might have worked.. If you did it now you can have immigration from Germany & France that would be as much of a problem
Anyway, I genuinely don't think we should be too hard on muslims about this, or pretend that the bastardised version of Islam responsible for the terrorism is typical of Muslims.
It is the friction in society caused by the mass immigration that causes the problems, not the people or the religion.
It is like blaming a match for starting a fire, it needs something to conflict with and at the correct speed, else it is harmless.
WARNING - VERY GRAPHIC
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668
Seriously, fuck these sickos and their screwed up belief system. Muhammed was a perverted sick fuck of a man that screwed little girls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYJB-wjrGsM
These attacks are in fact counter productive. They will bring fear to French muslims as much as non muslims. They expose the terrorists for what they are and will offer justification for actions against them. These terrorists will of course hope and hope and hope again that the reactions are based on bigotry and race and intolerance. Once rationality goes out of the window they have won because in the long run the only defence against terrorism is not to be terrorised and not to lose sight of our own humanity.
Parisians are marching tonight at Place de la République, "for freedom of the press, democracy, and the Republic." http://t.co/dhhbrfnUO1
50 years ago that might have worked.. If you did it now you can have immigration from Germany & France that would be as much of a problem
Anyway, I genuinely don't think we should be too hard on muslims about this, or pretend that the bastardised version of Islam responsible for the terrorism is typical of Muslims.
It is the friction in society caused by the mass immigration that causes the problems, not the people or the religion.
It is like blaming a match for starting a fire, it needs something to conflict with and at the correct speed, else it is harmless.
All I know for sure is that this did not use to happen. There has been mass Moslem immigration into France, the UK and other parts of Europe since the 1960s, but the terrorism has only started in the last decade or so. As I have said before, I lived in Balsall Heath/Sparkbrook in Birmingham and the area was almost entirely Pakistani Moselm. No-one wore burqas or habibs, there were no hate preachers, everyone felt and was safe. My guess is that if I went back there now it would feel very different. What changed?
All I know for sure is that this did not use to happen. There has been mass Moslem immigration into France, the UK and other parts of Europe since the 1960s, but the terrorism has only started in the last decade or so. As I have said before, I lived in Balsall Heath/Sparkbrook in Birmingham and the area was almost entirely Pakistani Moselm. No-one wore burqas or habibs, there were no hate preachers, everyone felt and was safe. My guess is that if I went back there now it would feel very different. What changed?
--------------------------------------------------------
I recommend you read "The Road to National Suicide" by Enoch Powell.. it is a short speech, three or four pages, from 1977 about the process that leads from ghettoisation to extremism to civil war. I believe it precisely answers your question
"This abominable act is not only an attack on the lives of French citizens and their security.
It is also an attack on freedom of speech and the press, core elements of our free democratic culture. In no way can this be justified."
This was not a suicide attack and assuming the perpetrators wanted to stay alive we must assume that was because they wanted to carry out further attacks. If so then again I repeat this is not an attack against cartoonists but a provocation to radicalise other muslims thanks to a hoped for cpunter reaction.
Good question. I agree with that.
One fairly popular view is that it started to take off in the late 1970s, following the overthrow of the Shah of Iran as the trigger, grew through the 80s (Lebanon Civil War, Afghanistan/Soviets etc.) and then became a real globalised problem in the 90s. All of that was a reaction to the dominance of the West - it's cultural and economic globalisation - and the religious counterinsurgency benefited most as it provided robust opposition to that, plus it was in places turbocharged with oil revenue funding by sympathisers in Iran/Saudi Arabia. 9/11 was of course the unequivocal watershed moment.
Then again, you can construct equally compelling hypotheses that it was a reaction to decolonisation in the 40s/50s (Israel/Palestine, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia's growth etc.) or trace it back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East during WW1. Or even trace it back to the time of the Madhi in Sudan in the 1880s.
The latter views fall down, IMHO, because like you I recognise that until the 60s/70s there didn't seem to be a problem.
--------------------------------------------------------
I recommend you read "The Road to National Suicide" by Enoch Powell.. it is a short speech, three or four pages, from 1977 about the process that leads from ghettoisation to extremism to civil war. I believe it precisely answers your question
Even if you look at much of the Moslem world, though, things have gone horribly backwards. Countries across North Africa and the Middle East were much more socially liberal in the 70s and 80s than they are now. Pakistan even had an elected woman PM a few years back. Can you imagine that now? Even the nature of the terrorism changed - in the 70s and 80s it was revolutionary and socialist, now it is fundamental.
"Islam" is not the single variable......
We have the House of Saud, Wahhabism and alot of oil money to thank for that.
'I probably wouldn't entirely stop immigration from Muslim countries'
Why not? Until such time as the existing community is fully integrated and accepts our core values.
"Islam" is not the single variable......
I know that. There never seemed much that united the Turkish Cypriots I knew when I was growing up in Camden and the Pakistanis I lived among when I was at university in Birmingham.
Fast forward to the last few years, and the Islamist terrorism in France has remained a significant problem (not always reported very prominently in the UK media). The current attack might be linked to ISIS and returners from Syria, but it might equally have a North African angle. The fact that the murderers seem to have been trained doesn't necessarily imply a direct ISIS connection.
The gunmen apparently said: "We're al-Qaeda":
" I had gone to get my daughter at nursery.
When I arrived in front of the door of the building of the paper, two men hooded and armed brutally threatened us.
They wanted to come in, go up. I pressed in the code.
They shot on Wolinski, Cabu... it lasted 5 minutes... I had hidden under my desk... they spoke French perfectly... they said they we're al-Qaeda."
http://tinyurl.com/n3trcjl
Used to live just off Republique, with them in spirit tonight.
I am sorry it comes from what seems to be a nasty website, it's the only link I can find. I read it in an Enoch Powell book I have called "A Nation or No Nation"
http://commonsense.websanon.com/?p=214
Explains quite precisely, 38 years ago, the way that mass immigration, and the ghettoization that follows cannot help but lead to extremism, friction, then the violence we have seen today in France
Reuters reports that the headquarters of RPT media group Prisa in Madrid have been evacuated after a “suspicious package” was received. Prisa owns El Pais, among other things.
I'd end the de fact segregation of the races and cultures that exist in this country for starters.
I've said a few times on here and elsewhere, I was fortunate that I grew up in the very middle class Dore and not Darnall surrounded by other people of Pakistani heritage.
My grandparents' generation never indulged in the nonsense some of the latter generation do. My Grandfather was a namazi (proper religous type who prayed 5 times a day) he would never think of hurting anyone or declare a fatwa on someone who offered him a sausage roll.
My grandfather said I should be very grateful to this country and I am.
If you're not happy with this country and/or prefer a country to be Islamic, bugger off to the Islamic State.
Given the professionalism in planning and executing the attack, and then escaping. The French security agencies - particularly DCRI - have some serious questions to answer.
They seem to be more interested in censoring what Wikipedia publish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_générale_de_la_sécurité_intérieure
I agree with you. How do you think we might go about ending that de facto segregation, and promote integration? I'm not sure myself.