13.35 Anjem Choudary, British hate preacher, tweets:
Ramblings of an idiot
Wouldnt today be a good day to stop paying this moron any attention?
SeanT is trying to get him arrested
Well, if he accepts the need for a trial before imprisonment it will be progress of sorts.
To be fair to Sean, when he wanted to intern all Muslims, a bomb had just exploded not far from his house.
What do you think we should do? What would the right response from us look like?
I'm not sure.
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 Islamist, bugger off to the Islamic State.
"I'd end the de fact segregation of the races and cultures that exist in this country for starters."
Segregation of races and cultures is an inevitable consequence of mass immigration of people of a different race and culture. It cannot be any different
What you have identified as the problem is what Enoch Powell foresaw and inspired him to write his most famous speech
As I wrote a couple of threads ago, there was no publication here of the 2005 Danish cartoons. The march of thousands of lunatics was allowed to go ahead. In the recent Jesus and Mo story there was censorship of Mohammed, practically a self-inflicted blasphemy law. Politicians have been keener to restrict than protect freedom of speech (eg Leveson and the police monitoring Twitter, which may explain why they don't have resources for other concerns).
Don't forget the law against incitement of 'religious' hatred, passed as a bit of red meat for a chunk of Labour's voter base. Hatred of religion: stuff you choose to belief that has no factual basis, rather than what you are and cannot change. Despicable.
And talking of massacres I'd still like to know the name, religion and age of the Glaswegian driver and his 2 co workers that the Council and police are keeping under wraps.
An excellent confirmation of the good sense of the Council and police, to protect the driver and his co-workers, and their families, against nutters.
I agree strongly with this statement from Patrick - "This attack was not against a country but against an idea - fredom of speech to criticise Islam. It's not a revenge for Gitmo or Bin Laden or drone strikes or anything. It is purely and simply getting back at those who sought to exercise their freedom of speech. And therefore, to my mind, there can be precisely zero 'we brought it on ourselves' horseshit about this one. An act of pure unadulterated evil"
We've been far too willing for too long to blame ourselves. This has to stop. Islamism is evil. We need to say it, now more than ever.
As I wrote a couple of threads ago, there was no publication here of the 2005 Danish cartoons. The march of thousands of lunatics was allowed to go ahead. In the recent Jesus and Mo story there was censorship of Mohammed, practically a self-inflicted blasphemy law. Politicians have been keener to restrict than protect freedom of speech (eg Leveson and the police monitoring Twitter, which may explain why they don't have resources for other concerns).
Don't forget the law against incitement of 'religious' hatred, passed as a bit of red meat for a chunk of Labour's voter base. Hatred of religion: stuff you choose to belief that has no factual basis, rather than what you are and cannot change. Despicable.
Rowan Atkinson was the hero there.
Labour may have passed it, but the Coalition have kept it on the books. The "Liberal" Democrats and "liberal" Conservatives don't understand the concept.
And talking of massacres I'd still like to know the name, religion and age of the Glaswegian driver and his 2 co workers that the Council and police are keeping under wraps.
An excellent confirmation of the good sense of the Council and police, to protect the driver and his co-workers, and their families, against nutters.
"Incidentally my Muslim friends ... are not going to be revelling at what happened in Paris, they're going to be absolutely horrified."
Of course. I suspect most Muslims will think that.
The more religious will think that British girls show too much flesh and are not modest enough. They won't think much of homosexuality or pornography either. Similar to Mary Whitehouse in her prime. And they're fully entitled to those views, some Christians think that too.
But if, as estimated, around five hundred want to join IS, then I would guess about ten times that number will have sympathy for ISIS aims. It's a very low percentage of the total but a worrying number all the same.
Mary Whitehouse in her prime never believed gay people should be executed, or people leaving her faith should be stoned to death. Those views are both very widespread among Muslims.
And talking of massacres I'd still like to know the name, religion and age of the Glaswegian driver and his 2 co workers that the Council and police are keeping under wraps.
An excellent confirmation of the good sense of the Council and police, to protect the driver and his co-workers, and their families, against nutters.
So Richard_Nabavi if your family were mown down on a busy high street by a rogue vehicle, you couldn't care less who the perpetrators were. Bully for you!
As I wrote a couple of threads ago, there was no publication here of the 2005 Danish cartoons. The march of thousands of lunatics was allowed to go ahead. In the recent Jesus and Mo story there was censorship of Mohammed, practically a self-inflicted blasphemy law. Politicians have been keener to restrict than protect freedom of speech (eg Leveson and the police monitoring Twitter, which may explain why they don't have resources for other concerns).
Don't forget the law against incitement of 'religious' hatred, passed as a bit of red meat for a chunk of Labour's voter base. Hatred of religion: stuff you choose to belief that has no factual basis, rather than what you are and cannot change. Despicable.
Rowan Atkinson was the hero there.
Labour may have passed it, but the Coalition have kept it on the books. The "Liberal" Democrats and "liberal" Conservatives don't understand the concept.
It raw politics. Everyone is scared of offending the Islamic vote. 4.4% of the country which generates a level of noise and consternation out of all proportion to its representation.
So Richard_Nabavi if your family were mown down on a busy high street by a rogue vehicle, you couldn't care less who the perpetrators were. Bully for you!
Certainly I would want to know who the driver was, and the circumstances, and of course I'd want the police to investigate thoroughly and impartially.
Your use of the word 'perpetrator' is this case is somewhat revealing, but not as revealing as wanting to know the religion of the driver. What could you possibly mean by that?
I agree strongly with this statement from Patrick - "This attack was not against a country but against an idea - fredom of speech to criticise Islam. It's not a revenge for Gitmo or Bin Laden or drone strikes or anything. It is purely and simply getting back at those who sought to exercise their freedom of speech. And therefore, to my mind, there can be precisely zero 'we brought it on ourselves' horseshit about this one. An act of pure unadulterated evil"
We've been far too willing for too long to blame ourselves. This has to stop. Islamism is evil. We need to say it, now more than ever.
No, there is a problem with extremism in a minority of muslims.. you cant say "Islamism is evil" any more than Christianity or Judaism is evil
The problems are a consequence of mass immigration and a failure to promote a national identity, but would have occurred whether the immigrants were muslim or some other religion.
See Utah/Salt Lake City in the 19th Century and the violence involving Mormons
I would predict in a hundred years time or so, European minorities, immigrants to the economic power houses in Asia or the middle east, will be demanding more rights, speaking as Europeans not Asians, living in ghettos etc etc just as muslims do in Europe now, if they are allowed to immigrate en masse
Sorry Carlotta, The Guardian is actually apologising for todays attack on behalf of muslims and all but saying that Charlie Hebdo brought it on themselves. Disgusting appeasing journalism of the worst kind.
And talking of massacres I'd still like to know the name, religion and age of the Glaswegian driver and his 2 co workers that the Council and police are keeping under wraps.
An excellent confirmation of the good sense of the Council and police, to protect the driver and his co-workers, and their families, against nutters.
So Richard_Nabavi if your family were mown down on a busy high street by a rogue vehicle, you couldn't care less who the perpetrators were. Bully for you!
Not for the council as a good employer to release the name, especially given that there were already threats being made against ordinary dustbinmen on the street. Or would you have been complaining about people being thrown to the media and other wolves on the principle that what Scots do is always wrong? The driver is still in hospital, he was unconscious at the time of the accident*, and his religion seems irrelevant, or are you wanting to know which footie team he supports?
"I'd end the de fact segregation of the races and cultures that exist in this country for starters."
OK, how? Sorry, Guv, but you can't buy this house because there are too many of your type in this area already? According to the Race and Culture Classification Board your child is of the wrong type for this years intake into that school? Just how will you end the de facto segregation?
Mind you when I was being learning how to deal with a bad situation the first rule was always to stop it getting worse.
And talking of massacres I'd still like to know the name, religion and age of the Glaswegian driver and his 2 co workers that the Council and police are keeping under wraps.
An excellent confirmation of the good sense of the Council and police, to protect the driver and his co-workers, and their families, against nutters.
So Richard_Nabavi if your family were mown down on a busy high street by a rogue vehicle, you couldn't care less who the perpetrators were. Bully for you!
Not for the council as a good employer to release the name, especially given that there were already threats being made against ordinary dustbinmen on the street. Or would you have been complaining about people being thrown to the media and other wolves on the principle that what Scots do is always wrong? The driver is still in hospital, he was unconscious at the time of the accident*, and his religion seems irrelevant, or are you wanting to know which footie team he supports?
And talking of massacres I'd still like to know the name, religion and age of the Glaswegian driver and his 2 co workers that the Council and police are keeping under wraps.
''The inevitable public backlash that's whipped up against Muslims, particularly Western-dwelling ones, after these atrocities is pretty much a component of the gameplan.''
With respect that is bullsh8t. The last thing the islamists want is for us to fight. They'd far rather advance their cause bit by bit, as they have done for centuries, winning little violent battles where the odds are stacked heavily in their favour, with people like you urging everybody to calm down at the same time.
http://www.terrorism-research.com/goals/ "Fear of backlash rarely concerns these groups, as it is often one of their goals to provoke overreaction by their enemies, and hopefully widen the conflict. "
Sorry Carlotta, The Guardian is actually apologising for todays attack on behalf of muslims and all but saying that Charlie Hebdo brought it on themselves. Disgusting appeasing journalism of the worst kind.
Really?
I'm no fan of the Guardian in many ways, but what I see there today is precisely the opposite of what you claim - some good factual journalism (their live blogs are always good), and commentary such as these two pieces:
I agree strongly with this statement from Patrick - "This attack was not against a country but against an idea - fredom of speech to criticise Islam. It's not a revenge for Gitmo or Bin Laden or drone strikes or anything. It is purely and simply getting back at those who sought to exercise their freedom of speech. And therefore, to my mind, there can be precisely zero 'we brought it on ourselves' horseshit about this one. An act of pure unadulterated evil"
We've been far too willing for too long to blame ourselves. This has to stop. Islamism is evil. We need to say it, now more than ever.
No, there is a problem with extremism in a minority of muslims.. you cant say "Islamism is evil" any more than Christianity or Judaism is evil
The problems are a consequence of mass immigration and a failure to promote a nation identity, but would have occurred whether the immigrants were muslim or some other religion.
See Utah/Salt Lake City in the 19th Century and the violence involving Mormons
I would predict in a hundred years time or so, European minorities, immigrants to the economic power houses in Asia or the middle east, will be demanding more rights, speaking as Europeans not Asians, living in ghettos etc etc just as muslims do in Europe now, if they are allowed to immigrate en masse
I do say that Islamism is evil. Sorry.
We do not have a problem integrating Buddhists or Sikhs or Hindus or Quakers. The problem is the spread of Islamism - Khomeini's seizure of power in 1979 was what brought it to our attention but it's been around since the 1950's when the Muslim Brotherhood took off - and it's been given rocket boosters by the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and various cack-handed Western interventions in the Middle East.
We should have been much more thoughtful about the growth of a Muslim population in the West which was open to the spread of this fascistic ideology when we failed - as we are still failing - to provide a strong alternative and Western set of values and challenging this nasty cult.
People like you are delusional. We are already at war with Islamists, it's now just a very short step to our being at war with all of Islam. They may give us no choice.
Bienvenue, President Marine Le Pen?
If you are right thats going to get a little bit sticky with 2.8 million believers in the UK, and around 5 million in each in France and Germany. Also consider the chances of politicians actually doing anything at all with that many votes.
As I wrote a couple of threads ago, there was no publication here of the 2005 Danish cartoons. The march of thousands of lunatics was allowed to go ahead. In the recent Jesus and Mo story there was censorship of Mohammed, practically a self-inflicted blasphemy law. Politicians have been keener to restrict than protect freedom of speech (eg Leveson and the police monitoring Twitter, which may explain why they don't have resources for other concerns).
Don't forget the law against incitement of 'religious' hatred, passed as a bit of red meat for a chunk of Labour's voter base. Hatred of religion: stuff you choose to belief that has no factual basis, rather than what you are and cannot change. Despicable.
Rowan Atkinson was the hero there.
Labour may have passed it, but the Coalition have kept it on the books. The "Liberal" Democrats and "liberal" Conservatives don't understand the concept.
It raw politics. Everyone is scared of offending the Islamic vote. 4.4% of the country which generates a level of noise and consternation out of all proportion to its representation.
They're not scared of offending the voters. They're scared of being killed. It's fear, pure and simple.
Appeasing the Nazis did not work. Appeasing this lot won't either.
So Richard_Nabavi if your family were mown down on a busy high street by a rogue vehicle, you couldn't care less who the perpetrators were. Bully for you!
Certainly I would want to know who the driver was, and the circumstances, and of course I'd want the police to investigate thoroughly and impartially.
Your use of the word 'perpetrator' is this case is somewhat revealing, but not as revealing as wanting to know the religion of the driver. What could you possibly mean by that?
I mean that through the last few weeks, throughout Europe and the Middle East, Muslim drivers have been attacking innocent pedestrians in order to cause havoc and mayhem and in doing so make a point that they are willing martyrs for Allah.
As I wrote a couple of threads ago, there was no publication here of the 2005 Danish cartoons. The march of thousands of lunatics was allowed to go ahead. In the recent Jesus and Mo story there was censorship of Mohammed, practically a self-inflicted blasphemy law. Politicians have been keener to restrict than protect freedom of speech (eg Leveson and the police monitoring Twitter, which may explain why they don't have resources for other concerns).
Don't forget the law against incitement of 'religious' hatred, passed as a bit of red meat for a chunk of Labour's voter base. Hatred of religion: stuff you choose to belief that has no factual basis, rather than what you are and cannot change. Despicable.
Rowan Atkinson was the hero there.
Labour may have passed it, but the Coalition have kept it on the books. The "Liberal" Democrats and "liberal" Conservatives don't understand the concept.
It raw politics. Everyone is scared of offending the Islamic vote. 4.4% of the country which generates a level of noise and consternation out of all proportion to its representation.
They're not scared of offending the voters. They're scared of being killed. It's fear, pure and simple.
Appeasing the Nazis did not work. Appeasing this lot won't either.
If our security services are incapable of protecting our elected leaders from these sort of attacks we might as well pack up and move out now.
I agree strongly with this statement from Patrick - "This attack was not against a country but against an idea - fredom of speech to criticise Islam. It's not a revenge for Gitmo or Bin Laden or drone strikes or anything. It is purely and simply getting back at those who sought to exercise their freedom of speech. And therefore, to my mind, there can be precisely zero 'we brought it on ourselves' horseshit about this one. An act of pure unadulterated evil"
We've been far too willing for too long to blame ourselves. This has to stop. Islamism is evil. We need to say it, now more than ever.
No, there is a problem with extremism in a minority of muslims.. you cant say "Islamism is evil" any more than Christianity or Judaism is evil
The problems are a consequence of mass immigration and a failure to promote a nation identity, but would have occurred whether the immigrants were muslim or some other religion.
See Utah/Salt Lake City in the 19th Century and the violence involving Mormons
I would predict in a hundred years time or so, European minorities, immigrants to the economic power houses in Asia or the middle east, will be demanding more rights, speaking as Europeans not Asians, living in ghettos etc etc just as muslims do in Europe now, if they are allowed to immigrate en masse
I do say that Islamism is evil. Sorry.
We do not have a problem integrating Buddhists or Sikhs or Hindus or Quakers. The problem is the spread of Islamism - Khomeini's seizure of power in 1979 was what brought it to our attention but it's been around since the 1950's when the Muslim Brotherhood took off - and it's been given rocket boosters by the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and various cack-handed Western interventions in the Middle East.
We should have been much more thoughtful about the growth of a Muslim population in the West which was open to the spread of this fascistic ideology when we failed - as we are still failing - to provide a strong alternative and Western set of values and challenging this nasty cult.
BTW I want to say well said to TSE for what he said earlier.
And well done to Mike and to Marf for publishing this.
We need to stand firm against evil.
Numbers matter more than anything else
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
People like you are delusional. We are already at war with Islamists, it's now just a very short step to our being at war with all of Islam. They may give us no choice.
Bienvenue, President Marine Le Pen?
If you are right thats going to get a little bit sticky with 2.8 million believers in the UK, and around 5 million in each in France and Germany. Also consider the chances of politicians actually doing anything at all with that many votes.
There are rather more non-believers. If politicians do not do something about this (i.e. those who perpetrate and incite evil and harbour/shelter the evildoers. I most definitely do not mean all Muslims) - beyond the usual hand-wringing balls they generally come out with - they may be given no choice.
I mean that through the last few weeks, throughout Europe and the Middle East, Muslim drivers have been attacking innocent pedestrians in order to cause havoc and mayhem and in doing so make a point that they are willing martyrs for Allah.
So you've wrongly jumped to the conclusion that the Glasgow incident was another such example.
So Richard_Nabavi if your family were mown down on a busy high street by a rogue vehicle, you couldn't care less who the perpetrators were. Bully for you!
Certainly I would want to know who the driver was, and the circumstances, and of course I'd want the police to investigate thoroughly and impartially.
Your use of the word 'perpetrator' is this case is somewhat revealing, but not as revealing as wanting to know the religion of the driver. What could you possibly mean by that?
I mean that through the last few weeks, throughout Europe and the Middle East, Muslim drivers have been attacking innocent pedestrians in order to cause havoc and mayhem and in doing so make a point that they are willing martyrs for Allah.
You think there's the slightest chance that this was a terrorist attack and that the driver's employer is trying to hide the fact from the public? Are you completely mad?
No, there is a problem with extremism in a minority of muslims.. you cant say "Islamism is evil" any more than Christianity or Judaism is evil
The problems are a consequence of mass immigration and a failure to promote a nation identity, but would have occurred whether the immigrants were muslim or some other religion.
See Utah/Salt Lake City in the 19th Century and the violence involving Mormons
I would predict in a hundred years time or so, European minorities, immigrants to the economic power houses in Asia or the middle east, will be demanding more rights, speaking as Europeans not Asians, living in ghettos etc etc just as muslims do in Europe now, if they are allowed to immigrate en masse
I do say that Islamism is evil. Sorry.
We do not have a problem integrating Buddhists or Sikhs or Hindus or Quakers. The problem is the spread of Islamism - Khomeini's seizure of power in 1979 was what brought it to our attention but it's been around since the 1950's when the Muslim Brotherhood took off - and it's been given rocket boosters by the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and various cack-handed Western interventions in the Middle East.
We should have been much more thoughtful about the growth of a Muslim population in the West which was open to the spread of this fascistic ideology when we failed - as we are still failing - to provide a strong alternative and Western set of values and challenging this nasty cult.
BTW I want to say well said to TSE for what he said earlier.
And well done to Mike and to Marf for publishing this.
We need to stand firm against evil.
Numbers matter more than anything else
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
And in this case we have an evil ideology which, rather than confronting, we have ignored or tried to explain away by, in some cases, claiming that it was our fault that young men and women were driven/inspired by this ideology to kill Jews, to attack women/children, behead aid workers, blow up commuters etc etc.
If politicians do not do something about this (i.e. those who perpetrate and incite evil and harbour/shelter the evildoers. I most definitely do not mean all Muslims) - beyond the usual hand-wringing balls they generally come out with - they may be given no choice.
What specifically do you think politicians should do?
Are there new laws that need to be passed? Do they need to reform our security agencies? What are they failing to do because they are too busy with the usual hand-wringing balls?
So Richard_Nabavi if your family were mown down on a busy high street by a rogue vehicle, you couldn't care less who the perpetrators were. Bully for you!
Certainly I would want to know who the driver was, and the circumstances, and of course I'd want the police to investigate thoroughly and impartially.
Your use of the word 'perpetrator' is this case is somewhat revealing, but not as revealing as wanting to know the religion of the driver. What could you possibly mean by that?
I mean that through the last few weeks, throughout Europe and the Middle East, Muslim drivers have been attacking innocent pedestrians in order to cause havoc and mayhem and in doing so make a point that they are willing martyrs for Allah.
You think there's the slightest chance that this was a terrorist attack and that the driver's employer is trying to hide the fact from the public? Are you completely mad?
and that the NHS is so useless in Glasgow that they let the guy spend 16 days in a hospital bed recovering when he was faking everything...
This thread has clearly taken a turn for the worse. Where's Tapestry with a conspiracy post?
Good point. Tap's theories are much more imaginative and entertaining.
Tap is a Government plant charged with undermining conspiracy theorists in order to let Glasgow council get away with covering up terrorist attacks on our streets.
Flicking through Le Monde with my third rate French, I read that Charb was being protected by a member of the police close protection unit for important people (SDLP), and that he was the first victim.
Selon nos informations, les assaillants se sont trouvés, sur place, face à un policier du service de protection des hautes personnalités, chargé de la protection de Charb. Il a été tué sur le coup.
Everyone seems to have been called in, Judicial Police and DG Internal Security have 3,000 officers on the case, and ready for a long haul.
Until Muslim communities embrace the rule of law within the country they reside, break the wall of silence that they have erected, and denounce and give up these criminals to the police, these 'people ' will always have a place to hide and grow.
Sorry Carlotta, The Guardian is actually apologising for todays attack on behalf of muslims and all but saying that Charlie Hebdo brought it on themselves. Disgusting appeasing journalism of the worst kind.
No it does not apologise or say they brought it on themselves. As Carlotta says it explains as well as a left wing article can. I have previously said the left will find this difficult to live with and I am sure they are. The article is indeed mealy mouthed for instance it says ''Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine whose offices were attacked by gunmen in Paris on Wednesday'' when it should have said ''Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine whose staff were murdered by gunmen in Paris on Wednesday''
Lets be clear we can if we wish disagree with what and why a magazine publishes and say so after it has been attacked, that is not the same as justifying the attack. My own view is the cartoons were an excuse and the motive was to provoke. Under those circumstances we should not be provoked. There is an argument to be made - I am not saying I am making it, but it should be rationally considered - to say that being provocative in the first place when dealing with muslims is counter productive. This is not appeasing is is more like disarming, removing a weapon they can use. Make no mistake in what I am saying. These people are ignorant and irrational murderous zealots whose actions should be resisted but which in their form sow the seeds of their own defeat. If we behave rationally.
This thread has clearly taken a turn for the worse. Where's Tapestry with a conspiracy post?
Good point. Tap's theories are much more imaginative and entertaining.
Tap is a Government plant charged with undermining conspiracy theorists in order to let Glasgow council get away with covering up terrorist attacks on our streets.
I'd say the majority of Muslims would be horrified by the attack but we can argue about how large the minority of supporters would be - that would depend on demographics.
The BBC/Guardian is being its usual self. This is so terrible but ... this cartoon was ...
They don't go so far as to say the cartoonists brought it on themselves, but it's something the BBC/Guardian would never have done.
So Richard_Nabavi if your family were mown down on a busy high street by a rogue vehicle, you couldn't care less who the perpetrators were. Bully for you!
Certainly I would want to know who the driver was, and the circumstances, and of course I'd want the police to investigate thoroughly and impartially.
Your use of the word 'perpetrator' is this case is somewhat revealing, but not as revealing as wanting to know the religion of the driver. What could you possibly mean by that?
I mean that through the last few weeks, throughout Europe and the Middle East, Muslim drivers have been attacking innocent pedestrians in order to cause havoc and mayhem and in doing so make a point that they are willing martyrs for Allah.
You think there's the slightest chance that this was a terrorist attack and that the driver's employer is trying to hide the fact from the public? Are you completely mad?
Not mad, just bloody suspicious. Why has the name of the driver been withheld? It is not normal for the persons responsible for accidents to escape scrutiny, or for their names to be lost in limbo.
I think Tapestry on his website once claimed that the Moon was an artificial body constructed by aliens. But even that is more believable than claiming the Glasgow crash was terroristic in nature!
So Richard_Nabavi if your family were mown down on a busy high street by a rogue vehicle, you couldn't care less who the perpetrators were. Bully for you!
Certainly I would want to know who the driver was, and the circumstances, and of course I'd want the police to investigate thoroughly and impartially.
Your use of the word 'perpetrator' is this case is somewhat revealing, but not as revealing as wanting to know the religion of the driver. What could you possibly mean by that?
You are very patient but none the less potent in your replies.
"Mary Whitehouse in her prime never believed gay people should be executed..."
There are far-right Christians in the U.S. who do.
Enough of this diversionary tinfoil hattery, when they start crashing planes into buildings and, to pluck an example out of the air, murdering offices full of cartoonists, then I think we might worry about them.
"I'd end the de fact segregation of the races and cultures that exist in this country for starters."
OK, how? Sorry, Guv, but you can't buy this house because there are too many of your type in this area already? According to the Race and Culture Classification Board your child is of the wrong type for this years intake into that school? Just how will you end the de facto segregation?
Mind you when I was being learning how to deal with a bad situation the first rule was always to stop it getting worse.
I wonder whether you could do some sort of tax credit system: in any area where a particular demographic is more than twice that of the UK average, people from all other groups get to dodge council tax until it goes below that limit. I'm sure there'd be a lot of obstacles with that approach, but Jesus, we need to something.
Le Figaro reports that around a dozen marches up and down France are expected to take place later today in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo’s journalists. The Sydicat National des Journalistes (National Union of Journalists) will hold a rally this evening in the centre of Paris.
The mayor of Nantes, Johanna Rolland, has called for a rally at 6pm while others are expected in Lyon, Montpellier, Toulouse and many other major towns and cities. Le Monde reports that rallies are also expected at the European parliament in Brussels and London’s Trafalgar Square.
edit: with three gunmen on the loose, who may be preparing further acts, large public gatherings may not be a wise idea...
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
No. If the numbers were reversed and there three times as many Hindus as there are Muslims or ten times as many Buddhists then there would not be the same problems. There are numerous religious minorities in Western Europe but only one seems to have a problem with being in Western Europe.
Can anyone crying out "something must be done" say what should be done. I know some people wont be happy until Cameron instructs Operation Yewtree to look into Muhammed but the saner people calling for something to be done must have some specifics in mind.
No, there is a problem with extremism in a minority of muslims.. you cant say "Islamism is evil" any more than Christianity or Judaism is evil
The problems are a consequence of mass immigration and a failure to promote a nation identity, but would have occurred whether the immigrants were muslim or some other religion.
See Utah/Salt Lake City in the 19th Century and the violence involving Mormons
I would predict in a hundred years time or so, European minorities, immigrants to the economic power houses in Asia or the middle east, will be demanding more rights, speaking as Europeans not Asians, living in ghettos etc etc just as muslims do in Europe now, if they are allowed to immigrate en masse
And in this case we have an evil ideology which, rather than confronting, we have ignored or tried to explain away by, in some cases, claiming that it was our fault that young men and women were driven/inspired by this ideology to kill Jews, to attack women/children, behead aid workers, blow up commuters etc etc.
I agree with almost everything you have said, especially the self flagellation the Establishment have displayed... but the primary ricket made was failure to control the numbers we allowed to migrate here.. the consequences were long warned of, and I still say if there were mass immigration of British white working classes to Pakistan relative to the number of Muslims in the uk there would be a major problem with white working class English immigrant terrorism in Pakistan
We don't have the problem integrating Sikhs, Buddhists etc partly because there are so few of them in comparison.
We limited the number of Jews that could migrate here in the Aliens act.. that's why there aren't as many Jews as Muslims in the UK and why there is almost no instances of Jewish violence against the state
If politicians do not do something about this (i.e. those who perpetrate and incite evil and harbour/shelter the evildoers. I most definitely do not mean all Muslims) - beyond the usual hand-wringing balls they generally come out with - they may be given no choice.
What specifically do you think politicians should do?
Are there new laws that need to be passed? Do they need to reform our security agencies? What are they failing to do because they are too busy with the usual hand-wringing balls?
You appear to be suggesting we do nothing and hope it all turns out alright... perhaps if we all held hands and sang kumbaya ?
Because the polls change depending on the candidates, and because it's a two part election, it's a little complex, but I would make the following points:
1. Marine Le Pen leads in almost every first round math-up (except where Juppe is the UMP candidate), on between 27 and 31% of the vote.
2. Sarkozy or Juppe score mid to high 20s on most first round match-ups.
3. Francois Hollande is as low as 13% in some match-ups, and may come fourth behind Bayrou. (Hollande is only a percent or two ahead of Melenchon, the Communist candidate. It is not inconceivable that Hollande - were he to stand again - could come fifth in the first round of voting.)
4. Marine Le Pen would beat Hollande in a second round face off. However, every other match-up has a very substantial lead for her challenger. So, Sarkozy would win 60-40, and Juppe has an even larger 64:36 second round lead.
So Richard_Nabavi if your family were mown down on a busy high street by a rogue vehicle, you couldn't care less who the perpetrators were. Bully for you!
Certainly I would want to know who the driver was, and the circumstances, and of course I'd want the police to investigate thoroughly and impartially.
Your use of the word 'perpetrator' is this case is somewhat revealing, but not as revealing as wanting to know the religion of the driver. What could you possibly mean by that?
I mean that through the last few weeks, throughout Europe and the Middle East, Muslim drivers have been attacking innocent pedestrians in order to cause havoc and mayhem and in doing so make a point that they are willing martyrs for Allah.
You think there's the slightest chance that this was a terrorist attack and that the driver's employer is trying to hide the fact from the public? Are you completely mad?
Fundamental Islam can only be succesfully fought against militarily if we are prepard to go all in - turning the desert to glass and by committing a genocide, including in our own country, by simply eradicating all muslims. This is not going to happen. Nor should it. Obviously.
So it can only be fought against successfully by equally determined 'soft' means. Ideas and cultures die through ridicule, failure, exposure, sunlight, calling bullshit openly, death from within, collapse, the death of the will to sustain an obvious lemon. This absolutely requires free speech and a willingness to expose and ridicule and challenge openly and all the rest. If we want to escape an endless cycle of this sort of shit then we need to start with truly free speech. And that (Dave and Nick) means repealing our bullshit incitement to hatred laws and driving a truly liberal agenda here.
If politicians do not do something about this (i.e. those who perpetrate and incite evil and harbour/shelter the evildoers. I most definitely do not mean all Muslims) - beyond the usual hand-wringing balls they generally come out with - they may be given no choice.
What specifically do you think politicians should do?
Are there new laws that need to be passed? Do they need to reform our security agencies? What are they failing to do because they are too busy with the usual hand-wringing balls?
You appear to be suggesting we do nothing and hope it all turns out alright... perhaps if we all held hands and sang kumbaya ?
Returning to the real world, it does seem surprising that the police officer on duty to protect Charb was caught completely off-guard by the murderers. He would undoubtedly have been armed, and as a 'policier du service de protection des hautes personnalités' presumably well-trained. In addition, President Hollande confirmed that there had been other attacks foiled in recent weeks, so one would expect this police officer to have been alert to the possible risk.
It seems he wasn't, and tragically it cost him his life, and also cost 11 other innocent lives. The French authorities are going to have some difficult questions to answer.
This thread has clearly taken a turn for the worse. Where's Tapestry with a conspiracy post?
Good point. Tap's theories are much more imaginative and entertaining.
Tap is a Government plant charged with undermining conspiracy theorists in order to let Glasgow council get away with covering up terrorist attacks on our streets.
Thanks Neil. I've been pondering the tap dilemma for a while - I just can't understand why he hasn't been silenced. I thought for a while that Mike must be risking his life allowing tap to publish on PB, but now it's clear Smithson is also part of the conspiracy.
It is and we can understand why marf takes particular affront. But were the people on that double decker on 7/7 cartoonists? Should we have said then, we are 'all bus drivers now' or 'all bus passengers' or 'all tube passengers' ? We are all people and as such we are targets to be used by people who want to ferment a war. The attacks are as much on the observers' minds as the victims' bodies.
It's difficult to phrase this correctly, but I think this is more serious than 7/7
That was an attack on innocent people, who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This was an attack on one of the fundamental ideas - the freedom of speech - that underpins Western civilisation
Because the polls change depending on the candidates, and because it's a two part election, it's a little complex, but I would make the following points:
1. Marine Le Pen leads in almost every first round math-up (except where Juppe is the UMP candidate), on between 27 and 31% of the vote.
2. Sarkozy or Juppe score mid to high 20s on most first round match-ups.
3. Francois Hollande is as low as 13% in some match-ups, and may come fourth behind Bayrou. (Hollande is only a percent or two ahead of Melenchon, the Communist candidate. It is not inconceivable that Hollande - were he to stand again - could come fifth in the first round of voting.)
4. Marine Le Pen would beat Hollande in a second round face off. However, every other match-up has a very substantial lead for her challenger. So, Sarkozy would win 60-40, and Juppe has an even larger 64:36 second round lead.
The discussion was basically that this might change rather fast if there are any more outrages of this nature in France. The French were pretty ruthless and unforgiving about the whole OAS thing in the early 60s.
Incidentally my Muslim friends now (a different circle to those I knew in the 90s) are not going to be revelling at what happened in Paris, they're going to be absolutely horrified. I don't think expecting people to apologise for being Muslim, or to apologise on behalf of a bunch of nutters who they don't feel represent them, is any good to anyone. They just want to make dua, go to mosque, and get on with their daily business like everyone else.
The traditional British virtue of Free Speech may well extend to calling them all a bunch of paedophile-followers, members of the religion of piss, people who we should "not go easy on". But that is the kind of sentiment that people who do support this kind of vile attack, generally love to see expressed.
The new generation of jihadis generally have a very eschatological flavour to their worldview. They see the world as teetering on the brink of an apocalypse - a final pitched battle between the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-Kufr. IS's proclamation of a new caliphate can be seen along those lines, and they give specific end-times prophetic justification for some of their worst atrocities such as the wiping out of the Yazidi. A cataclysmic "us-vs-them" bifurcation of the world into "believers" and their enemies, is precisely what they want to achieve. The inevitable public backlash that's whipped up against Muslims, particularly Western-dwelling ones, after these atrocities is pretty much a component of the gameplan.
Well said.
So you'll both wait supinely to have your open throats cut, instead. Well rather you than me.
I would rather them than you. They at least can not only think but think rationally.
Sorry Carlotta, The Guardian is actually apologising for todays attack on behalf of muslims and all but saying that Charlie Hebdo brought it on themselves. Disgusting appeasing journalism of the worst kind.
There is an argument to be made - I am not saying I am making it, but it should be rationally considered - to say that being provocative in the first place when dealing with muslims is counter productive. .
I profoundly disagree with this. If Muslims shrugged their shoulders and turned the other cheek or debated and argued back when someone made some criticism of Islam, then the problem would not arise.
The problem arises because the default response to any criticism of Islam too often seems to be: "You can't say that." Or "You should be stopped by law from saying that." Or "If you don't stop saying that I (or others) will get violent until you stop".
The provocation is not ours. It is theirs. And we cannot, must not, allow the limits of what we can think and say be defined by those who do not want us to say or think anything about them other than as defined by them.
And when faced with this sort of response, the only self-respecting way to behave is continue with the criticism in order to make the point that we must - and will be - free with our speech.
And no-one, no-one (no matter how much they believe their religion), should be free from challenge. No-one should think themselves free from challenge. And no-one should be afraid to challenge.
It was only by challenge and provocation that we rolled back the power which the churches sought to have over our minds. It is only by challenge that we can stop this ideology from seeking to have the same control of what we can think and say.
It is and we can understand why marf takes particular affront. But were the people on that double decker on 7/7 cartoonists? Should we have said then, we are 'all bus drivers now' or 'all bus passengers' or 'all tube passengers' ? We are all people and as such we are targets to be used by people who want to ferment a war. The attacks are as much on the observers' minds as the victims' bodies.
It's difficult to phrase this correctly, but I think this is more serious than 7/7
That was an attack on innocent people, who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This was an attack on one of the fundamental ideas - the freedom of speech - that underpins Western civilisation
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
No. If the numbers were reversed and there three times as many Hindus as there are Muslims or ten times as many Buddhists then there would not be the same problems. There are numerous religious minorities in Western Europe but only one seems to have a problem with being in Western Europe.
I disagree... the problem only arises once the minority is significant enough to feel entitled to a share of power, and no other religion is big enough numerically for you to say they wouldn't behave as Muslims do now
Can anyone crying out "something must be done" say what should be done. I know some people wont be happy until Cameron instructs Operation Yewtree to look into Muhammed but the saner people calling for something to be done must have some specifics in mind.
Neil: I have to work now. I will come back later with steps which I think the authorities should take.
It is and we can understand why marf takes particular affront. But were the people on that double decker on 7/7 cartoonists? Should we have said then, we are 'all bus drivers now' or 'all bus passengers' or 'all tube passengers' ? We are all people and as such we are targets to be used by people who want to ferment a war. The attacks are as much on the observers' minds as the victims' bodies.
It's difficult to phrase this correctly, but I think this is more serious than 7/7
That was an attack on innocent people, who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This was an attack on one of the fundamental ideas - the freedom of speech - that underpins Western civilisation
UKIP's Peter Whittle makes a similar point, he is quite an impressive character I think
"The horrific attack on the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, and the murder of its writers and cartoonists, is a direct, barbaric assault on freedom of speech and expression. This freedom is the very bedrock of Western democracy. It is non-negotiable.
"Such a brazen attack as that which occurred today suggests that those who oppose our values believe we lack the resolve to defend them.
"The publication of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses in 1989, and the weak response to the ensuing protests, book burnings and indeed deaths, ushered in an era of self-censorship and fear in Britain and other Western countries."
"This must end. We must make it clear to those who hate our freedoms - our right to satirise, to criticise, to debate and indeed to offend - that they will never, ever win."
Fundamental Islam can only be succesfully fought against militarily if we are prepard to go all in - turning the desert to glass and by committing a genocide, including in our own country, by simply eradicating all muslims. This is not going to happen. Nor should it. Obviously.
So it can only be fought against successfully by equally determined 'soft' means. Ideas and cultures die through ridicule, failure, exposure, sunlight, calling bullshit openly, death from within, collapse, the death of the will to sustain an obvious lemon. This absolutely requires free speech and a willingness to expose and ridicule and challenge openly and all the rest. If we want to escape an endless cycle of this sort of shit then we need to start with truly free speech. And that (Dave and Nick) means repealing our bullshit incitement to hatred laws and driving a truly liberal agenda here.
I agree with the thrust of your post but I dont think its even remotely that simple. We certainly should get rid of those damn stupid laws, but what follows then, what happens when people start ridiculing and openly challenging, and they dying, or having their home firebombed ? In a climate of fear ridicule will die on the lips of most people, we could remove all legal impediments and people would self-censor from fear. One might hope we could catch a fair proportion of the assailants, but I wouldn't bet on it with a large community to disappear into and be protected by a kind of omerta, and anyway, suffering for their religion doesn't seem to be a big deterrent.
It is and we can understand why marf takes particular affront. But were the people on that double decker on 7/7 cartoonists? Should we have said then, we are 'all bus drivers now' or 'all bus passengers' or 'all tube passengers' ? We are all people and as such we are targets to be used by people who want to ferment a war. The attacks are as much on the observers' minds as the victims' bodies.
It's difficult to phrase this correctly, but I think this is more serious than 7/7
That was an attack on innocent people, who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This was an attack on one of the fundamental ideas - the freedom of speech - that underpins Western civilisation
Can anyone crying out "something must be done" say what should be done. I know some people wont be happy until Cameron instructs Operation Yewtree to look into Muhammed but the saner people calling for something to be done must have some specifics in mind.
How about Yewtree looks into the thousands of Muslim rapists grooming kids off our streets? That would be a start wouldn't it, equal efforts to enforce the law against celebrities and Muslims?
But after Rotherham, you don't have to be a nutter to admit the possibility, however modest, of a cover-up.
We'll have to agree to disagree about that.
You think it is literally IMPOSSIBLE that the authorities might decide to hide the identity of this man, if he were a Muslim terrorist - so as to prevent copycat murders, maintain community cohesion, etc?
Literally IMPOSSIBLE? That could never happen EVER?
Yours is not an opinion. It is an article of faith.
No, that's not what I said. What I said was very clear.
Miss Cyclefree, if only a major political party had such a commitment to freedom of speech, and moral backbone.
Bravo and brava. Let's hope Dave grows a pair and puts something in his manifesto about repealing the nonsense laws we have today (courtesy of a self-serving lefty Labour administration). Maybe, surprisingly, free speech - truly free speech - will become an election issue. We can hope.
Moses said this on the previous thread: "It comes to something when the reaction to questioning a faith is not reasoned debate but cold blooded murder. "
Why are we surprised? We had book burning and threats to kill over 30 years over Rushdie. We should have listened then and acted then.
Now the fight back - and I am clear that we will have to fight back against those who would silence us - will be that much harder.
You have it spot on.
Cameron's comments at PMQ were welcome, but there needs to be more than words.*
Our leaders need to stand up for our fundamental beliefs and rights.
* I'm not pretending to know what, but then I'm not prime minister. honest ;0
But it wouldn't be just the rubbish truck's driver's *employer* who was in on any conspiracy -- it would have to be the police, the doctors and nurses at the hospital who treated him, his friends, family and neighbours too! What's to stop any one of them posting on social media, if they knew something sinister about the driver and wanted to reveal it?
We're getting dangerously close to Jews-poisoning-the-wells territory here...
Thank you for highlighting that utterly outrageous comment from Flightpath.
The only provocation we have ever given to muslims in our country is to (sometimes) apply our democratically decided rule of secular law to them.
Many knew our system when they came here, and they are quite at liberty to campaign to have the law changed or to depart for other shores if they so choose.
Not for the council as a good employer to release the name, especially given that there were already threats being made against ordinary dustbinmen on the street. Or would you have been complaining about people being thrown to the media and other wolves on the principle that what Scots do is always wrong? The driver is still in hospital, he was unconscious at the time of the accident*, and his religion seems irrelevant, or are you wanting to know which footie team he supports?
Confirmed by whom? Sorry, not the slightest bit convinced by the Heralds piece.
Okay, you mayn't know Scotland, Glasgow, etc., so I'll just explain that the daily Herald (and the Sunday formerly) is to a great extent the house newsletter of SLAB in general and Glasgow Labour in particular, and it has excellent contacts therein. And this should still be the case for the Sunday on a nonpolitical matter. Mind you, it can work the other way, and the Herald has been known to be just a bit slow in attacking the odd scandal. But in this case I would be very surprised indeed if this was duff gen.
Not mad, just bloody suspicious. Why has the name of the driver been withheld? It is not normal for the persons responsible for accidents to escape scrutiny, or for their names to be lost in limbo.
Nobody is suggesting this indefinitely - just that the council will not do the releasing, but, presumably the police or the inquiry. As a witness, for instance.
And you might want to wind your head in, using words like 'massacre' and 'responsible'. (The latter may be technically true in that he was the driver. But even so ...)
Mr. Patrick, I fear that hope will prove vain, but we shall see.
Mr. Neil, tossing Leveson's restrictive nonsense overboard, making it clear (by making new laws or repealing old ones) that being offensive is not in itself remotely criminal, and enshrining freedom of speech in a First Amendment style law that specifically permits the ridicule, derision, criticism and parody of any belief (whether religious or not).
Miss Cyclefree, if only a major political party had such a commitment to freedom of speech, and moral backbone.
Which political parties do you suspect of having only lukewarm support for free speech? What would you have them do to show their moral backbone?
Labour: with their ridiculous and sinister religious hatred law. And their support for Leveson.
I do not believe that the current Labour party has any commitment at all to free speech when faced with the threat of violence or the fear of losing votes. We saw that decades ago when Roy Hattersley, shamefully, failed to condemn the book burning of The Satanic Verses by his constituents.
(Edited): And, for good measure, I don't think the other parties are much better.
It is and we can understand why marf takes particular affront. But were the people on that double decker on 7/7 cartoonists? Should we have said then, we are 'all bus drivers now' or 'all bus passengers' or 'all tube passengers' ? We are all people and as such we are targets to be used by people who want to ferment a war. The attacks are as much on the observers' minds as the victims' bodies.
It's difficult to phrase this correctly, but I think this is more serious than 7/7
That was an attack on innocent people, who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This was an attack on one of the fundamental ideas - the freedom of speech - that underpins Western civilisation
It was the excuse. Terrorism is always about trying to undermine freedoms and ideas. It is true that this is possibly as big an attack as 911 in what it is attempting to do. That is provoke a reaction. In that case the reaction was hoped to be a return to isolationism, like the result of attacking Marines in Lebanon a few years earlier. In this case they want an over reaction and for us to demonise all muslims and thus radicalise them on their behalf. I do not see that 'freedom of speech' is being undermined or our freedom of thought. We will think and speak now in just the same way as before. As a coercive act it will fail and from the terrorists point of view that does not matter. What matters to them is for them to get people like MikeK asking pejorative questions about the religion of dusbinmen in Glasgow and rapists in Sweden.
I am very sorry to see some posters on here providing exactly the sort of reaction that these terrorists were looking for. All the more sorry because I consider some of them fellow travellers politically.
The one thing that terrorists the world over, of whatever background, want above all is for us to change the way we behave in reaction to their criminal acts. As such the very best response is to use the laws and systems we have in place and the common decency of the vast majority of people to bring the criminals to justice.
It is particularly sad that we see some of those who rightly oppose the increasing of Government powers of surveillance under the excuse of 'keeping us safe' are the same who would advocate us changing our behaviour towards a select group of our fellow citizens for the same reason.
We should enforce the laws we have in place in the first place - and stop circumventing them in the name of social cohesion or political correctness. The laws of the land should apply to everyone equally. But that works both ways and we should not for a second countenance Government or public persecution of a section of our society simply because a few maniacs are hell bent on killing people.
I hope the French response is tough but measured. The last thing anyone needs (apart from perhaps the terrorists themselves) is a knee jerk reaction that alienates people further.
'One suspects the reason so many Musims were let into France in the first place was not because they were valued as ordinary citizens but rather as voting fodder for people with particular ideological beliefs.'
According to my other half & her family the large wave of immigration in the 80's was part of a deal Mitterrand did with Algeria in exchange for preferential deals for oil & gas. The transformation of cities like Marseille & Toulon was incredible.
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
No. If the numbers were reversed and there three times as many Hindus as there are Muslims or ten times as many Buddhists then there would not be the same problems. There are numerous religious minorities in Western Europe but only one seems to have a problem with being in Western Europe.
I disagree... the problem only arises once the minority is significant enough to feel entitled to a share of power, and no other religion is big enough numerically for you to say they wouldn't behave as Muslims do now
I'm with Hurst on this. The supremacism and intolerance inherent in Islam makes it uniquely problematic.
Well I must admit I am piggybacking an argument made by someone who I respect a lot.. but on looking up the %s of religious minorities around the world I think it is backed up
Nowhere in Europe are Jews more than 1% of the population.. same for Sikhs and Buddhists
We have 1.5-1.7% Hindu's, the biggest % of non Christians or Muslims across Europe
So we really cant say that it is "because they are muslims" rather than "because there are so many muslims"
By the same logic, look how UKIP were not particularly disliked 5 years ago by other parties - because they were statistically insignificant.. if anything UKIP have become more mainstream in the last 5 years but are more disliked, and in turn dislike the other parties more, because they are on 15% ish,
They are taking power and want more power, that's why UKIP/Muslims are disliked/strike out
Defiant Lion UK retweeted A Man out of time @DVATW 1h1 hour ago I noted the BBC kept emphasising how #CharlieHebdo liked to "provoke". Almost as IF they deserved it? Sickening dhimmified BBC.
Comments
Segregation of races and cultures is an inevitable consequence of mass immigration of people of a different race and culture. It cannot be any different
What you have identified as the problem is what Enoch Powell foresaw and inspired him to write his most famous speech
Rowan Atkinson was the hero there.
We've been far too willing for too long to blame ourselves. This has to stop. Islamism is evil. We need to say it, now more than ever.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6wQU4sCAAAazcl.jpg
Your use of the word 'perpetrator' is this case is somewhat revealing, but not as revealing as wanting to know the religion of the driver. What could you possibly mean by that?
The problems are a consequence of mass immigration and a failure to promote a national identity, but would have occurred whether the immigrants were muslim or some other religion.
See Utah/Salt Lake City in the 19th Century and the violence involving Mormons
I would predict in a hundred years time or so, European minorities, immigrants to the economic power houses in Asia or the middle east, will be demanding more rights, speaking as Europeans not Asians, living in ghettos etc etc just as muslims do in Europe now, if they are allowed to immigrate en masse
*http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/confirmed-driver-of-bin-lorry-was-unconscious-and-slumped-at-wheel-at-time-of-fatal-c.26194660;
"Mary Whitehouse in her prime never believed gay people should be executed, or people leaving her faith should be stoned to death."
I didn't mean to imply she did. Being an old fuddy-duddy, I've sympathy for some of her views.
Much more extreme views are voiced by some in the Muslim community (and a tiny minority may act upon them).
But freedom of speech is paramount.
Unless you're a fuckwit like Katie Hopkins and some others who would never dream of grabbing an AK47 - obviously they're the ones to concentrate on.
I notice there are no comments allowed beneath that article
OK, how? Sorry, Guv, but you can't buy this house because there are too many of your type in this area already? According to the Race and Culture Classification Board your child is of the wrong type for this years intake into that school? Just how will you end the de facto segregation?
Mind you when I was being learning how to deal with a bad situation the first rule was always to stop it getting worse.
According to the Beeb the driver is 57.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30707365
This statement was a bit ominous:
"Police Scotland said on Tuesday that officers investigating the crash would complete a formal private report by the end of the month."
Why is the report private?
"Fear of backlash rarely concerns these groups, as it is often one of their goals to provoke overreaction by their enemies, and hopefully widen the conflict. "
I'm no fan of the Guardian in many ways, but what I see there today is precisely the opposite of what you claim - some good factual journalism (their live blogs are always good), and commentary such as these two pieces:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-freedom-fear-terrorists-massacre-war
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/07/free-speech-must-not-be-silenced-in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-attack
We do not have a problem integrating Buddhists or Sikhs or Hindus or Quakers. The problem is the spread of Islamism - Khomeini's seizure of power in 1979 was what brought it to our attention but it's been around since the 1950's when the Muslim Brotherhood took off - and it's been given rocket boosters by the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and various cack-handed Western interventions in the Middle East.
We should have been much more thoughtful about the growth of a Muslim population in the West which was open to the spread of this fascistic ideology when we failed - as we are still failing - to provide a strong alternative and Western set of values and challenging this nasty cult.
The attached article puts it very well. http://www.standpointmag.com/features-january-february-2015-great-betrayal-liberals-appease-islam-nick-cohen-the-left
BTW I want to say well said to TSE for what he said earlier.
And well done to Mike and to Marf for publishing this.
We need to stand firm against evil.
Appeasing the Nazis did not work. Appeasing this lot won't either.
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
That's the main reason we have the problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
@Mike_USPatriot @drapermark37 anyone who believes Islam is peaceful have serious issues with their brain power
If the authorities are hiding this, as you claim, then there will be hell to pay when it finally emerges, as I'm sure it will.
There are far-right Christians in the U.S. who do.
And in this case we have an evil ideology which, rather than confronting, we have ignored or tried to explain away by, in some cases, claiming that it was our fault that young men and women were driven/inspired by this ideology to kill Jews, to attack women/children, behead aid workers, blow up commuters etc etc.
MikeK kind of makes his own point. It would be better to release the details to end stuff like this.
Are there new laws that need to be passed? Do they need to reform our security agencies? What are they failing to do because they are too busy with the usual hand-wringing balls?
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/07/attaque-au-siege-de-charlie-hebdo_4550630_3224.html
The article is indeed mealy mouthed for instance it says ''Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine whose offices were attacked by gunmen in Paris on Wednesday'' when it should have said ''Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine whose staff were murdered by gunmen in Paris on Wednesday''
Lets be clear we can if we wish disagree with what and why a magazine publishes and say so after it has been attacked, that is not the same as justifying the attack. My own view is the cartoons were an excuse and the motive was to provoke. Under those circumstances we should not be provoked.
There is an argument to be made - I am not saying I am making it, but it should be rationally considered - to say that being provocative in the first place when dealing with muslims is counter productive. This is not appeasing is is more like disarming, removing a weapon they can use. Make no mistake in what I am saying. These people are ignorant and irrational murderous zealots whose actions should be resisted but which in their form sow the seeds of their own defeat. If we behave rationally.
You could start an argument with yourself.
I'd say the majority of Muslims would be horrified by the attack but we can argue about how large the minority of supporters would be - that would depend on demographics.
The BBC/Guardian is being its usual self. This is so terrible but ... this cartoon was ...
They don't go so far as to say the cartoonists brought it on themselves, but it's something the BBC/Guardian would never have done.
Perhaps some laws need to be repealed...
The mayor of Nantes, Johanna Rolland, has called for a rally at 6pm while others are expected in Lyon, Montpellier, Toulouse and many other major towns and cities. Le Monde reports that rallies are also expected at the European parliament in Brussels and London’s Trafalgar Square.
edit: with three gunmen on the loose, who may be preparing further acts, large public gatherings may not be a wise idea...
Can anyone crying out "something must be done" say what should be done. I know some people wont be happy until Cameron instructs Operation Yewtree to look into Muhammed but the saner people calling for something to be done must have some specifics in mind.
We don't have the problem integrating Sikhs, Buddhists etc partly because there are so few of them in comparison.
We limited the number of Jews that could migrate here in the Aliens act.. that's why there aren't as many Jews as Muslims in the UK and why there is almost no instances of Jewish violence against the state
Wikipedia has the polls here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
Because the polls change depending on the candidates, and because it's a two part election, it's a little complex, but I would make the following points:
1. Marine Le Pen leads in almost every first round math-up (except where Juppe is the UMP candidate), on between 27 and 31% of the vote.
2. Sarkozy or Juppe score mid to high 20s on most first round match-ups.
3. Francois Hollande is as low as 13% in some match-ups, and may come fourth behind Bayrou. (Hollande is only a percent or two ahead of Melenchon, the Communist candidate. It is not inconceivable that Hollande - were he to stand again - could come fifth in the first round of voting.)
4. Marine Le Pen would beat Hollande in a second round face off. However, every other match-up has a very substantial lead for her challenger. So, Sarkozy would win 60-40, and Juppe has an even larger 64:36 second round lead.
Good article, if no one has linked it already
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/culturehousedaily/2015/01/je-suis-charlie/
Because the police don't want a lynch mob outside his house threatening him and his family?
There were people in the cab with the driver at the time of the crash -- are they 'in' on it as well?
So it can only be fought against successfully by equally determined 'soft' means. Ideas and cultures die through ridicule, failure, exposure, sunlight, calling bullshit openly, death from within, collapse, the death of the will to sustain an obvious lemon. This absolutely requires free speech and a willingness to expose and ridicule and challenge openly and all the rest. If we want to escape an endless cycle of this sort of shit then we need to start with truly free speech. And that (Dave and Nick) means repealing our bullshit incitement to hatred laws and driving a truly liberal agenda here.
It seems he wasn't, and tragically it cost him his life, and also cost 11 other innocent lives. The French authorities are going to have some difficult questions to answer.
Finally it makes sense.
That was an attack on innocent people, who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This was an attack on one of the fundamental ideas - the freedom of speech - that underpins Western civilisation
The problem arises because the default response to any criticism of Islam too often seems to be: "You can't say that." Or "You should be stopped by law from saying that." Or "If you don't stop saying that I (or others) will get violent until you stop".
The provocation is not ours. It is theirs. And we cannot, must not, allow the limits of what we can think and say be defined by those who do not want us to say or think anything about them other than as defined by them.
And when faced with this sort of response, the only self-respecting way to behave is continue with the criticism in order to make the point that we must - and will be - free with our speech.
And no-one, no-one (no matter how much they believe their religion), should be free from challenge. No-one should think themselves free from challenge. And no-one should be afraid to challenge.
It was only by challenge and provocation that we rolled back the power which the churches sought to have over our minds. It is only by challenge that we can stop this ideology from seeking to have the same control of what we can think and say.
I think you phrased that perfectly.
Look at the countries where 4-10% are muslim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/07/gunmen-massacre-staff-at-paris-magazine-that-published-islamic-gay-kiss/
"The horrific attack on the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, and the murder of its writers and cartoonists, is a direct, barbaric assault on freedom of speech and expression. This freedom is the very bedrock of Western democracy. It is non-negotiable.
"Such a brazen attack as that which occurred today suggests that those who oppose our values believe we lack the resolve to defend them.
"The publication of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses in 1989, and the weak response to the ensuing protests, book burnings and indeed deaths, ushered in an era of self-censorship and fear in Britain and other Western countries."
"This must end. We must make it clear to those who hate our freedoms - our right to satirise, to criticise, to debate and indeed to offend - that they will never, ever win."
http://www.ukip.org/statement_on_paris_shooting
Cameron's comments at PMQ were welcome, but there needs to be more than words.*
Our leaders need to stand up for our fundamental beliefs and rights.
* I'm not pretending to know what, but then I'm not prime minister. honest ;0
We're getting dangerously close to Jews-poisoning-the-wells territory here...
Thank you for highlighting that utterly outrageous comment from Flightpath.
The only provocation we have ever given to muslims in our country is to (sometimes) apply our democratically decided rule of secular law to them.
Many knew our system when they came here, and they are quite at liberty to campaign to have the law changed or to depart for other shores if they so choose.
And you might want to wind your head in, using words like 'massacre' and 'responsible'. (The latter may be technically true in that he was the driver. But even so ...)
Mr. Neil, tossing Leveson's restrictive nonsense overboard, making it clear (by making new laws or repealing old ones) that being offensive is not in itself remotely criminal, and enshrining freedom of speech in a First Amendment style law that specifically permits the ridicule, derision, criticism and parody of any belief (whether religious or not).
I do not believe that the current Labour party has any commitment at all to free speech when faced with the threat of violence or the fear of losing votes. We saw that decades ago when Roy Hattersley, shamefully, failed to condemn the book burning of The Satanic Verses by his constituents.
(Edited): And, for good measure, I don't think the other parties are much better.
It is true that this is possibly as big an attack as 911 in what it is attempting to do. That is provoke a reaction. In that case the reaction was hoped to be a return to isolationism, like the result of attacking Marines in Lebanon a few years earlier. In this case they want an over reaction and for us to demonise all muslims and thus radicalise them on their behalf.
I do not see that 'freedom of speech' is being undermined or our freedom of thought. We will think and speak now in just the same way as before. As a coercive act it will fail and from the terrorists point of view that does not matter. What matters to them is for them to get people like MikeK asking pejorative questions about the religion of dusbinmen in Glasgow and rapists in Sweden.
The one thing that terrorists the world over, of whatever background, want above all is for us to change the way we behave in reaction to their criminal acts. As such the very best response is to use the laws and systems we have in place and the common decency of the vast majority of people to bring the criminals to justice.
It is particularly sad that we see some of those who rightly oppose the increasing of Government powers of surveillance under the excuse of 'keeping us safe' are the same who would advocate us changing our behaviour towards a select group of our fellow citizens for the same reason.
We should enforce the laws we have in place in the first place - and stop circumventing them in the name of social cohesion or political correctness. The laws of the land should apply to everyone equally. But that works both ways and we should not for a second countenance Government or public persecution of a section of our society simply because a few maniacs are hell bent on killing people.
I hope the French response is tough but measured. The last thing anyone needs (apart from perhaps the terrorists themselves) is a knee jerk reaction that alienates people further.
'One suspects the reason so many Musims were let into France in the first place was not because they were valued as ordinary citizens but rather as voting fodder for people with particular ideological beliefs.'
According to my other half & her family the large wave of immigration in the 80's was part of a deal Mitterrand did with Algeria in exchange for preferential deals for oil & gas.
The transformation of cities like Marseille & Toulon was incredible.
Nowhere in Europe are Jews more than 1% of the population.. same for Sikhs and Buddhists
We have 1.5-1.7% Hindu's, the biggest % of non Christians or Muslims across Europe
So we really cant say that it is "because they are muslims" rather than "because there are so many muslims"
By the same logic, look how UKIP were not particularly disliked 5 years ago by other parties - because they were statistically insignificant.. if anything UKIP have become more mainstream in the last 5 years but are more disliked, and in turn dislike the other parties more, because they are on 15% ish,
They are taking power and want more power, that's why UKIP/Muslims are disliked/strike out
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1601/7992/original.jpg
A Man out of time @DVATW 1h1 hour ago
I noted the BBC kept emphasising how #CharlieHebdo liked to "provoke". Almost as IF they deserved it? Sickening dhimmified BBC.