1. One of the two brothers definitely a criminal record related to terrorism when jailed in France as part of a breakup of a terror cell.
2. There is a strong suggestion both brothers were in Syria with a return date July/August this year.
One comment on this 'military training' thing because blokes turn up in combat gear and appear to know what they are doing. This isn't military at work today training, its experience and its a mentality in the head. Some of the calmest looking killers I've come across, though few are actually calm on a kill, are simply just a) experienced and/or b) of a mentality. Military training in the truest sense of the word isn't a pre-requisite at all. This kind of kill operation isn't the kind that military training trains you for either.
The situation is, not surprisingly, fluid but it appears the French police have some sense of where they are looking. Whether the gunmen, who may well have done the classic two car escape deliberately rather than by circumstance are where the cops are looking is hard to say.
The Guardian makes some pertinent observations about their "military training".
1) They first went to the wrong address. 2) They couldn't get in on their own to the building, they had to threaten somebody to enter the code. 3) Apparently they went up the wrong stairs. 4) They didn't know what their targets looked like, they had to ask. 5) The authorities already know who they are, so they must have messed up somewhere.
All of these I doubt highly skilled and highly trained military personnel would fail to plan for.
Actually, I would. Particularly going to the wrong place. Plenty of 'special forces' operations in the last 30 years with genuinely well trained and apparently prepped lads that had things like door entry issues and wrong addresses occur.
All of the above in a single mission?
The not knowing the faces of the staff is surely a huge pointer. We aren't talking about unknown and rarely seem individuals who have been hiding in caves for 10 years, we are talking about very high profile cartoonists who regularly appeared on national tv shows etc.
Also, again in a city looking for an address, these days there is this thing called google maps....
Oh yes, guys have died not storming the right address because their opponents have watched them and have shot at them from the right location two doors up...
Wolfgang Blau @wblau 14m14 minutes ago All 4 Berlin newspapers show Charlie Hebdo covers RT @BERLINER_KURIER: Unsere Titelseite von morgen. #JeSuisCharlie pic.twitter.com/AnNQ0PmA29
I'm on at 100/1 on Lab Most Votes, Con Most Seats.
Edit - Is at 20/1 now
It's intriguing isn't it.
And the most intriguing bit of it is that if the May2015 model and Kellner are both right it gives real hope for the Conservatives that even a vote lead of 2% to 3% could give a decisive seat lead - not enough for a majority but probably enough to guarantee remaining in Govt.
I'm on at 100/1 on Lab Most Votes, Con Most Seats.
Edit - Is at 20/1 now
It's intriguing isn't it.
And the most intriguing bit of it is that if the May2015 model and Kellner are both right it gives real hope for the Conservatives that even a vote lead of 2% to 3% could give a decisive seat lead - not enough for a majority but probably enough to guarantee remaining in Govt.
Very much so.
I took the bet because I thought it wasn't a 100/1 and if UKIP ends up doing well in safe seats Tories currently hold, then it should make the Tory vote more efficient.
So what if the Tory Majority in places like Arundel & South Downs is 10k of instead 15k
Politico Daily @Politico_Daily 1m1 minute ago Breaking: French anti-terror raid under way in the northeastern city of Reims, police say (AFP)
Reims is an hour away from where the youngest guy was known to be registered at one time.
DGSI have been busy?
The DCRI i.e. MI5 equivalent? Depends how you see them as busy. A social security background or other check may well furnish that he he was a student a school in Charleville direction for example and the cops could do that.
Its the speed with which they have picked up the kids identity that does suggest a firm lead. The two brothers easier, will have plenty of boxes. This lad was either/or/and a) pre-identified in a definite terror watch even if he had no actual activity (e.g. associations or abroad travel) , b) criminal record c) someone has grassed him like parents or friends as soon as this incident went down.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by its fruit".
The real reason that Muslims are so offended by these "Blasphemies" is that they fear in their hearts that these "Blasphemies" are true. That is the root of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islam, and why so few would be comfortable at the "We are Charlie" rallies.
So just an update. Odd/bad or perversely good craft if true. One of the guys passports is rumoured to have been found in one of the getaway cars.....no idea if thats 100%
The getaway cars issue I think represents one of the best indicators of the modus operandi of these guys and just how good.bad or don't give a damn they are.
Not just the press. Have you seen the vapid innanities Cameron has been uttering today? I would post his facebook/Twitter updates, but can't work out how to on iPhone.
Lots of 'absolutely essential', 'absolutely clear' and assertions on the need to be 'very clear', without saying anything in particular, other than tired cliches.
What do you want them to say? Just start spouting random anti muslim shite? Burn the Koran on the steps of Number 10?
Why are you blaming 'US imperialist fascism' when those attacks are believed to be by an Al-Qaeda offshoot in Yemen?
No of course he is not. I do not actually agree with his inference. I support drone attacks on terrorists whilst being sorry for 'collateral damage'. He was trying to make comparisons. I do not agree with him. In terms of fighting a war we need to in fact twist the knife with drone attacks. Wars are won by attrition and in those terms terrorism has a weak hand to play provided we do not play to their rules.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by its fruit".
The real reason that Muslims are so offended by these "Blasphemies" is that they fear in their hearts that these "Blasphemies" are true. That is the root of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islam, and why so few would be comfortable at the "We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Yeah right. Betfair's electoral bias market is pretty good if you're a patient type btw - Just had a look and some more Con Votes, Con Seats has been matched at 2.96 since I last checked.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by its fruit".
The real reason that Muslims are so offended by these "Blasphemies" is that they fear in their hearts that these "Blasphemies" are true. That is the root of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islam, and why so few would be comfortable at the "We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Are you demanding the right not to be offended? (I sometimes wonder if this Kipper thing amounts to anything at all...)
The police officer videoed being shot in the head was a Muslim
Most of the people being currently being killed tortured and mutilated by muslims are other muslims. This is well known. I think we can agree that religious wars are stupid.
@NBCNightlyNews: BREAKING: 1 suspect in the Paris attack has been killed and the remaining 2 are in custody, senior U.S. officials say - @PeteWilliamsNBC
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by its fruit".
The real reason that Muslims are so offended by these "Blasphemies" is that they fear in their hearts that these "Blasphemies" are true. That is the root of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islam, and why so few would be comfortable at the "We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Are you demanding the right not to be offended? (I sometimes wonder if this Kipper thing amounts to anything at all...)
Try not seeing everything through partisan specs... If you read what I wrote there is no way you could take it as a demand of any sort
I just think if you know something is going to upset someone, you should think about why you are Saying or doing it. Just because the opportunity to offend is there, it doesn't have to be taken
@NBCNightlyNews: BREAKING: 1 suspect in the Paris attack has been killed and the remaining 2 are in custody, senior U.S. officials say - @PeteWilliamsNBC
The police car they shot up looks more like single shot mode? And depending on the acoustics, single shots can sound like auto. The reason being that those ammo pouches were not full?
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by its fruit".
The real reason that Muslims are so offended by these "Blasphemies" is that they fear in their hearts that these "Blasphemies" are true. That is the root of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islam, and why so few would be comfortable at the "We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
What rubbish. I'm Catholic. I have heard plenty of people say rude things about my religion, sometimes even on here. And if they do I debate - politely I hope - or walk away. I may think less of someone who is offensive but I do not expect to have my amour proper protected.
No earthly reason why Muslims cannot behave in the same way, save for their brittle and adolescent self-regard and demands for respect for beliefs which I do not share.
And I will not be bullied or scared into a "respect" I do not feel. If a religion or person or group wants my respect, they will bloody well have to earn it not demand it.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by its fruit".
The real reason that Muslims are so offended by these "Blasphemies" is that they fear in their hearts that these "Blasphemies" are true. That is the root of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islam, and why so few would be comfortable at the "We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Are you demanding the right not to be offended? (I sometimes wonder if this Kipper thing amounts to anything at all...)
Try not seeing everything through partisan specs... If you read what I wrote there is no way you could take it as a demand of any sort
I just think if you know something is going to upset someone, you should think about why you are Saying or doing it. Just because the opportunity to offend is there, it doesn't have to be taken
If Kipperism amounted to anything I thought it was a Great British take-it-on-the-chin bulldog spirit. You're whining and demanding 'sensitivity' like the very worst Student-Union feminista hack. Deeply un-British and risible. I just hope the cherished values of freedom and the Enlightenment never need defending by you and yours.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by its fruit".
The real reason that Muslims are so offended by these "Blasphemies" is that they fear in their hearts that these "Blasphemies" are true. That is the root of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islam, and why so few would be comfortable at the "We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
What rubbish. I'm Catholic. I have heard plenty of people say rude things about my religion, sometimes even on here. And if they do I debate - politely I hope - or walk away. I may think less of someone who is offensive but I do not expect to have my amour proper protected.
No earthly reason why Muslims cannot behave in the same way, save for their brittle and adolescent self-regard and demands for respect for beliefs which I do not share.
And I will not be bullied or scared into a "respect" I do not feel. If a religion or person or group wants my respect, they will bloody well have to earn it not demand it.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
My reply:
I am a Christian, and part of Christian experience is being mocked, as Jesus himself was mocked at his trial, torture and death.
Mohammed's reaction to being mocked was rather different, as the tale of Asma bint Marwan shows:
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by its fruit".
The real reason that Muslims are so offended by these "Blasphemies" is that they fear in their hearts that these "Blasphemies" are true. That is the root of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islam, and why so few would be comfortable at the "We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Are you demanding the right not to be offended? (I sometimes wonder if this Kipper thing amounts to anything at all...)
Try not seeing everything through partisan specs... If you read what I wrote there is no way you could take it as a demand of any sort
I just think if you know something is going to upset someone, you should think about why you are Saying or doing it. Just because the opportunity to offend is there, it doesn't have to be taken
If Kipperism amounted to anything I thought it was a Great British take-it-on-the-chin bulldog spirit. You're whining and demanding 'sensitivity' like the very worst Student-Union feminista hack. Deeply un-British and risible. I just hope the cherished values of freedom and the Enlightenment never need defending by you and yours.
Whereas you sound like a right prick
I haven't demanded anything at all
"Un British" to be thoughtful and polite, there's a new one
The Mail has the uncensored photo of the injured police officer, lying on the floor with his hands up, about to be executed, at the top of its website. There is no good reason to show that.
I disagree. It makes very clear the type of people we are dealing with.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by its fruit".
The real reason that Muslims are so offended by these "Blasphemies" is that they fear in their hearts that these "Blasphemies" are true. That is the root of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islam, and why so few would be comfortable at the "We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Are you demanding the right not to be offended? (I sometimes wonder if this Kipper thing amounts to anything at all...)
Try not seeing everything through partisan specs... If you read what I wrote there is no way you could take it as a demand of any sort
I just think if you know something is going to upset someone, you should think about why you are Saying or doing it. Just because the opportunity to offend is there, it doesn't have to be taken
If Kipperism amounted to anything I thought it was a Great British take-it-on-the-chin bulldog spirit. You're whining and demanding 'sensitivity' like the very worst Student-Union feminista hack. Deeply un-British and risible. I just hope the cherished values of freedom and the Enlightenment never need defending by you and yours.
Whereas you sound like a right prick
I haven't demanded anything at all
"Un British" to be thoughtful and polite, there's a new one
Good. You're exercising your right to be rude and insulting. We'll make a Child of the Enlightenment of you yet!
The police car they shot up looks more like single shot mode? And depending on the acoustics, single shots can sound like auto. The reason being that those ammo pouches were not full?
Its purely good practice to use semi automatic anyway, full auto has very limited use indeed and in that scenario semi-auto 100% the way to go for the situation that emerged. You already have more volume firepower than your targets most of whom had an office tidy with pens and pencils to respond with. You'll probably be aware that full auto on a true AK replica and you could be shooting at the ceiling in seconds if you don't handle it well. Even your mad end of Team Shemagh teach their guys to shoot largely with semi auto on the range.
Only thing I'm not clear on is within the office was it a proper spray job. Doesn't sound like it based on reports.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by its fruit".
The real reason that Muslims are so offended by these "Blasphemies" is that they fear in their hearts that these "Blasphemies" are true. That is the root of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islam, and why so few would be comfortable at the "We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Are you demanding the right not to be offended? (I sometimes wonder if this Kipper thing amounts to anything at all...)
Try not seeing everything through partisan specs... If you read what I wrote there is no way you could take it as a demand of any sort
I just think if you know something is going to upset someone, you should think about why you are Saying or doing it. Just because the opportunity to offend is there, it doesn't have to be taken
If Kipperism amounted to anything I thought it was a Great British take-it-on-the-chin bulldog spirit. You're whining and demanding 'sensitivity' like the very worst Student-Union feminista hack. Deeply un-British and risible. I just hope the cherished values of freedom and the Enlightenment never need defending by you and yours.
Whereas you sound like a right prick
I haven't demanded anything at all
"Un British" to be thoughtful and polite, there's a new one
Sure, it is good manners not to needlessly offend, but sometimes it is needed to speak out.
Best of luck if you are still going for Islington tommorow. As kippers go you are alright!
Expert on BBC News calling this a massive security failure by the French state, saying there should have been many more than two police guarding the building.
I spoke to someone today who oversaw the risk assessment for two "soft target" sites a few years ago. He believed that the magazine had not undertaken the most basic steps (he gave the example of a two door entry system) which give massive security benefits
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Are you demanding the right not to be offended? (I sometimes wonder if this Kipper thing amounts to anything at all...)
Try not seeing everything through partisan specs... If you read what I wrote there is no way you could take it as a demand of any sort
I just think if you know something is going to upset someone, you should think about why you are Saying or doing it. Just because the opportunity to offend is there, it doesn't have to be taken
he very worst Student-Union feminista hack. Deeply un-British and risible. I just hope the cherished values of freedom and the Enlightenment never need defending by you and yours.
Whereas you sound like a right prick
I haven't demanded anything at all
"Un British" to be thoughtful and polite, there's a new one
Good. You're exercising your right to be rude and insulting. We'll make a Child of the Enlightenment of you yet!
Well it seems there is an atmosphere that everything is game for a piss take and anyone offended is being precious. I disagree
As for British values they are whatever you feel them to be but my idea of the stereotype was more gentlemanly restraint and manners than bulldog spirit
I thought Russell brand was wrong to phone Andrew Sachs and brag about sleeping with his grand daughter... Maybe you think Sachs was at fault for being upset
The Mail has the uncensored photo of the injured police officer, lying on the floor with his hands up, about to be executed, at the top of its website. There is no good reason to show that.
I disagree. It makes very clear the type of people we are dealing with.
Does it? Do we need that? On the other hand I think we saw some self censorship when the two British corporals were murdered after stumbling into an IRA funeral. Do you remember that? Just after the murder of catholics by a protestant at an earlier funeral. Michael Stone, Milltown Cemetry. Most of the cameramen gave up their film to the murderers as I recall - this after stopping to take the photos rather than run for help. The murder of these two soldiers was grotesque. The surviving film was not shown much if at all afterwards.
The whole episode was just one of terrible depravity. In thinking about what we do now should we not remember these episodes?
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by its fruit".
The real reason that Muslims are so offended by these "Blasphemies" is that they fear in their hearts that these "Blasphemies" are true. That is the root of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islam, and why so few would be comfortable at the "We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Are you demanding the right not to be offended? (I sometimes wonder if this Kipper thing amounts to anything at all...)
I just think if you know something is going to upset someone, you should think about why you are Saying or doing it. Just because the opportunity to offend is there, it doesn't have to be taken
If Kipperism amounted to anything I thought it was a Great British take-it-on-the-chin bulldog spirit. You're whining and demanding 'sensitivity' like the very worst Student-Union feminista hack. Deeply un-British and risible. I just hope the cherished values of freedom and the Enlightenment never need defending by you and yours.
Whereas you sound like a right prick
I haven't demanded anything at all
"Un British" to be thoughtful and polite, there's a new one
Sure, it is good manners not to needlessly offend, but sometimes it is needed to speak out.
Best of luck if you are still going for Islington tommorow. As kippers go you are alright!
Thanks, actually I decided against it in the end... Hopefully somewhere nearer home next time
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Are you demanding the right not to be offended? (I sometimes wonder if this Kipper thing amounts to anything at all...)
Try not seeing everything through partisan specs... If you read what I wrote there is no way you could take it as a demand of any sort
I just think if you know something is going to upset someone, you should think about why you are Saying or doing it. Just because the opportunity to offend is there, it doesn't have to be taken
he very worst Student-Union feminista hack. Deeply un-British and risible. I just hope the cherished values of freedom and the Enlightenment never need defending by you and yours.
Whereas you sound like a right prick
I haven't demanded anything at all
"Un British" to be thoughtful and polite, there's a new one
Good. You're exercising your right to be rude and insulting. We'll make a Child of the Enlightenment of you yet!
Well it seems there is an atmosphere that everything is game for a piss take and anyone offended is being precious. I disagree
As for British values they are whatever you feel them to be but my idea of the stereotype was more gentlemanly restraint and manners than bulldog spirit
I thought Russell brand was wrong to phone Andrew Sachs and brag about sleeping with his grand daughter... Maybe you think Sachs was at fault for being upset
Perhaps you could take the night to understand the difference between a man being upset at receiving an offensive call and someone threatening violence because they don't like criticism.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
My reply:
I am a Christian, and part of Christian experience is being mocked, as Jesus himself was mocked at his trial, torture and death.
Mohammed's reaction to being mocked was rather different, as the tale of Asma bint Marwan shows:
Asma bint Marwan was butchered while breastfeeding, by an Islamic convert from her husbands tribe, at night when he sneaked into her bedroom.
This story explains the justification of the Paris Murderers, as in Islam Mohammed is the perfect man and his actions should be emulated.
I think Mohammed was a false prophet, and quite possibly a deluded psychopath.
Flightpath --- I tend to agree, although I'm guessing that theologians would debate the history and the teachings. Islam needs to grow up and come out of the middle ages. Christianity was there doing the same things 500 years ago. It looks highly likely that islamic terrorism is run by a bunch of con men. I am not sure how much religion comes into it except as the mcguffin. However in terms of defeating terrorism I don't think we should dance tlo their tune. But there is no doubt that islam is misogynistic. As I say - it is stuck in the middle ages. And it is perpetuated by totalitarianism not democracy. Ultimately the world needs democracy.
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Are you demanding the right not to be offended? (I sometimes wonder if this Kipper thing amounts to anything at all...)
Try not seeing everything through partisan specs... If you read what I wrote there is no way you could take it as a demand of any sort
I just think if you know something is going to upset someone, you should think about why you are Saying or doing it. Just because the opportunity to offend is there, it doesn't have to be taken
he very worst Student-Union feminista hack. Deeply un-British and risible. I just hope the cherished values of freedom and the Enlightenment never need defending by you and yours.
Whereas you sound like a right prick
I haven't demanded anything at all
"Un British" to be thoughtful and polite, there's a new one
Good. You're exercising your right to be rude and insulting. We'll make a Child of the Enlightenment of you yet!
Well it seems there is an atmosphere that everything is game for a piss take and anyone offended is being precious. I disagree
As for British values they are whatever you feel them to be but my idea of the stereotype was more gentlemanly restraint and manners than bulldog spirit
I thought Russell brand was wrong to phone Andrew Sachs and brag about sleeping with his grand daughter... Maybe you think Sachs was at fault for being upset
Perhaps you could take the night to understand the difference between a man being upset at receiving an offensive call and someone threatening violence because they don't like criticism.
Perhaps you could see whether you've got it in you not to be patronising in one post tomorrow
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Are you demanding the right not to be offended? (I sometimes wonder if this Kipper thing amounts to anything at all...)
Try not seeing everything through partisan specs... If you read what I wrote there is no way you could take it as a demand of any sort
I just think if you know something is going to upset someone, you should think about why you are Saying or doing it. Just because the opportunity to offend is there, it doesn't have to be taken
he very worst Student-Union feminista hack. Deeply un-British and risible. I just hope the cherished values of freedom and the Enlightenment never need defending by you and yours.
Whereas you sound like a right prick
I haven't demanded anything at all
"Un British" to be thoughtful and polite, there's a new one
Good. You're exercising your right to be rude and insulting. We'll make a Child of the Enlightenment of you yet!
Well it seems there is an atmosphere that everything is game for a piss take and anyone offended is being precious. I disagree
As for British values they are whatever you feel them to be but my idea of the stereotype was more gentlemanly restraint and manners than bulldog spirit
I thought Russell brand was wrong to phone Andrew Sachs and brag about sleeping with his grand daughter... Maybe you think Sachs was at fault for being upset
Perhaps you could take the night to understand the difference between a man being upset at receiving an offensive call and someone threatening violence because they don't like criticism.
Perhaps you could see whether you've got it in you not to be patronising in one post tomorrow
No: You've taught me quite a lot about the Ukip view of the world and most illuminating it has been. Good night.
Evan Davis on Newsnight: "Is it acceptable to deliberately set out to offend people?"
By tomorrow it will all be asking if it is all the West's fault on Newsnight.
Were these cartoons and other satire set out to deliberately offend? They may have offended of course. Well clearly they either did or were used as an opportunity to ferment trouble. It strikes me that the satirists thought they were telling the truth and the notion of offence was alien. The question is was satire the right weapon? It is not that they should be afraid and say nothing. But given what you want to criticise how is the best way to achieve what you want?
As for causing offence - leaving aside the risk of being murdered - well, is it right to offend people? Casual offence, like casual racist remarks, should be avoided. We should be able to speak the truth and not worry about offence.
Evan Davis on Newsnight: "Is it acceptable to deliberately set out to offend people?"
By tomorrow it will all be asking if it is all the West's fault on Newsnight.
Were these cartoons and other satire set out to deliberately offend? They may have offended of course. Well clearly they either did or were used as an opportunity to ferment trouble. It strikes me that the satirists thought they were telling the truth and the notion of offence was alien. The question is was satire the right weapon? It is not that they should be afraid and say nothing. But given what you want to criticise how is the best way to achieve what you want?
As for causing offence - leaving aside the risk of being murdered - well, is it right to offend people? Casual offence, like casual racist remarks, should be avoided. We should be able to speak the truth and not worry about offence.
Oh for crying out loud! Offence doesn't happen because of some law of physics. You can choose to take offence.
And you can choose not to.
People have a choice. Some choose to be outraged and to use that outrage to control what others may do, while claiming that they have been provoked.
Time for the rest of us to tell them to get stuffed.
"The Guardian has a video of the policeman being shot on its website, but is apparently refusing to show the cartoon, on grounds of it being offensive."
It's wrong to offend people about things they can't change or aren't responsible for, such as the colour of their skin. But things they choose to believe in should be fair game IMO. And that includes religion.
Evan Davis on Newsnight: "Is it acceptable to deliberately set out to offend people?"
By tomorrow it will all be asking if it is all the West's fault on Newsnight.
Were these cartoons and other satire set out to deliberately offend? They may have offended of course. Well clearly they either did or were used as an opportunity to ferment trouble. It strikes me that the satirists thought they were telling the truth and the notion of offence was alien. The question is was satire the right weapon? It is not that they should be afraid and say nothing. But given what you want to criticise how is the best way to achieve what you want?
As for causing offence - leaving aside the risk of being murdered - well, is it right to offend people? Casual offence, like casual racist remarks, should be avoided. We should be able to speak the truth and not worry about offence.
I was surprised that Hollande arrived at the scene so quickly, particularly as the assassins were still at large.
Why?
I thought it was a bit odd as well, since they might have targetted him if they'd hung around in the vicinity of the shooting.
So its because it was or might have been dangerous? But why should anyone be surprised that he would risk a bit of danger to show solidarity. In any event he was surrounded by journalists. (Warning satire alert). In reality he has guards doesn't he? On top of that the place was swarming with police and the attackers had raced away in cars. I have to say I did not see anything unusual in it - not when your poll ratings are so low (warning cynic alert) . I seem to recall that after 911 the VP was physically lifted protesting in his chair and taken by the Secret Service to a place of safety, but this was after planes had been sent to destroy the Pentagon and White House.
My own take on the remark was that Hollande was thought a coward.
"The Guardian has a video of the policeman being shot on its website, but is apparently refusing to show the cartoon, on grounds of it being offensive."
We have totally lost the plot when for instance Sky show the video on rolling loop of a guy being executed in cold blood, right up to the very final second (you even see the muzzle flash), and Sky know that their channel is broadcast in lots of public places e.g. I was in the gym earlier and this was being displayed on the massive screens at 3-4pm in the afternoon, plenty of kids about etc....but a cartoon, nope too offensive / upsetting.
The paper reviewer on Sky earlier said the British media are still cowering, where as the likes of German press are producing front pages covering many of the "offensive" cartoons from this magazine.
I see the French police have put out mugshots of two of the men suspected of yesterdays killings. I think it would be rather fitting if along side each they showed a classic French caricature of each.
It's wrong to offend people about things they can't change or aren't responsible for, such as the colour of their skin. But things they choose to believe in should be fair game IMO. And that includes religion.
With relatively few exceptions, most people don't choose to believe in religion. They are invariably born into the religion of their parents or, if you will, of their tribe. Those who don't fall by the wayside then come to believe, to some degree at least, that theirs is the one true religion, and that others are wrong. Muslims - just as Christians believed 500+ years ago - believe this most strongly, to the extent that apostates and unbelievers are considered worthy of death, and those who directly attack their religion are at the top of the death list.
How (and whether) we can reconcile such people with the decadent materialism known as liberal democracy is an interesting question, but it would be wise to be aware of the sensitivities and mindset of those unfortunates, who - through accident of birth - have been born into a mediaeval death cult...
It's wrong to offend people about things they can't change or aren't responsible for, such as the colour of their skin. But things they choose to believe in should be fair game IMO. And that includes religion.
Maybe people need to stop being so damn precious and thin skinned.
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
Remember the words of Salman Rushdie, a man I think we can agree who knows more than most about this problem
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.
If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
Why can't the BBC bring themselves to use the word Terrorist? That is what they are, but the BBC just can't bring themselves to call them that, instead every other weasel word is used.
The Mail has the uncensored photo of the injured police officer, lying on the floor with his hands up, about to be executed, at the top of its website. There is no good reason to show that.
I disagree. It makes very clear the type of people we are dealing with.
Does it? Do we need that? On the other hand I think we saw some self censorship when the two British corporals were murdered after stumbling into an IRA funeral. Do you remember that? Just after the murder of catholics by a protestant at an earlier funeral. Michael Stone, Milltown Cemetry. Most of the cameramen gave up their film to the murderers as I recall - this after stopping to take the photos rather than run for help. The murder of these two soldiers was grotesque. The surviving film was not shown much if at all afterwards.
The whole episode was just one of terrible depravity. In thinking about what we do now should we not remember these episodes?
The facts were:-
Unarmed crowd bravely disarmed two armed men in a speeding car who had infiltrated and disrupted a funeral - a funeral, left us not forget, which was caused by the psychopathic atrocity of another armed man (Stone) at another funeral...
Crowd handed the men over to the IRA who, after discovering they were British soldiers in plain-clothes - whether on some nefarious official mission, or some malicious private folly is still unknown - gave them "short shrift".
Deplorable? Yes. Grotesque? Only if you are ignorant of the facts. Depraved? Don't be silly...
Enough. The Paris massacre shows us the terrible dangers of this new Endarkenment, this retreat from freedom of thought and speech and this unleashing of a new, seemingly PC intolerance. The best, most civilised response to this barbaric act is to promise that we will defend freedom of speech every time it is threatened, stop kowtowing to the offended, and stand up to every mob, campaign group, thug and gunman that think they have the right to silence others. That’s what spiked plans to do - to embolden even further our fight for the right to be offensive, in memory of the journalists at Charlie Hebdo and in the name of freedom and Enlightenment.
Researchers found the key issue affecting hospital A&E provision was not funding or organisation, but the sheer heft of Britain’s collective stupidity.
Martin Bishop, a 33 year-old man who is currently sitting in an A&E department in Stevenage, said: “I’ve got a bit of a sore throat.”
03.40 David Chazan is at Charleville-Mézières, north-eastern France, where the youngest suspect surrendered, He reports:
"The youngest of the three suspects, 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, has surrendered to police here. He reportedly walked into the main police station of this town in north-eastern France and told investigators he was innocent."
A chilling video of two gunmen stopping their getaway car to wound, chase down and execute a police officer raising his hand in a plea for mercy shows shows tactics and movement that only comes with training, said retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a Fox News strategic analyst.
“It was evident immediately that this was a carefully planned, sophisticated operation by well-trained, well-armed veterans of jihad,” Peters said. “This was not a pick-up team. These butchers were methodical and efficient. They weren't just terrorists: They were terrorist commandos.”
Why can't the BBC bring themselves to use the word Terrorist? That is what they are, but the BBC just can't bring themselves to call them that, instead every other weasel word is used.
If world war 2 happened now, instead of interning all Germans, Clegg and Camoron would be telling us at every opportunity after every blitz attack that most Germans are peace loving and passing hate laws to protect Germans; the police would be arresting anyone rude to Germans after a blitz attack, the BBC wouldn't be able to bring themselves to say German when describing blitz attacks and the usual suspect newspaper journalists would be saying we've only got ourselves to blame for upsetting the Germans.
Why can't the BBC bring themselves to use the word Terrorist? That is what they are, but the BBC just can't bring themselves to call them that, instead every other weasel word is used.
If world war 2 happened now, instead of interning all Germans, Clegg and Camoron would be telling us at every opportunity after every blitz attack that most Germans are peace loving and passing hate laws to protect Germans; the police would be arresting anyone rude to Germans after a blitz attack, the BBC wouldn't be able to bring themselves to say German when describing blitz attacks and the usual suspect newspaper journalists would be saying we've only got ourselves to blame for upsetting the Germans.
The first comments came from Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, who refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, but made sure to add the now typical non-sequitor which now routinely follows Islamic terrorist attacks, that “Islam is a religion of peace” and therefore no should associate with the “extremists” in Paris with Islam.
Most recently, in describing ISIS, the Obama administration has categorically defined the group as having “nothing to do with Islam.”
Why can't the BBC bring themselves to use the word Terrorist? That is what they are, but the BBC just can't bring themselves to call them that, instead every other weasel word is used.
If world war 2 happened now, instead of interning all Germans, Clegg and Camoron would be telling us at every opportunity after every blitz attack that most Germans are peace loving and passing hate laws to protect Germans; the police would be arresting anyone rude to Germans after a blitz attack, the BBC wouldn't be able to bring themselves to say German when describing blitz attacks and the usual suspect newspaper journalists would be saying we've only got ourselves to blame for upsetting the Germans.
Jeez - what complete nonsense. You need to go back to bed.
The Mail has the uncensored photo of the injured police officer, lying on the floor with his hands up, about to be executed, at the top of its website. There is no good reason to show that.
I disagree. It makes very clear the type of people we are dealing with.
Part of me agrees, just like the beheading videos. We do need to know what we're up against, to see just how far these religious psychopaths will go to. I just feel, as someone who has watched the uncensored footage, that that picture, at this point, is too raw. The officer is on the floor, milliseconds from death, in a lot of pain, hands up, probably begging for his life. It just felt so....I cant find the word that best fits.....sad? Humilliated? That picture does need to be shown, but not yet, I feel.
Why can't the BBC bring themselves to use the word Terrorist? That is what they are, but the BBC just can't bring themselves to call them that, instead every other weasel word is used.
If world war 2 happened now, instead of interning all Germans, Clegg and Camoron would be telling us at every opportunity after every blitz attack that most Germans are peace loving and passing hate laws to protect Germans; the police would be arresting anyone rude to Germans after a blitz attack, the BBC wouldn't be able to bring themselves to say German when describing blitz attacks and the usual suspect newspaper journalists would be saying we've only got ourselves to blame for upsetting the Germans.
Before we actually fought back against the Germans, the Armed Forces would have to carry out a health and safety review, an equality impact assessment, and be certain that their actions were compliant with the Human Rights Act. Then we'd give German nationals legal aid to sue our servicemen.
Why can't the BBC bring themselves to use the word Terrorist? That is what they are, but the BBC just can't bring themselves to call them that, instead every other weasel word is used.
If world war 2 happened now, instead of interning all Germans, Clegg and Camoron would be telling us at every opportunity after every blitz attack that most Germans are peace loving and passing hate laws to protect Germans; the police would be arresting anyone rude to Germans after a blitz attack, the BBC wouldn't be able to bring themselves to say German when describing blitz attacks and the usual suspect newspaper journalists would be saying we've only got ourselves to blame for upsetting the Germans.
A breathtackingly stupid comment even by your regular dim-witted standards.
The Mail has the uncensored photo of the injured police officer, lying on the floor with his hands up, about to be executed, at the top of its website. There is no good reason to show that.
I disagree. It makes very clear the type of people we are dealing with.
Part of me agrees, just like the beheading videos. We do need to know what we're up against, to see just how far these religious psychopaths will go to. I just feel, as someone who has watched the uncensored footage, that that picture, at this point, is too raw. The officer is on the floor, milliseconds from death, in a lot of pain, hands up, probably begging for his life. It just felt so....I cant find the word that best fits.....sad? Humilliated? That picture does need to be shown, but not yet, I feel.
That's a sensible view I think, TFS, and I agree that there should be a balance struck. In my opinion there should be no censorship of the footage and it should be freely available. However we have to feel for the family of that officer too and the effect on them if it were broadcast on a continuous loop until the film wore out. These things will not go away and so the hunger of some for pure uncut terror-porn doesn't need to be fed without thought.
I was surprised that Hollande arrived at the scene so quickly, particularly as the assassins were still at large.
Why?
Unsecured area, gets in the way, diverts time and attention of security and police units. By all means turn up, pay respects to the dead, show solidarity with ideas of free expression. If HMQ or Blair turned up at scene of July bus and tube bombings within minutes, how would that have helped?
The Mail has the uncensored photo of the injured police officer, lying on the floor with his hands up, about to be executed, at the top of its website. There is no good reason to show that.
I disagree. It makes very clear the type of people we are dealing with.
Does it? Do we need that? On the other hand I think we saw some self censorship when the two British corporals were murdered after stumbling into an IRA funeral. Do you remember that? Just after the murder of catholics by a protestant at an earlier funeral. Michael Stone, Milltown Cemetry. Most of the cameramen gave up their film to the murderers as I recall - this after stopping to take the photos rather than run for help. The murder of these two soldiers was grotesque. The surviving film was not shown much if at all afterwards.
The whole episode was just one of terrible depravity. In thinking about what we do now should we not remember these episodes?
The facts were:-
Unarmed crowd bravely disarmed two armed men in a speeding car who had infiltrated and disrupted a funeral - a funeral, left us not forget, which was caused by the psychopathic atrocity of another armed man (Stone) at another funeral...
Crowd handed the men over to the IRA who, after discovering they were British soldiers in plain-clothes - whether on some nefarious official mission, or some malicious private folly is still unknown - gave them "short shrift".
Deplorable? Yes. Grotesque? Only if you are ignorant of the facts. Depraved? Don't be silly...
The FT facing well deserved criticism for Tony Barber(Europe Editor)'s disgraceful a article:
LONDON, United Kingdom – The Financial Times faced a backlash on Wednesday after publishing an opinion piece by its European editor that called French magazine Charlie Hebdo, center of a deadly terror attack, “stupid” and “foolish” over its criticism of Islam.
In an article that appeared online, Tony Barber condemned the murder of 12 people during the attack, but accused the satirical magazine of “editorial foolishness” and said that it had “just been stupid” to provoke Muslims with controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.
The Mail has the uncensored photo of the injured police officer, lying on the floor with his hands up, about to be executed, at the top of its website. There is no good reason to show that.
I disagree. It makes very clear the type of people we are dealing with.
Does it? Do we need that? On the other hand I think we saw some self censorship when the two British corporals were murdered after stumbling into an IRA funeral. Do you remember that? Just after the murder of catholics by a protestant at an earlier funeral. Michael Stone, Milltown Cemetry. Most of the cameramen gave up their film to the murderers as I recall - this after stopping to take the photos rather than run for help. The murder of these two soldiers was grotesque. The surviving film was not shown much if at all afterwards.
The whole episode was just one of terrible depravity. In thinking about what we do now should we not remember these episodes?
The facts were:-
Unarmed crowd bravely disarmed two armed men in a speeding car who had infiltrated and disrupted a funeral - a funeral, left us not forget, which was caused by the psychopathic atrocity of another armed man (Stone) at another funeral...
Crowd handed the men over to the IRA who, after discovering they were British soldiers in plain-clothes - whether on some nefarious official mission, or some malicious private folly is still unknown - gave them "short shrift".
Deplorable? Yes. Grotesque? Only if you are ignorant of the facts. Depraved? Don't be silly...
So in other words might well have been brave security officers walking knowingly into harms way in pursuit of properly constituted orders given by their lawful superiors and believing themselves to be acting in defense of the realm.
Tell me are you going to be similarly unsympathetic about any British Intelligence officers captured by ISIS ?
In the Ched Evans case, the 19-year-old victim did not go to the police to report that she had been raped. She made no complaint whatsoever. She had no memory of being raped. She called the police to report a missing handbag. It was the police who suggested that she might have a case for rape against two well-known footballers.
Which sounds like pretty questionable behaviour from Plod. The rest of the article is worth reading, the police dont exactly cover themselves in glory.
Returning to more mundane things this morning it does seem remarkable to me and worthy of comment that in each of these seats Labour is polling worse, sometimes significantly so, than they did in their supposed nadir in 2010.
This shows not only UKIP hurting Labour but support for those that contend that their vote may be down again this year (still feels slightly odd to say that).
Returning to more mundane things this morning it does seem remarkable to me and worthy of comment that in each of these seats Labour is polling worse, sometimes significantly so, than they did in their supposed nadir in 2010.
This shows not only UKIP hurting Labour but support for those that contend that their vote may be down again this year (still feels slightly odd to say that).
I think the Labour vote will be very variable. UKIP have taken about 7% of Labour's 2010 overall, but in these three seats, the proportion would be much higher.
In the Ched Evans case, the 19-year-old victim did not go to the police to report that she had been raped. She made no complaint whatsoever. She had no memory of being raped. She called the police to report a missing handbag. It was the police who suggested that she might have a case for rape against two well-known footballers.
Which sounds like pretty questionable behaviour from Plod. The rest of the article is worth reading, the police dont exactly cover themselves in glory.
Why do you think it is questionable? A woman tells police officers that she had been so drunk that she could not recall what happened but that she had had sex with 2 men, one of whom she only met in the hotel room and had not known before. It seems to me there was at least a potential crime to be investigated there and it appears that the jury agreed.
If only the officers dealing with children in care being collected by older men for sex had been half as diligent.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by We are Charlie" rallies.
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
Are you demanding the right not to be offended? (I sometimes wonder if this Kipper thing amounts to anything at all...)
Try not seeing everything through partisan specs... If you read what I wrote there is no way you could take it as a demand of any sort
I just think if you know something is going to upset someone, you should think about why you are Saying or doing it. Just because the opportunity to offend is there, it doesn't have to be taken
he very worst Student-Union feminista hack. Deeply un-British and risible. I just hope the cherished values of freedom and the Enlightenment never need defending by you and yours.
Whereas you sound like a right prick
I haven't demanded anything at all
"Un British" to be thoughtful and polite, there's a new one
Good. You're exercising your right to be rude and insulting. We'll make a Child of the Enlightenment of you yet!
As for British values they are whatever you feel them to be but my idea of the stereotype was more gentlemanly restraint and manners than bulldog spirit
I thought Russell brand was wrong to phone Andrew Sachs and brag about sleeping with his grand daughter... Maybe you think Sachs was at fault for being upset
Perhaps you could take the night to understand the difference between a man being upset at receiving an offensive call and someone threatening violence because they don't like criticism.
Perhaps you could see whether you've got it in you not to be patronising in one post tomorrow
No: You've taught me quite a lot about the Ukip view of the world and most illuminating it has been. Good night.
Comments
I'm on at 100/1 on Lab Most Votes, Con Most Seats.
Edit - Is at 20/1 now
Wolfgang Blau @wblau 14m14 minutes ago
All 4 Berlin newspapers show Charlie Hebdo covers RT @BERLINER_KURIER: Unsere Titelseite von morgen. #JeSuisCharlie pic.twitter.com/AnNQ0PmA29
And the most intriguing bit of it is that if the May2015 model and Kellner are both right it gives real hope for the Conservatives that even a vote lead of 2% to 3% could give a decisive seat lead - not enough for a majority but probably enough to guarantee remaining in Govt.
I took the bet because I thought it wasn't a 100/1 and if UKIP ends up doing well in safe seats Tories currently hold, then it should make the Tory vote more efficient.
So what if the Tory Majority in places like Arundel & South Downs is 10k of instead 15k
Its the speed with which they have picked up the kids identity that does suggest a firm lead. The two brothers easier, will have plenty of boxes. This lad was either/or/and a) pre-identified in a definite terror watch even if he had no actual activity (e.g. associations or abroad travel) , b) criminal record c) someone has grassed him like parents or friends as soon as this incident went down.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about. Any Muslim who wants to protest against these Paris murders may well feel rather uneasy at some of these protests. Would they be welcome? Would they be thought an apostate? Would they be viewed as terrorist attackers themselves?
But the people who need to be convinced that Islam is not a vicious, misogynist, intolerant and medieval force are not the non-Muslim population, it is a significant proportion of the Islamic population that needs convincing.
When people stop going about murdering, raping and bombing while shouting "Allah Akhbar", then Islam will be thought to be a religion of peace. Actions speak louder than words, or to put it in Biblical terms "a tree is known by its fruit".
The real reason that Muslims are so offended by these "Blasphemies" is that they fear in their hearts that these "Blasphemies" are true. That is the root of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islam, and why so few would be comfortable at the "We are Charlie" rallies.
The getaway cars issue I think represents one of the best indicators of the modus operandi of these guys and just how good.bad or don't give a damn they are.
Do you know if all the shots fired were on single shot mode?
Yeah right. Betfair's electoral bias market is pretty good if you're a patient type btw - Just had a look and some more Con Votes, Con Seats has been matched at 2.96 since I last checked.
I just think if you know something is going to upset someone, you should think about why you are
Saying or doing it. Just because the opportunity to offend is there, it doesn't have to be taken
The reason being that those ammo pouches were not full?
No earthly reason why Muslims cannot behave in the same way, save for their brittle and adolescent self-regard and demands for respect for beliefs which I do not share.
And I will not be bullied or scared into a "respect" I do not feel. If a religion or person or group wants my respect, they will bloody well have to earn it not demand it.
http://towerhamlets-ukip.org/2014/12/21/mark-webber-selected-for-south-west-surrey/
iSam:
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
My reply:
I am a Christian, and part of Christian experience is being mocked, as Jesus himself was mocked at his trial, torture and death.
Mohammed's reaction to being mocked was rather different, as the tale of Asma bint Marwan shows:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Asma'_bint_Marwan
Asma bint Marwan was butchered while breastfeeding, by an Islamic convert from her husbands tribe, at night when he sneaked into her bedroom.
This story explains the justification of the Paris Murderers, as in Islam Mohammed is the perfect man and his actions should be emulated.
I think Mohammed was a false prophet, and quite possibly a deluded psychopath.
I haven't demanded anything at all
"Un British" to be thoughtful and polite, there's a new one
Only thing I'm not clear on is within the office was it a proper spray job. Doesn't sound like it based on reports.
Best of luck if you are still going for Islington tommorow. As kippers go you are alright!
As for British values they are whatever you feel them to be but my idea of the stereotype was more gentlemanly restraint and manners than bulldog spirit
I thought Russell brand was wrong to phone Andrew Sachs and brag about sleeping with his grand daughter... Maybe you think Sachs was at fault for being upset
The whole episode was just one of terrible depravity. In thinking about what we do now should we not remember these episodes?
I don't think it would be a killer blow for free speech etc if people, I'm thinking particularly atheists, were a bit more empathetic and polite about religious belief though. For religious people, attacking their God is like attacking a member of the family. Just because atheists think it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean they have to be deliberately insensitive.
My reply:
I am a Christian, and part of Christian experience is being mocked, as Jesus himself was mocked at his trial, torture and death.
Mohammed's reaction to being mocked was rather different, as the tale of Asma bint Marwan shows:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Asma'_bint_Marwan
Asma bint Marwan was butchered while breastfeeding, by an Islamic convert from her husbands tribe, at night when he sneaked into her bedroom.
This story explains the justification of the Paris Murderers, as in Islam Mohammed is the perfect man and his actions should be emulated.
I think Mohammed was a false prophet, and quite possibly a deluded psychopath.
Flightpath --- I tend to agree, although I'm guessing that theologians would debate the history and the teachings. Islam needs to grow up and come out of the middle ages. Christianity was there doing the same things 500 years ago.
It looks highly likely that islamic terrorism is run by a bunch of con men. I am not sure how much religion comes into it except as the mcguffin. However in terms of defeating terrorism I don't think we should dance tlo their tune.
But there is no doubt that islam is misogynistic. As I say - it is stuck in the middle ages. And it is perpetuated by totalitarianism not democracy. Ultimately the world needs democracy.
― George Orwell
They may have offended of course. Well clearly they either did or were used as an opportunity to ferment trouble.
It strikes me that the satirists thought they were telling the truth and the notion of offence was alien. The question is was satire the right weapon? It is not that they should be afraid and say nothing. But given what you want to criticise how is the best way to achieve what you want?
As for causing offence - leaving aside the risk of being murdered - well, is it right to offend people? Casual offence, like casual racist remarks, should be avoided. We should be able to speak the truth and not worry about offence.
And you can choose not to.
People have a choice. Some choose to be outraged and to use that outrage to control what others may do, while claiming that they have been provoked.
Time for the rest of us to tell them to get stuffed.
"The Guardian has a video of the policeman being shot on its website, but is apparently refusing to show the cartoon, on grounds of it being offensive."
I seem to recall that after 911 the VP was physically lifted protesting in his chair and taken by the Secret Service to a place of safety, but this was after planes had been sent to destroy the Pentagon and White House.
My own take on the remark was that Hollande was thought a coward.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03157/080115-MATT-web_3157604a.jpg
The paper reviewer on Sky earlier said the British media are still cowering, where as the likes of German press are producing front pages covering many of the "offensive" cartoons from this magazine.
UKIP scores in the most recent Sunil ELBOWs:
"week"-ending 23rd Dec = 15.4%
Week-ending 14th Dec = 15.3%
Week-ending 7th Dec = 16.1%
Week-ending 30th Nov = 16.1%
Week-ending 23rd Nov = 15.3%
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4316868.ece
Looks like CMC and scale up may be tricky unless they can synthesis.
Gram +ve only as well.
The other issue is that Vanco has very serious side effects related to its lipid MoA. It gets used sparingly as a result.
But interesting. A lit of work young on in the area
How (and whether) we can reconcile such people with the decadent materialism known as liberal democracy is an interesting question, but it would be wise to be aware of the sensitivities and mindset of those unfortunates, who - through accident of birth - have been born into a mediaeval death cult...
When people start talking about in effect the right to be comfortable, which is the idiot idea that seems to be taking root in our universities (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/ ),
I think of the speech in American President Remember the words of Salman Rushdie, a man I think we can agree who knows more than most about this problem
Charlie Hebdo had been banned in 1970 by the French government:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo#Early_years
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-the-truths-that-ought-to-be-self-evident-but-still-arent/
Unarmed crowd bravely disarmed two armed men in a speeding car who had infiltrated and disrupted a funeral - a funeral, left us not forget, which was caused by the psychopathic atrocity of another armed man (Stone) at another funeral...
Crowd handed the men over to the IRA who, after discovering they were British soldiers in plain-clothes - whether on some nefarious official mission, or some malicious private folly is still unknown - gave them "short shrift".
Deplorable? Yes. Grotesque? Only if you are ignorant of the facts. Depraved? Don't be silly...
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/a-dark-day-for-europe/
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/ae-waiting-times-would-improve-if-you-werent-such-idiots-say-experts-2015010694135
"The youngest of the three suspects, 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, has surrendered to police here. He reportedly walked into the main police station of this town in north-eastern France and told investigators he was innocent."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/07/will-ever-learn-obama-white-house-cant-admit-paris-attacks-islamic-terrorism/
Jeez - what complete nonsense. You need to go back to bed.
LONDON, United Kingdom – The Financial Times faced a backlash on Wednesday after publishing an opinion piece by its European editor that called French magazine Charlie Hebdo, center of a deadly terror attack, “stupid” and “foolish” over its criticism of Islam.
In an article that appeared online, Tony Barber condemned the murder of 12 people during the attack, but accused the satirical magazine of “editorial foolishness” and said that it had “just been stupid” to provoke Muslims with controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.
The FT has since removed the two phrases from the online piece, due to appear in Thursday’s print edition, “as part of the editing process”, according to spokeswoman Darcy Keller.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/663158/financial-times-ed-calls-charlie-hebdo-stupid-draws-flak
Tell me are you going to be similarly unsympathetic about any British Intelligence officers captured by ISIS ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11330571/Reason-plays-no-part-in-the-Ched-Evans-saga.html Which sounds like pretty questionable behaviour from Plod. The rest of the article is worth reading, the police dont exactly cover themselves in glory.
This shows not only UKIP hurting Labour but support for those that contend that their vote may be down again this year (still feels slightly odd to say that).
Why do you think it is questionable? A woman tells police officers that she had been so drunk that she could not recall what happened but that she had had sex with 2 men, one of whom she only met in the hotel room and had not known before. It seems to me there was at least a potential crime to be investigated there and it appears that the jury agreed.
If only the officers dealing with children in care being collected by older men for sex had been half as diligent.
A police officer has been seriously injured in a second shooting in Paris, French media reports.
Automatic gunfire was reported at Montrouge, with one of two municipal policemen badly hurt, before gunmen are said to have escaped into the Metro.
It is unclear if there is any link to the Charlie Hebdo attack.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11332148/Police-officers-targeted-in-second-Paris-gun-attack.html