Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Me. At this point there's no evidence that national borders would have helped in this case, wait until we know what actually happened.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
Leaders always say they take all and every precaution to protect us against terrorism. Schengen gives the lie to that. Of course schengen does not exist at airports. You can't get on a plane and go from A to B anywhere in Europe without a passport or ID card. by road or train though not an issue.
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Me. At this point there's no evidence that national borders would have helped in this case, wait until we know what actually happened.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
Edmund, may I ask if you're still in Tokyo? The European mood is changing.
Schengen has de facto disintegrated in the last few months, and will surely soon be dismantled de jure, too.
If nothing else more borders make it harder for anything untoward to operate - whether it is drugs, weapons, crime, terrorism etc.
Musings that Hollande may activate article 5 of NATO. If he does, thats going to put some politicans in a tricky position.
Attack on one an attack on all.... What that actually means in a terrorist incident as opposed to an army crossing a neighbours border and requiring military support is up for debate.
It is just bollox, stupid politician's wonkspeak as ever. Flap flap.
Pretty much a perfect example of the cultural relativism that David was criticising. Sorry MBE but to my mind you are utterly wrong in almost everything you have written there.
(Muslims who demand special legal treatment for the depiction of Mohammed should expect to be disappointed - again, "live and let live", even if that is a hard dictum to learn and live by sometimes).
I don't disagree with much of your post, but on that specific point, they don't need special legal treatment, as Morris Dancer said earlier it gets de facto special treatment in any case.
It is generally believed to be unlawful to publish the Jylands Post cartoons in this country.
The French domestic security agency knew from a Islamist that they scooped up back in the summer that there was a plan to target a concert hall. Combine that with the fact that there had been vague threats from Islamists in France about that Bataclan theatre and patterns start to emerge.
Is there a particular reason why the Bataclan would have been targeted?
Potentially yes but its hard to know if the connection to yesterdays events can be done with straight line or whether it was just the unlucky pick.
The French domestic security agency knew from a Islamist that they scooped up back in the summer that there was a plan to target a concert hall. Combine that with the fact that there had been vague threats from Islamists in France about that Bataclan theatre and patterns start to emerge.
Is there a particular reason why the Bataclan would have been targeted?
Potentially yes but its hard to know if the connection to yesterdays events can be done with straight line or whether it was just the unlucky pick.
An American band was playing
Is it more likely that the events were timed for the international football match?
It'll be sad but interesting to discover what the terrorists' primary and secondary targets were. They should be able to work that out easily enough.
Saddam Hussain was a source of continual conflict and instability in the oil belt.
There's an argument to say that his actions had negative economic effects that were felt in the UK via oil prices.
That is not what Josias was claiming. He was saying that Hussain and Assad were supporting and encouraging terrorism against us. I just asked for some examples.
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Me. At this point there's no evidence that national borders would have helped in this case, wait until we know what actually happened.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
Leaders always say they take all and every precaution to protect us against terrorism. Schengen gives the lie to that. Of course schengen does not exist at airports. You can't get on a plane and go from A to B anywhere in Europe without a passport or ID card. by road or train though not an issue.
Are you sure you need ID to travel by air within Schengen. I've been told by a friend from Switzerland (which is in Schengen) that when he flies within the continent nobody checks his ID just his boarding pass (which you can get from online checkin).
The chappy dragging the injured/dead body of his friend all the way down the backstreet and finally exhausted stopping/calling for help - and finally being assisted by another escapee is just heartrending.
I was relieved that I could watch the Mog Sainsbury advert as an antidote to it.
Wasn't Kissinger the exponent of he's a bastard, but better our bastard. Gadaffi, after he decided his interests were better served siding with the West, secured Europe's southern borders and tackled Islamism.
What ever possessed us to start bombing him in the latter stages is quite unfathomable. Similarly, whatever possessed us to taking out Hussein, once we knew he was a much more diminished force? Europe actively contributed and possibly caused Libya and Iraq (well the US and UK) to turn into failing states- and now look at the consequences.
Serious question. When did either Hussain or Assad encourage or sponsor terrorism against us, any other European country or the wider western world?
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
I've only just picked up on this thread and I totally agree with DH's conclusion re Assad. If we could deal with Stalin, we can deal with Assad. I'm also no apologist for Putin, but in this struggle and if it came to having to make a choice, I'd rather be alongside Putin than Obama. The Yanks don't really have a dog in this fight and history seems to indicate that this heavily influences its appetite for the fight. The Russians most definitely do have a dog in this fight, possibly a bigger one than anyone else.
I also agree with pushing the Moslem community to face up to the conflicts between our culture and theirs. Where conflicts exist, our culture and values must prevail. This should not be a problem since tolerance is central to our culture. Any objection means that it's the Moslem community that is racist not ours. Our pussy footing has been significantly responsible for where we are now and we should learn from that mistake.
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Me. At this point there's no evidence that national borders would have helped in this case, wait until we know what actually happened.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
Leaders always say they take all and every precaution to protect us against terrorism. Schengen gives the lie to that. Of course schengen does not exist at airports. You can't get on a plane and go from A to B anywhere in Europe without a passport or ID card. by road or train though not an issue.
Are you sure you need ID to travel by air within Schengen. I've been told by a friend from Switzerland (which is in Schengen) that when he flies within the continent nobody checks his ID just his boarding pass (which you can get from online checkin).
I always have always had to show my passport as well as my ticket when flying Schipol to Norway. Both within Schengen. Whatever the official position the airlines seem to insist on some form of photo ID to back up your ticket. The same applies in the UK for internal flights.
''There needs to be an assault on this belief system which is the kind of religious strait-jacket that this country has spent decades throwing off.''
The left in this country have roped this off. Do what you suggest and you end up losing your livelihood, reputation and liberty.
Let's tear the bloody rope down then. We are the many. They only get away with this bollocks because we let them. It is our duty to criticise Islam - and any other religion or belief system - as much, as often and as critically as we want. And if people don't like it tough.
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
The statement says that the attackers were "targeting the capital of prostitution and obscenity, the carrier of the banner of the Cross in Europe, Paris".
In the French declaration, Isil said that the goal of the attacks was a "minimum of 200 dead".
It described the attacks "where eight brothers wrapped in explosive belts and armed with machine rifles targeted sites that were accurately chosen in the heart of the capital of France, including the Stade de France during the match between the Crusader German and French teams, where the retard of France, Francois Hollande, was present."
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Me. At this point there's no evidence that national borders would have helped in this case, wait until we know what actually happened.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
Edmund, may I ask if you're still in Tokyo? The European mood is changing.
Schengen has de facto disintegrated in the last few months, and will surely soon be dismantled de jure, too.
If nothing else more borders make it harder for anything untoward to operate - whether it is drugs, weapons, crime, terrorism etc.
I'm in England right now. Going home tomorrow unless somebody else blows something up and everybody freaks out and stops the flight.
You may be right about the political reality that Schengen will defacto fall apart, but I took TC's question to be whether it should. This is a security question that you have to actually analyse - you can't answer it with your gut. Security measures need cost-benefit analysis, and it's not necessarily true that checkpoints on 1945 borders get you the most possible security for your money.
We might be a collection of small rainy archipelagos in the North Atlantic but we've consistently led the fight against tyranny and oppression in all its guises for centuries.
We will do so again. There is no other option.
There are some whopping platitudes and bollox being spouted on here today.
Isn't there just.
You'll hear if from the politicians etc as well.
And then they'll go back to looking the other away about forced marriage, cousin marriage, 'honour' killings, Islamic hate academies, Trojan horse schools, election rigging, industrial scale racist child rape, fatwas against writers and doubtless many other things I'm not aware of.
Whilst anyone who talks about them will get called a racist or be accused of exploiting things for their own benefit.
There were various attempts to silence discussion last night, arguing it was inappropriate to discuss politics. These same people will then try to shut down debate by arguing that the attacks are being exploited.
To do so would breach the provisions of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Now, I think there's a strong likelihood that a jury would refuse to return a Guilty verdict, but it shows how a law can chill freedom of expression.
I must say that I didn't support intervention in Syria because it was hard to see how it would improve matters for anyone (but principally us), though I was really angered by Ed M's false portrayal of his own actions on that vote (one of the few things I did criticise him for), and while I continue to have difficulties in seeing how it would help, it's also hard to see how it could make the situation much worse. It's impossible to let the region sort itself our, as even if it was possible (and given the root causes of some of the antagonism go back hundreds and hundreds of years, that seems unlikely), the simple fact is we can do nothing, but others will in any case (Russia for instance). That doesn't follow that we must involve ourselves in such affairs, but it does mean the idea region will be left to its own devices and, after much bloodletting, will resolve its issues, is bunkum.
We will just have to learn to live with it, as in fact we have already done. I'm reminded of Obama's frank words following the last major school shooting in the USA, although there are at least some people have fairly simple ideas they would like to try (whether they would be effective or not is another matter).
If we had intervened in Syria when Cameron wanted us to the situation would be just as bad if not worse than it is now because we would have been attacking the wrong (relatively) side. We need Assad in place in Damascus as a means of being able to defeat Isis. It may not be palatable but it is a fact. The Kurds can protect their region to a large extent particularly with Western backing but for the rest of the country we need a force on the ground and the only viable force is the Syrian/Iranian axis.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
1. Finding other perpetrators and anyone supporting them. Figures of direct perpetrators left is reportedly between 2 & 4. The French, though they fear a running event, want these guys in France. Some locals have already gone AWOL and are persons of interest
2. Finding any logistics holds. This is directly related to one. They will be looking for cars, weapons and in particular, there have been rumours of vehicle-borne explosives
3. Find out who these guys were and where these guys came from. I posted last night whilst events were still ongoing that the French were already working on the basis that some perpetrators were neither French or long term residents. Reading into (maybe too much) Hollande's statement this morning there is the suggestion that this is still a very firm line of inquiry
3. Analyse the raw data, not just of the attacks but of the intelligence take in the weeks and months. I'm going to point to 4 particular known items of interest at this stage that will be thrown into the mix. 1. The individual picked up by German police on Thursday, 2. A possible entrance/exit/transit route via Spain 3. The Islamist picked up by the French in August and whether their info was interpreted correctly. 4. The Balkans link.
There will be more that us Average Joes will not be aware of.
Pretty much a perfect example of the cultural relativism that David was criticising. Sorry MBE but to my mind you are utterly wrong in almost everything you have written there.
(Muslims who demand special legal treatment for the depiction of Mohammed should expect to be disappointed - again, "live and let live", even if that is a hard dictum to learn and live by sometimes).
I don't disagree with much of your post, but on that specific point, they don't need special legal treatment, as Morris Dancer said earlier it gets de facto special treatment in any case.
Did we ever get an explanation as to why several police forces took the names of people who had bought a copy of Charlie Hebdo ?
''However, it is likely that without Islamic immigration, multiculturalism on its own would not lead to anything close to these sort of events.''
That is an important point Mr Dair. Most immigrants integrate really well.
The issue is one particular group, but again people will try to separate Islamists from muslims in general.
Which groups in our country have by far the worst employment records? Somalis, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis.
Which groups in our country have by far the highest birth rates (and associated welfare dependence/bill) ? Somalis, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis.
FGM, lack of English, grooming.
The same cultural issues surface throughout in relation to religious relativity and the treatment of women.
A recent study in NE London into vaccination against the HPV virus which triggers cervical cancer highlighted the fact that these same groups were refusing their daughters the vaccination on the basis of religious belief linked to sexual activity/promiscuity.
There needs to be an assault on this belief system which is the kind of religious strait-jacket that this country has spent decades throwing off.
There is no good reason why we should betting in any more Somalis, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis into Britain.
In the DT live link just posted - there's confirmation that at least one of the attackers spoke French. Another self-identified attacker claimed to be Syrian.
1. Finding other perpetrators and anyone supporting them. Figures of direct perpetrators left is reportedly between 2 & 4. The French, though they fear a running event, want these guys in France. Some locals have already gone AWOL and are persons of interest
2. Finding any logistics holds. This is directly related to one. They will be looking for cars, weapons and in particular, there have been rumours of vehicle-borne explosives
3. Find out who these guys were and where these guys came from. I posted last night whilst events were still ongoing that the French were already working on the basis that some perpetrators were neither French or long term residents. Reading into (maybe too much) Hollande's statement this morning there is the suggestion that this is still a very firm line of inquiry
3. Analyse the raw data, not just of the attacks but of the intelligence take in the weeks and months. I'm going to point to 4 particular known items of interest at this stage that will be thrown into the mix. 1. The individual picked up by German police on Thursday, 2. A possible entrance/exit/transit route via Spain 3. The Islamist picked up by the French in August and whether their info was interpreted correctly. 4. The Balkans link.
There will be more that us Average Joes will not be aware of.
In Sweden Roger, locals are taking it upon themselves to walk jews to / from synagogues for their safety.
Which aspect of Sweden's foreign policy brought that about Rog?
The truth is that if you follow the logic of the Isams and Blackburn's (and several other posters on here) there would be no Jews to escort to synagogues in Sweden (or here). Read the excellent post by 'Ears downthread
Answer the question Roger.
Then I can give you some other things to think about.
I see Cyclefree is also trying to get you to open your eyes about the realities we face
Sadly you seem unable or unwilling to actually think.
Can I ask a questions. I've never played this series, I don't like FPS shooters like Call of Duty and prefer more strategic games, I like strategy games or RPG games like Skyrim. Only shooter game I've played in a long time is Grand Theft Auto which is more of a fun single player story game than a shoot em up. Don't play online multiplayer only single player.
I've passed on this series as I thought it was a shooter but talk of base building and RPG elements make it sound interesting. Would you recommend it to a player like me?
Can I ask a questions. I've never played this series, I don't like FPS shooters like Call of Duty and prefer more strategic games, I like strategy games or RPG games like Skyrim. Only shooter game I've played in a long time is Grand Theft Auto which is more of a fun single player story game than a shoot em up. Don't play online multiplayer only single player.
I've passed on this series as I thought it was a shooter but talk of base building and RPG elements make it sound interesting. Would you recommend it to a player like me?
It's effectively Skyrim on Earth, so if you like that, try Fallout.
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
So to be honest the short answer to my question is that neither Hussain nor Assad have been involved in sponsoring or encouraging terrorism against us. The answers you gave here clearly show they are not nice people but do not include a single example of what you claimed.
Like I said, they might not be nice people but that is no reason not to continue the policy we had in the past of doing business with them as long as they are not threatening us directly. It may not be very palatable but it is often the only way to protect ourselves.
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Me. At this point there's no evidence that national borders would have helped in this case, wait until we know what actually happened.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
Edmund, so the fact that we have no open land borders to the UK has kept us free of machine gun attacks by islamic terrorists is no evidence? France relies on the borders of Greek islands and eastern european states etc to keep bad people and machine guns out. These borders cannot hold back hundreds of thousands of people that are wandering around.
Musings that Hollande may activate article 5 of NATO. If he does, thats going to put some politicans in a tricky position.
It seems unlikely. A US Navy carrier strike group parked off Calais will not help much, and German troops patrolling the streets of Paris might ignite painful memories.
I must say that I didn't support intervention in Syria because it was hard to see how it would improve matters for anyone (but principally us), though I was really angered by Ed M's false portrayal of his own actions on that vote (one of the few things I did criticise him for), and while I continue to have difficulties in seeing how it would help, it's also hard to see how it could make the situation much worse. It's impossible to let the region sort itself our, as even if it was possible (and given the root causes of some of the antagonism go back hundreds and hundreds of years, that seems unlikely), the simple fact is we can do nothing, but others will in any case (Russia for instance). That doesn't follow that we must involve ourselves in such affairs, but it does mean the idea region will be left to its own devices and, after much bloodletting, will resolve its issues, is bunkum.
We will just have to learn to live with it, as in fact we have already done. I'm reminded of Obama's frank words following the last major school shooting in the USA, although there are at least some people have fairly simple ideas they would like to try (whether they would be effective or not is another matter).
If we had intervened in Syria when Cameron wanted us to the situation would be just as bad if not worse than it is now because we would have been attacking the wrong (relatively) side. We need Assad in place in Damascus as a means of being able to defeat Isis. It may not be palatable but it is a fact. The Kurds can protect their region to a large extent particularly with Western backing but for the rest of the country we need a force on the ground and the only viable force is the Syrian/Iranian axis.
No if we'd removed Assad and helped another opposition leader take control then the situation could be controlled with them supported rather than ISIL taking control of the opposition (which it wasn't at the time of the vote).
I don't know the answers but I'm inclined to agree with Tyson's excellent post. Much Islamic culture seems to be deeply stifling. Blaming religion or belief in God doesn't really seem adequate. Time and again we see terrorists who seem much less devout than many of their contemporaries - drinking, pornography etc. Growing up in a modern culture so far from what they are expected to be can't be easy.
@bopanc: Polish #EU minister says that #Poland will not accept #refugees quota after #ParisAttacks - reports
Poland, first but not last – After the Paris attack, EU countries will not be so committed to accepting their ‘quota’ of migrants, and who can blame them!
Mr. F, thanks for that answer, and I entirely agree with your sentiment.
Hating a religion should not be anything like a crime. It's as stupid as making it illegal to hate a football club or a political belief or a philosophy.
Have to say that I agreed immediately with Hungary's position about being a Christian country and wanting to stay that way.
I'm a lifelong atheist, but culturally Christian - and frankly don't see any positives in Islam at all. It's brought us all manner of horrors over recent decades. FMG, honor killings, forced marriage, cousin marriage/birth defects, terrorism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, default halal in most meat products, Trojan schools... on and on and on.
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Me. At this point there's no evidence that national borders would have helped in this case, wait until we know what actually happened.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
Leaders always say they take all and every precaution to protect us against terrorism. Schengen gives the lie to that. Of course schengen does not exist at airports. You can't get on a plane and go from A to B anywhere in Europe without a passport or ID card. by road or train though not an issue.
Are you sure you need ID to travel by air within Schengen. I've been told by a friend from Switzerland (which is in Schengen) that when he flies within the continent nobody checks his ID just his boarding pass (which you can get from online checkin).
I always have always had to show my passport as well as my ticket when flying Schipol to Norway. Both within Schengen. Whatever the official position the airlines seem to insist on some form of photo ID to back up your ticket. The same applies in the UK for internal flights.
Airlines need to know who is on their planes. A car travelling over a "border" in Schengen does not need that check.
The chappy dragging the injured/dead body of his friend all the way down the backstreet and finally exhausted stopping/calling for help - and finally being assisted by another escapee is just heartrending.
I was relieved that I could watch the Mog Sainsbury advert as an antidote to it.
This is so so disturbing. It should be compulsory viewing for those who enjoy violent reality computer games. This is what the consequences of shooting people actually look like: shocking not enjoyable.
Musings that Hollande may activate article 5 of NATO. If he does, thats going to put some politicans in a tricky position.
It seems unlikely. A US Navy carrier strike group parked off Calais will not help much, and German troops patrolling the streets of Paris might ignite painful memories.
It would be to deal with ISIS in the source country. So if the US and Germans were involved, they would not be needed in France.
Mr. Thompson, I think the last FPS I played was Goldeneye, on a friend's N64.
I would recommend it. VATS decreases the FPS element, you can get a companion to lighten that load, and, if all else fails, difficulty can be decreased. But even as a non-FPS fan, I like the combat.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Cide, I like violent computer games. The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 both have their share of gore.
I've also played F1 games. Yet nobody's worried I'll become an incredibly skilled driver.
There is no good reason why we should betting in any more Somalis, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis into Britain.
I'm inclined to agree in all but the most exceptional cases - big earners and exceptionally capable people.
We can recruit all the economic labour we need from within Europe, and that labour integrates more successfully, works more regularly and places fewer demands on the state.
Benefit caps and tax credit curbs are vitally important in driving cultural change (smaller families, wives taking up work) in these groups as well.
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Me. At this point there's no evidence that national borders would have helped in this case, wait until we know what actually happened.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
Leaders always say they take all and every precaution to protect us against terrorism. Schengen gives the lie to that. Of course schengen does not exist at airports. You can't get on a plane and go from A to B anywhere in Europe without a passport or ID card. by road or train though not an issue.
Are you sure you need ID to travel by air within Schengen. I've been told by a friend from Switzerland (which is in Schengen) that when he flies within the continent nobody checks his ID just his boarding pass (which you can get from online checkin).
I always have always had to show my passport as well as my ticket when flying Schipol to Norway. Both within Schengen. Whatever the official position the airlines seem to insist on some form of photo ID to back up your ticket. The same applies in the UK for internal flights.
Airlines need to know who is on their planes. A car travelling over a "border" in Schengen does not need that check.
Agreed. Sorry I was just answering the specific enquiry about flights within the Schengen area rather than making any point about Shengen per se.
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Me. At this point there's no evidence that national borders would have helped in this case, wait until we know what actually happened.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
Edmund, so the fact that we have no open land borders to the UK has kept us free of machine gun attacks by islamic terrorists is no evidence? France relies on the borders of Greek islands and eastern european states etc to keep bad people and machine guns out. These borders cannot hold back hundreds of thousands of people that are wandering around.
As I said previously, I think we've just been lucky (comparatively) so far.
But, being an island does help to keep out undesirables.
The chappy dragging the injured/dead body of his friend all the way down the backstreet and finally exhausted stopping/calling for help - and finally being assisted by another escapee is just heartrending.
I was relieved that I could watch the Mog Sainsbury advert as an antidote to it.
This is so so disturbing. It should be compulsory viewing for those who enjoy violent reality computer games. This is what the consequences of shooting people actually look like: shocking not enjoyable.
Games have no relation to violence any more than movies do. I've played Grand Theft Auto and watched the Godfather trilogy but am not about to join a gang and become a crime lord.
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
Islam was spread by violence, its not surprising they see violence as the best way now.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
@bopanc: Polish #EU minister says that #Poland will not accept #refugees quota after #ParisAttacks - reports
Hardly surprising.
This is a Merkel 4 cup, why should Poland pay for it ?
Poland has a history of paying for German 4 cups.
Trust you are well Field Marshall.
Yes, been blogging light of late Mr Eagles as it's been damned hard pounding at work.
I had noticed. I wanted to see your opinion of the Chief of Defence Staff's comments about Trident/Corbyn.
Heaven forfend we have a CDS/CIGS who thinks he is more important than the politicians he serves
He should have kept his mouth shut in public. I think Corbyn's a twat but the army in service should keep shtum. There are enough retired generals and admirals knocking around to make the point for him.
Mr. Hopkins, after a day or two of many hours (first day glut and then occupying myself when the monitor was broken yesterday), I'm going to dial it back drastically. Need to get some work done (though there's F1 to attend to this weekend, of course).
Good morning all. Another excellent article from DH; it's a shame that it's necessary, once again, to try to come to grips with militant, intolerant Islam (in fairness I should call it Salafism).
Clever enemies exploit weaknesses; the West's weaknesses are well known and it would be otiose to repeat them. I've yet to see any measures advocated that are would be practical and effective.
When the intelligence agencies were preparing for Iraq II, I was mystified by NSA counterparts who had such great faith in 'Democracy'. It's not a panacea.
The UK has had centuries to develop mature institutions - essentially since the Enlightenment.
We have a judiciary and police service with low levels of corruption, a society that understands the difference between state and religious strictures, generally fair means for personal advancement and so forth. Enfranchising a populace does not magically change anything without the underpinnings. I'm sure it's been said before, but true democracy is an emergent property.
I must say that I didn't support intervention in Syria because it was hard to see how it would improve matters for anyone (but principally us), though I was really angered by Ed M's false portrayal of his own actions on that vote (one of the few things I did criticise him for), and while I continue to have difficulties in seeing how it would help, it's also hard to see how it could make the situation much worse. It's impossible to let the region sort itself our, as even if it was possible (and given the root causes of some of the antagonism go back hundreds and hundreds of years, that seems unlikely), the simple fact is we can do nothing, but others will in any case (Russia for instance). That doesn't follow that we must involve ourselves in such affairs, but it does mean the idea region will be left to its own devices and, after much bloodletting, will resolve its issues, is bunkum.
We will just have to learn to live with it, as in fact we have already done. I'm reminded of Obama's frank words following the last major school shooting in the USA, although there are at least some people have fairly simple ideas they would like to try (whether they would be effective or not is another matter).
If we had intervened in Syria when Cameron wanted us to the situation would be just as bad if not worse than it is now because we would have been attacking the wrong (relatively) side. We need Assad in place in Damascus as a means of being able to defeat Isis. It may not be palatable but it is a fact. The Kurds can protect their region to a large extent particularly with Western backing but for the rest of the country we need a force on the ground and the only viable force is the Syrian/Iranian axis.
No if we'd removed Assad and helped another opposition leader take control then the situation could be controlled with them supported rather than ISIL taking control of the opposition (which it wasn't at the time of the vote).
Yes it was. I am not sure where this myth came from but I debunked it last time it was raised. Look at the dates for the vote and the dates for growing Isil activity inside Syria and the growth of Isil predates our Parliamentary decision by many months if not a year.
The alternatives you mention were already being ripped apart by internecine fighting well before we decided to get involved and the idea there was anyone else than Isil who would have been able to take advantage of our bombing Assad is ridiculous
Mr. F, thanks for that answer, and I entirely agree with your sentiment.
Hating a religion should not be anything like a crime. It's as stupid as making it illegal to hate a football club or a political belief or a philosophy.
Strictly speaking, hating Islam is not a crime. It's incitement of hatred towards people on grounds of their religion. In practice, ridiculing Islam is treated as such incitement, whereas ridiculing Christianity is not.
@bopanc: Polish #EU minister says that #Poland will not accept #refugees quota after #ParisAttacks - reports
Hardly surprising.
This is a Merkel 4 cup, why should Poland pay for it ?
Poland has a history of paying for German 4 cups.
Trust you are well Field Marshall.
Yes, been blogging light of late Mr Eagles as it's been damned hard pounding at work.
I had noticed. I wanted to see your opinion of the Chief of Defence Staff's comments about Trident/Corbyn.
Heaven forfend we have a CDS/CIGS who thinks he is more important than the politicians he serves
He should have kept his mouth shut in public. I think Corbyn's a twat but the army in service should keep shtum. There are enough retired generals and admirals knocking around to make the point for him.
Can I ask a questions. I've never played this series, I don't like FPS shooters like Call of Duty and prefer more strategic games, I like strategy games or RPG games like Skyrim. Only shooter game I've played in a long time is Grand Theft Auto which is more of a fun single player story game than a shoot em up. Don't play online multiplayer only single player.
I've passed on this series as I thought it was a shooter but talk of base building and RPG elements make it sound interesting. Would you recommend it to a player like me?
I mainly play strategy games but have recently purchased some older RPG's and I am really enjoying Kings Bounty.
Fallout 1 was an RPG and I recently took a look at that but it has not grabbed me yet.
I'm not going to mention what I thought of Corbyns interview just now on Sky News
I will
He failed to condemn terrorists again. He cautioned against jumping to conclusions regarding ISIL and Syria
And he praised multiculturalism and multi-faith society
Meanwhile, his fellow travellers...
@Jake_Wilde: I think, if you're going to tell people that their death is their own fault, you should wait until after the funeral https://t.co/yylPOL7NPQ
He is not fit to be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Mr. F, thanks for that answer, and I entirely agree with your sentiment.
Hating a religion should not be anything like a crime. It's as stupid as making it illegal to hate a football club or a political belief or a philosophy.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
How do Saudis deal with Christians in their country?
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
Islam was spread by violence, its not surprising they see violence as the best way now.
I'm not at all certain that they've lost. They're poorer than us, but they have the will to win.
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Schengen is something of a Red Herring. The people crossing into Greece evade proper border controls that do, in theory, exist. Likewise, they are supposed to exist in Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia and various other countries. None has made any great difference. It may be that the backlash causes Schengen to collapse anyway but it would be a mistake to assume that ending it would make the migration crisis go away. But Schengen members do need to be able to assure (1) enforcement of the external border, and (2) effective policing so that there are no effective hideouts for fugitives.
I did not state that ending Schengen makes the migration crisis go away. Just that France etc cannot rely on the border control of some Schengen countries to operate their borders effectively for its security. Therefore Schengen has to either end or retreat to a smaller group of countries. Furthermore with the Merkel madness of inviting 1 million in, can France have an open border with Germany?
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Me. At this point there's no evidence that national borders would have helped in this case, wait until we know what actually happened.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
Leaders always say they take all and every precaution to protect us against terrorism. Schengen gives the lie to that. Of course schengen does not exist at airports. You can't get on a plane and go from A to B anywhere in Europe without a passport or ID card. by road or train though not an issue.
Are you sure you need ID to travel by air within Schengen. I've been told by a friend from Switzerland (which is in Schengen) that when he flies within the continent nobody checks his ID just his boarding pass (which you can get from online checkin).
I am a regular flyer every week commonly more than one destination. Never managed access to airport departures without ID even in smallest outlying airports. I certainly get asked every time at the gate for ID and boarding pass. I have by then done security. Not saying your friend might not have done this but still who knows. I would say the chances are slimmer than a bus or a train.
Interesting I have noteded the UK has up its arrivals check as well recently. Got well questioned at Southampton airport last night. Where you coming from where you been what do you do etc etc. This has also happened to me at gatwick heathrow bristol Birmingham. . To name a few. I note everyone else getting same treatment.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Why wouldn't it work? They were allowed in in the first place. It may well be that we will have to say that anyone from a Muslim country does not get a visa, barring some very exceptional circumstances. I certainly don't see why we would positively invite in Muslims from extremist regions or failed states into Europe at this time. The risks to us seem to me to outweigh any benefits to us.
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Me. At this point there's no evidence that national borders would have helped in this case, wait until we know what actually happened.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
Edmund, so the fact that we have no open land borders to the UK has kept us free of machine gun attacks by islamic terrorists is no evidence?
That's conjecture, but even if it was true, from a security perspective:
1) Even assuming the border is stopping machine gun imports, that's only a useful security function if machine gun attacks provide a big benefit to the attacker that they couldn't get another way. For example, it wouldn't be much help deploying a lot of otherwise productive security people stopping machine guns if it turned out the adversary could get the same effect by making bombs from materials they could easily source locally.
2) Even if you show a useful security role for the UK, you need to analyse whether the border would be an effective way of getting machine guns into France. France also has other borders that are hard to police, and no border is impermeable, so it's not obviously true (although it may turn out to be true when you analyse it) that French border controls would have kept machine guns out of France.
France relies on the borders of Greek islands and eastern european states etc to keep bad people and machine guns out. These borders cannot hold back hundreds of thousands of people that are wandering around.
Sure, and like I say there may be a case for checkpoints somewhere between Paris and Lesbos, but it's not a no-brainer that the right place to put this is at the edges of French territory. But in any case the security goal isn't to stop hundreds of thousands of people that are wandering around, it's to stop the 6 people who blew up bombs and shot machine guns, and it may turn out to be more cost-effective to deploy people infiltrating mosques or following up on tip-offs than checking hundreds of thousands of people's papers.
To repeat myself, you can't do security analysis with your gut. The problem with doing this in a democracy is that politicians will actually respond to what your gut says will help rather than what will actually help, and they'll end up using their security budget inefficiently and more people will end up getting killed.
I'm not going to mention what I thought of Corbyns interview just now on Sky News
I will
He failed to condemn terrorists again. He cautioned against jumping to conclusions regarding ISIL and Syria
And he praised multiculturalism and multi-faith society
Meanwhile, his fellow travellers...
@Jake_Wilde: I think, if you're going to tell people that their death is their own fault, you should wait until after the funeral https://t.co/yylPOL7NPQ
He is not fit to be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Agreed
Love the first response which clearly gets the guys point across
The chappy dragging the injured/dead body of his friend all the way down the backstreet and finally exhausted stopping/calling for help - and finally being assisted by another escapee is just heartrending.
I was relieved that I could watch the Mog Sainsbury advert as an antidote to it.
This is so so disturbing. It should be compulsory viewing for those who enjoy violent reality computer games. This is what the consequences of shooting people actually look like: shocking not enjoyable.
I've fragged hundreds of thousands of players in online games. Number I've killed in real life: 0. Sane people can tell the difference between what's happening on a computer screen and the outside world.
I did want to add: Fallout 4 has the worst UI of any game I've played. Blech. Consoles have a lot to answer for.
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
Islam was spread by violence, its not surprising they see violence as the best way now.
I'm not at all certain that they've lost. They're poorer than us, but they have the will to win.
Indeed.
There's a lot of complacency about the "they've lost" comments we will read and hear so much.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
How do Saudis deal with Christians in their country?
Do you think we should treat Islam the same way Islamic countries treat other religions?
I once read an interesting book by an ex British Ambassador to Saudi - lets just say it was clear he was not a fan of the place and their practices.
I must say that I didn't support intervention in Syria because it was hard to see how it would improve matters for anyone (but principally us), though I was really angered by Ed M's false portrayal of his own actions on that vote (one of the few things I did criticise him for), and while I continue to have difficulties in seeing how it would help, it's also hard to see how it could make the situation much worse. It's impossible to let the region sort itself our, as even if it was possible (and given the root causes of some of the antagonism go back hundreds and hundreds of years, that seems unlikely), the simple fact is we can do nothing, but others will in any case (Russia for instance). That doesn't follow that we must involve ourselves in such affairs, but it does mean the idea region will be left to its own devices and, after much bloodletting, will resolve its issues, is bunkum.
We will just have to learn to live with it, as in fact we have already done. I'm reminded of Obama's frank words following the last major school shooting in the USA, although there are at least some people have fairly simple ideas they would like to try (whether they would be effective or not is another matter).
If we had intervened in Syria when Cameron wanted us to the situation would be just as bad if not worse than it is now because we would have been attacking the wrong (relatively) side. We need Assad in place in Damascus as a means of being able to defeat Isis. It may not be palatable but it is a fact. The Kurds can protect their region to a large extent particularly with Western backing but for the rest of the country we need a force on the ground and the only viable force is the Syrian/Iranian axis.
No if we'd removed Assad and helped another opposition leader take control then the situation could be controlled with them supported rather than ISIL taking control of the opposition (which it wasn't at the time of the vote).
Would we have used the WMD excuse again? Would barrel bombs count? Is regime change now legit? How do you pick a winner? Perhaps we could have a lottery.
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
Islam was spread by violence, its not surprising they see violence as the best way now.
I'm not at all certain that they've lost. They're poorer than us, but they have the will to win.
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
Islam was spread by violence, its not surprising they see violence as the best way now.
I'm not at all certain that they've lost. They're poorer than us, but they have the will to win.
Indeed.
There's a lot of complacency about the "they've lost" comments we will read and hear so much.
Indeed. As MD said earlier, who won in the battle between Rome and the barbarians in the end? Or, for that matter, between the New Rome and the Caliphate?
@bopanc: Polish #EU minister says that #Poland will not accept #refugees quota after #ParisAttacks - reports
Hardly surprising.
This is a Merkel 4 cup, why should Poland pay for it ?
Poland has a history of paying for German 4 cups.
Trust you are well Field Marshall.
Yes, been blogging light of late Mr Eagles as it's been damned hard pounding at work.
I had noticed. I wanted to see your opinion of the Chief of Defence Staff's comments about Trident/Corbyn.
Heaven forfend we have a CDS/CIGS who thinks he is more important than the politicians he serves
He should have kept his mouth shut in public. I think Corbyn's a twat but the army in service should keep shtum. There are enough retired generals and admirals knocking around to make the point for him.
I've noticed that the willingness of serving generals to mouth off politically seems to be in inverse proportion to the size of the UK's military forces.
I don't know the answers but I'm inclined to agree with Tyson's excellent post. Much Islamic culture seems to be deeply stifling. Blaming religion or belief in God doesn't really seem adequate. Time and again we see terrorists who seem much less devout than many of their contemporaries - drinking, pornography etc. Growing up in a modern culture so far from what they are expected to be can't be easy.
You must be careful not to judge the poor moslem terrorist by your standards.
Corbyn's fellow travellers and mates speak.... Stop the War @STWuk #ParisAttacks reaping whirlwind of western support for extremist violence in Middle East http://bit.ly/1MIkZAN
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
Islam was spread by violence, its not surprising they see violence as the best way now.
I'm not at all certain that they've lost. They're poorer than us, but they have the will to win.
Indeed.
There's a lot of complacency about the "they've lost" comments we will read and hear so much.
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
Islam was spread by violence, its not surprising they see violence as the best way now.
I'm not at all certain that they've lost. They're poorer than us, but they have the will to win.
Indeed.
There's a lot of complacency about the "they've lost" comments we will read and hear so much.
If you look at the changes in Western regimes post 9/11, it's very clear that they have made progress - we're a more fearful, suspicious lot, and have introduced measures that restrict freedom of speech. The US has spent a fortune in blood and treasure to no great lasting effect.
You don't have to have a doctorate to play a long game. The Caliphate doesn't need to be restored overnight.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
How do Saudis deal with Christians in their country?
Good idea, let's pick a horrible country and strive to be more like them.
I'm not going to mention what I thought of Corbyns interview just now on Sky News
I will
He failed to condemn terrorists again. He cautioned against jumping to conclusions regarding ISIL and Syria
And he praised multiculturalism and multi-faith society
Meanwhile, his fellow travellers...
@Jake_Wilde: I think, if you're going to tell people that their death is their own fault, you should wait until after the funeral https://t.co/yylPOL7NPQ
He is not fit to be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Blinkered Tory fan boy opinion spouted. LOTO gives his opinion (possibly half baked), but our armchair Tory warriors want blood, just not their own please. Jingoist imperialists are in a frenzy to bomb Syria. You could not make it up, is it any wonder this country is so F*****d.
Corbyn's fellow travellers and mates speak.... Stop the War @STWuk #ParisAttacks reaping whirlwind of western support for extremist violence in Middle East http://bit.ly/1MIkZAN
Bloody hell.... Is Corbyn still conntected with them?
Comments
I believe the left, as characterised by Corbyn, are a small minority.
I don't believe that the average Labour/SNP voter sympathises with their view on multiculturalism, and the 'did not votes' almost certainly don't.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/fallout-4-ps4-first-impressions.html
Schengen has de facto disintegrated in the last few months, and will surely soon be dismantled de jure, too.
If nothing else more borders make it harder for anything untoward to operate - whether it is drugs, weapons, crime, terrorism etc.
It'll be sad but interesting to discover what the terrorists' primary and secondary targets were. They should be able to work that out easily enough.
I was relieved that I could watch the Mog Sainsbury advert as an antidote to it.
Wasn't Kissinger the exponent of he's a bastard, but better our bastard. Gadaffi, after he decided his interests were better served siding with the West, secured Europe's southern borders and tackled Islamism.
What ever possessed us to start bombing him in the latter stages is quite unfathomable. Similarly, whatever possessed us to taking out Hussein, once we knew he was a much more diminished force? Europe actively contributed and possibly caused Libya and Iraq (well the US and UK) to turn into failing states- and now look at the consequences.
Serious question. When did either Hussain or Assad encourage or sponsor terrorism against us, any other European country or the wider western world?
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/09/we_must_pay_attention_to_yemen_eddings_bombed_civilians_killed_with_u_s_help/
I also agree with pushing the Moslem community to face up to the conflicts between our culture and theirs. Where conflicts exist, our culture and values must prevail. This should not be a problem since tolerance is central to our culture. Any objection means that it's the Moslem community that is racist not ours. Our pussy footing has been significantly responsible for where we are now and we should learn from that mistake.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
You may be right about the political reality that Schengen will defacto fall apart, but I took TC's question to be whether it should. This is a security question that you have to actually analyse - you can't answer it with your gut. Security measures need cost-benefit analysis, and it's not necessarily true that checkpoints on 1945 borders get you the most possible security for your money.
This is a Merkel 4 cup, why should Poland pay for it ?
Or just extremists?
If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
1. Finding other perpetrators and anyone supporting them. Figures of direct perpetrators left is reportedly between 2 & 4. The French, though they fear a running event, want these guys in France. Some locals have already gone AWOL and are persons of interest
2. Finding any logistics holds. This is directly related to one. They will be looking for cars, weapons and in particular, there have been rumours of vehicle-borne explosives
3. Find out who these guys were and where these guys came from. I posted last night whilst events were still ongoing that the French were already working on the basis that some perpetrators were neither French or long term residents. Reading into (maybe too much) Hollande's statement this morning there is the suggestion that this is still a very firm line of inquiry
3. Analyse the raw data, not just of the attacks but of the intelligence take in the weeks and months. I'm going to point to 4 particular known items of interest at this stage that will be thrown into the mix. 1. The individual picked up by German police on Thursday, 2. A possible entrance/exit/transit route via Spain 3. The Islamist picked up by the French in August and whether their info was interpreted correctly. 4. The Balkans link.
There will be more that us Average Joes will not be aware of.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2952329/So-DID-order-police-demand-names-Charlie-Hebdo-buyers-Anger-grows-newsagents-customers-insist-officers-WEREN-T-acting-accord.html
https://twitter.com/K69atie/status/665493074567700480
Then I can give you some other things to think about.
I see Cyclefree is also trying to get you to open your eyes about the realities we face
Sadly you seem unable or unwilling to actually think.
"TheScreamingEagles">@bopanc: Polish #EU minister says that #Poland will not accept #refugees quota after #ParisAttacks - reports'
The same thing will happen across eastern europe without a doubt. Merkel's policy is in tatters.'
Hungary called it spot on.
I've passed on this series as I thought it was a shooter but talk of base building and RPG elements make it sound interesting. Would you recommend it to a player like me?
I was reading that some tory eurosceptics are trying to delay the EU referendum by a year. It is easy to see why.
Trust you are well Field Marshall.
Like I said, they might not be nice people but that is no reason not to continue the policy we had in the past of doing business with them as long as they are not threatening us directly. It may not be very palatable but it is often the only way to protect ourselves.
France relies on the borders of Greek islands and eastern european states etc to keep bad people and machine guns out. These borders cannot hold back hundreds of thousands of people that are wandering around.
Hating a religion should not be anything like a crime. It's as stupid as making it illegal to hate a football club or a political belief or a philosophy.
I'm a lifelong atheist, but culturally Christian - and frankly don't see any positives in Islam at all. It's brought us all manner of horrors over recent decades. FMG, honor killings, forced marriage, cousin marriage/birth defects, terrorism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, default halal in most meat products, Trojan schools... on and on and on.
I would recommend it. VATS decreases the FPS element, you can get a companion to lighten that load, and, if all else fails, difficulty can be decreased. But even as a non-FPS fan, I like the combat.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Cide, I like violent computer games. The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 both have their share of gore.
I've also played F1 games. Yet nobody's worried I'll become an incredibly skilled driver.
We can recruit all the economic labour we need from within Europe, and that labour integrates more successfully, works more regularly and places fewer demands on the state.
Benefit caps and tax credit curbs are vitally important in driving cultural change (smaller families, wives taking up work) in these groups as well.
Heaven forfend we have a CDS/CIGS who thinks he is more important than the politicians he serves
Been a very good year for games, with The Witcher 3, MGSV, Fallout 4 and Rise of the Tomb Raider.
But, being an island does help to keep out undesirables.
*wishes he had time to play games*
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Clever enemies exploit weaknesses; the West's weaknesses are well known and it would be otiose to repeat them. I've yet to see any measures advocated that are would be practical and effective.
When the intelligence agencies were preparing for Iraq II, I was mystified by NSA counterparts who had such great faith in 'Democracy'. It's not a panacea.
The UK has had centuries to develop mature institutions - essentially since the Enlightenment.
We have a judiciary and police service with low levels of corruption, a society that understands the difference between state and religious strictures, generally fair means for personal advancement and so forth. Enfranchising a populace does not magically change anything without the underpinnings. I'm sure it's been said before, but true democracy is an emergent property.
The alternatives you mention were already being ripped apart by internecine fighting well before we decided to get involved and the idea there was anyone else than Isil who would have been able to take advantage of our bombing Assad is ridiculous
https://twitter.com/capx/status/665490705834450944
Fallout 1 was an RPG and I recently took a look at that but it has not grabbed me yet.
He failed to condemn terrorists again. He cautioned against jumping to conclusions regarding ISIL and Syria
And he praised multiculturalism and multi-faith society
Meanwhile, his fellow travellers...
@Jake_Wilde: I think, if you're going to tell people that their death is their own fault, you should wait until after the funeral https://t.co/yylPOL7NPQ
He is not fit to be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Just that France etc cannot rely on the border control of some Schengen countries to operate their borders effectively for its security. Therefore Schengen has to either end or retreat to a smaller group of countries. Furthermore with the Merkel madness of inviting 1 million in, can France have an open border with Germany?
(Via AFP)
Interesting I have noteded the UK has up its arrivals check as well recently. Got well questioned at Southampton airport last night. Where you coming from where you been what do you do etc etc. This has also happened to me at gatwick heathrow bristol Birmingham. . To name a few. I note everyone else getting same treatment.
1) Even assuming the border is stopping machine gun imports, that's only a useful security function if machine gun attacks provide a big benefit to the attacker that they couldn't get another way. For example, it wouldn't be much help deploying a lot of otherwise productive security people stopping machine guns if it turned out the adversary could get the same effect by making bombs from materials they could easily source locally.
2) Even if you show a useful security role for the UK, you need to analyse whether the border would be an effective way of getting machine guns into France. France also has other borders that are hard to police, and no border is impermeable, so it's not obviously true (although it may turn out to be true when you analyse it) that French border controls would have kept machine guns out of France. Sure, and like I say there may be a case for checkpoints somewhere between Paris and Lesbos, but it's not a no-brainer that the right place to put this is at the edges of French territory. But in any case the security goal isn't to stop hundreds of thousands of people that are wandering around, it's to stop the 6 people who blew up bombs and shot machine guns, and it may turn out to be more cost-effective to deploy people infiltrating mosques or following up on tip-offs than checking hundreds of thousands of people's papers.
To repeat myself, you can't do security analysis with your gut. The problem with doing this in a democracy is that politicians will actually respond to what your gut says will help rather than what will actually help, and they'll end up using their security budget inefficiently and more people will end up getting killed.
Love the first response which clearly gets the guys point across
" Are you fucking serious?"
What the F have Labour done?
I did want to add: Fallout 4 has the worst UI of any game I've played. Blech. Consoles have a lot to answer for.
There's a lot of complacency about the "they've lost" comments we will read and hear so much.
I once read an interesting book by an ex British Ambassador to Saudi - lets just say it was clear he was not a fan of the place and their practices.
We on the other hand have neither.
Syrian passport found on body of one of the #ParisAttacks perpetrators at Stade de France, police say http://bbc.in/1WXcuDi
2 retweets 0 likes
Could it be worse?
Stop the War
@STWuk
#ParisAttacks reaping whirlwind of western support for extremist violence in Middle East http://bit.ly/1MIkZAN
You don't have to have a doctorate to play a long game. The Caliphate doesn't need to be restored overnight.