politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Paris is just a 2 hour train ride from the centre of London
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Paris is just a 2 hour train ride from the centre of London
For those who no longer wish to travel on 14/11 please call us for a free exchange we're open 9am-5pm (GMT) over the weekend 03432 186186.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Hundreds dead and all these left wing nut jobs, terrorist apologists and other Quislings can talk about is "poor Muslims".
The invasion of the West by radical Islam is only possible thanks to these apologists and sycophants who would rather leave their countries open to the very real evil of Islam's religious conquest.
If people within these communities want to disassociate themselves from the nasty aftertaste which is written in their scripture, the option is wide open for them to apostatise. Which, thanks to the open freedoms of the West they can actually do without penalty of death.
It is not my call: 'With us or against us' is my underflow. Party-politics has no place after such a venal act of - potential - religious aggression.
:viva-le-france:
French police are armed, so could respond, ours are not.
The best response to a shooter in a confined space such as a football crowd or theatre is to charge and disarm, then strangle them before they detonate any suicide belt. Best done in numbers.
The more muslims who apostise the better. We should facilitate that.
Without addressing the fundamental problem then the situation will never go away. And the fundamental problem is a Personality Cult which is also a Death Cult where the recorded writings of the Dear Leader tell adherents that all non-adherents are "cattle", deserving of death and should be treated as if they were not human.
This belief drives and justifies all the problems associated with the Death Cult. Whether it is events like Paris, or the consistent, systematic rape of non-adherent children.
The Q'ran has little scope for interpretation on its ideology behind events like tonight. There is no "moderate" concept in Islam, there are only Muslims who are adherent and those who are less adherent. The solution has to be for anyone claiming to have moderate views to apostatise.
As usual I was posting on a previous thread after this opened, apologists and useless politicians are as guilty as the maniacs.
Another place that I feel vulnerable is at football games. When I first saw the news last night I thought something had actually happened at the ground. After the Charlie Hebdo attacks there was an increased police presence at the next Arsenal home game - but again, short of making everyone go through airport style security it's never going to be 100% safe.
Numbers killed in Islamic terrorist atrocities?
I think we all know where the balance lies.
The new reality really started post 1980. The fanaticism of many [ still a small minority ] even later. But if only 1%/2% are fanatics, then that is a large number ! Also, they are mostly young !
The worrying thing is that most of these "nutters" are in the West. Why ? Even the young woman who serves you at the bank counter [ if such jobs actually exist anymore ] probably wears a scarf round her head. Interesting, her mother even demurely dressed probably did not follow the strict dress code. [ I am not saying wearing the hijab or scarf is itself the problem ]
The West, and separately Russia, are killing many people in their bombing of ISIL-held territory in the Levant. These brutal attacks, and the recent downing of the Russian airliner, are merely retaliation. If one perpetrates total war, expect total war in return.
The vast majority of Muslims who came to Europe were as the modern fashion suggests, "economic migrants". That generation did not blow up places. Their children are, for whatever reason / grudge they have.
There is a lot of money behind ISIS. Who funds these attacks?
Could a French UN security council resolution now pass to deal with this properly?
But throughout that time it was an external problem. The West has internalised the desire for Islam to conquer, the Islamic view of non-Muslims as Kafir, and Multiculturalism has blocked much of the natural reduction in adherence which might otherwise have occurred.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/austria-foreign-minister-islam-funding-law-restricting
It is our secularisation they object to. I got a free book through the letter box (I think all my neighbours did too) from a Turkish Muslim. It's called "Islam denounces terrorism" but of course it's really an apology for it: the West has (he thinks) replaced Jesus with Darwin, and that's why we have terrorism and the 18th century didn't!
Planet Earth isn't big enough for both cultures.
ISIL are evil. They behead people. Yes. Less than Saudi Arabia. The only difference is that the Saudis do not behead foreigners for propaganda purposes.
Saddam and Gaddafi were undemocratic dictators. We either killed them of facilitated their death. Were they the only ones ?
Is Sisi any better ? But he is on our side so it's OK. Afganistan should have taught us that harbouring nutters even if they are on our side, eventually they bite back.
Would we really make it difficult for the Saudis ? I doubt it. It is an odd time to quote Lenin.
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
Maybe Islam can go through a Reformation, decide to reinterpret the Q'ran and decide that the current practises of the religion are unacceptable. It may be more difficult given much less oblique wording (as I understand it) in the Q'ran than the New Testament. But perhaps it can, let us hope so.
But we are not there at this present time. The choice is to accept our fate and be conquered or to decide that this cannot continue and that Islam is not compatible with our beliefs and cultures.
I read the Guardian online every morning, on this occasion I completely disagree with what it's published.
I wouldn't dream of wanting to close down a newspaper David Cameron writes for, however infrequently
That's a step too far for me, if I've misinterpreted things I apologise.
Sometimes you have to help the lesser evil against the greater one. The trick is then opposing the lesser evil after defeating the greater one, and preferably keeping it under control in the meantime.
We had a good discussion about energy sourcing yesterday on PBC. It seems all the more pertinent now.
When an industry fails to self-regulate, it is normal for the Government to regulate that industry (and in some places ban some industries). I do not see a huge difference here.
Religion is not a license to hold views incompatible to the Social Contract to which, by acceptance of citizenship and residence, you have given your implicit consent. If those views will not change, those who hold them must, surely, be removed.
@Dair
Now we can have a dialogue when we take out the emotion. It was already happening. Ironically, many of these movements were seen as hardline in the West. Start with the Shias.
In Iran, you will see pictures of Ali and even Mohammad. In any other Muslim country that would be instant death. They are in Islamic theologic terms, the "Liberals". So why did our relations with Iran go sour.
Because Khomeni replaced the dear Shah and , therefore, was the baddie. Then events took over. The Saudis during all these years kept on telling the West that the Iranians are the real baddies [ sic ]. Only since Rouhani, have the West started to see things differently.
Reformist movements were springing up everywhere. Ahmedis in Pakistan , for example. They were not liked [ always a majority do not like new minorities ] but they were tolerated. Not today. THe Ahmedi movement is itself more than 100 years old.
We want to get rid of Assad. Yet, the Alewites are the reformists ! Instead we would prefer hard core Sunnis, in some places.
I do not think the West thinks about the consequences about their actions.
One thing is certain. In the modern age, with instant communications, we were not seen "attacking" any Muslim country until Afganistan / Iraq.
I don't think Afganistan was a problem, initially as it was kind of understood that the USA itself was attacked. No such excuse was there for Iraq.
These acts simple cemented a culture amongst the young. Plus, of course, the perennial sore called occupied Palestine. Muslims find it strange that Israeli excesses are never condemned and is even justified because some kids threw stones. Of course, things develop after that and can no longer be controlled.
Those old newspaper men who first formed and framed the Manchester Guardian - and they were mainly of the left - would be turning in their graves if they could see what the present day newspaper has become.
Anyway, if Charlie Hebdo could be excused or whatevered, this one is an indiscriminate attack that can't be.
Christ.
Muslim clerics can continue to talk out of both sids of their mouth, still quietly giving succour to the terrorists by their failure to condemn. And thereby giving the critics of their faith fair reason to point out the incongruities at the heart of their self-titled "religion of peace".
Or they stand up and preach that those who undertake violence - supposedly in the name of Islam - have no religious support. Moreover, these evil people cloaking themselves in Islam have no hope of ever reaching Jannah - paradise. Instead, they will be condemned by their actions to the seventh level of Hell. And that it is their final destination. No reprieve.
Want to call yourself a religion of peace? Then earn that title, Islam.
I agree with pretty much everything you've posted. Iran has always been a beacon in the Islamic world, a long term, stable democracy with male and female suffrage from the age of 15. The Saudi's have always been the most despotic, terror-funding, terror-running state in the region. Yet we let them be and create a hotbed for the most radical defence against any form of Reformation.
But there is a significantly long way to go before any brand of Islam is compatible with the established values of the West and accepting a multicultural solution for Islam inside Western Nations is doing nothing but importing problems.
..
They continue to come...........
Even had some SS divisions of Muslim troops.
It's probably as much the reaction to the event as the event itself that matters for a government.
What has The Guardian done wrong? I have looked at the home page on my phone and it just looks like straight reporting.
https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/665431818200621056
Looks like this guy is wired to a bomb or explosives. Horrific!!!
Saw much of the attack coverage last night, though at the time there were many hostages believed to be held. Just going to read up now about what happened, but it's an absolute tragedy.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The bombing was most convenient for Erdogan.
*) Luck
*) Reasonably competent security services who honed their skills against the domestic IRA.
*) Our strict gun laws, which makes it harder to obtain weaponry. Any attempts to obtain weaponry is a chance for the plot to be picked up by the authorities.
*) Our island status, meaning it is harder for a plot to be planned in a neighbouring country from the one the atrocity is committed in, especially with regards to smuggling in associated weaponry.
*) For the moment, a less disillusioned Muslim youth than is the case in France.
Personally, I'd say any intervention or not in Syria is just an excuse. The problems are much deeper than that, and any perceived grievance could set such sick people off on this course.
Jeremy Hunts twitter feed suggests he is backing down over the junior doctors contract. He is dropping his preconditions to talks.
And Rahim Sterling has demonstrated that he is the poor mans Jamie Vardy
The rest of your post makes you look like an apologist, somehow trying to spin justification for last nights foul and evil acts by Islamists.
Very well said.
The UK has seen its share of zealots run off to join ISIS, and a number of attacks planned for here have been foiled.
Mr. Foxinsox, good to leaven such a sombre thread with a few other topics.
On which note, final practice ends at about 2pm. I'll try to get the pre-qualifying piece up shortly thereafter [the monitor's working now, of course, but it might yet fail, so if nothing appears, that'll be why].
If your "others" on Betfair are very green in the republican race, you can lay Mitt Romney at 70-1 for the Democratic nomination.
People are on a bell curve and these extremist nuts are on one extreme but the problem is that views like compelling women to dress in hijabs etc are at the centre of the bell curve rather than the extreme.
A moderate Muslim should be one who thinks that drinking and eating halal or not is a personal choice, not one who thinks killing is wrong but compelling people to wear certain clothing is OK.
Police defending the tunnel need to be able to access rubber bullets as a last resort.
Sky is saying 120 killed, while CNN is reporting at least 153 have been killed.
That's quite a disparity.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.'
In addition, it seems most western countries have had people try to travel to join IS, some in large numbers.
So here's a question: should we let them? Should we let anyone who wants to join IS to go - or even fly them there - and strip them of citizenship and any rights to return? Keep their DNA on a database and mark them as PNG, never to be allowed back in?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Any attack that kills non-combatant civilians is terrorism.
And again, for want of doubt, this is purely a theoretical argument and not one I am advocating.
Sarkozy is very capable of playing the hardline tune on his flute when he has to. And, if he's up against Le Pen, he will receive virtually every tactical vote going.