Paris attacks

It's all a load of Cannonballs in here! This is the virtual Arsenal pub where you can chat about anything except football. Be warned though, like any pub, the content may not always be suitable for everyone.
Top Londoner
Posts: 4992
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:35 pm
Location: Taser the cuunt

Re: Paris attacks

Post by Top Londoner »

northbank123 wrote:
Top Londoner wrote:
Yankee_Gooner_Dandee wrote:There are ~1.5 billion Muslims on planet Earth. Even if only 1% of them are "radical extremists" then that is still a whopping 15 MILLION potential suicide bombers and terrorists. And 1% is a low, very low, estimate.


"15 million potential suicide bombers and terrorists"
1% being a low, very low estimate? Who GUESSED that? Let me guess,,,,,,,, Obama, right?

Really ????

Do me a favour pal.

I'd be fairly sure that "suicide bombers" have taken less lives this year than the crank Yanks with their guns.
FFS. Get a grip with your sweeping statements mate.

:banghead:
Obama of course being a notorious warmongerer? Imagine if Trump or Carson were president, they would have blown the entire Middle East off the face of the earth by now.

Ironically what is fundamentally required is good old-fashioned Western aggression. All nations need to come together to exterminate IS and scrub them out of existence. As soon as they start losing territory, they will become far less attractive and have far less ability to draw people in both domestically and internationally. But air strikes aren't going to cut it - pissing in the wind given the territory that they've been allowed to seiZe. Hate to say it but ground troops are required, and the sooner and harder it comes the better it will be in the long run.

There are of course political solutions which are required, and more needs to be done to prevent a like-for-like replacement stepping into the vacuum. But that's secondary right now.

Fair post northbank.

So,,,,,,

What if ISIS have been evolved by the world's security services, for example? ISIS is Saudi financed.
Western aggression is required, to what ends? To bail out the USA, because it is bankrupt and requires wars In order to generate dollars?
Obama, like Cameron et al, is required to ask how high should I jump.
Sorry northbank but we may not be poles apart with our thinking, but for an American bloke to determine there are 1.5 million suicide bombers on the planet well, that does concern me

User avatar
Yankee_Gooner_Dandee
Posts: 2902
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Paris attacks

Post by Yankee_Gooner_Dandee »

Top Londoner wrote:
northbank123 wrote:
Top Londoner wrote:
Yankee_Gooner_Dandee wrote:There are ~1.5 billion Muslims on planet Earth. Even if only 1% of them are "radical extremists" then that is still a whopping 15 MILLION potential suicide bombers and terrorists. And 1% is a low, very low, estimate.


"15 million potential suicide bombers and terrorists"
1% being a low, very low estimate? Who GUESSED that? Let me guess,,,,,,,, Obama, right?

Really ????

Do me a favour pal.

I'd be fairly sure that "suicide bombers" have taken less lives this year than the crank Yanks with their guns.
FFS. Get a grip with your sweeping statements mate.

:banghead:
Obama of course being a notorious warmongerer? Imagine if Trump or Carson were president, they would have blown the entire Middle East off the face of the earth by now.

Ironically what is fundamentally required is good old-fashioned Western aggression. All nations need to come together to exterminate IS and scrub them out of existence. As soon as they start losing territory, they will become far less attractive and have far less ability to draw people in both domestically and internationally. But air strikes aren't going to cut it - pissing in the wind given the territory that they've been allowed to seiZe. Hate to say it but ground troops are required, and the sooner and harder it comes the better it will be in the long run.

There are of course political solutions which are required, and more needs to be done to prevent a like-for-like replacement stepping into the vacuum. But that's secondary right now.

Fair post northbank.

So,,,,,,

What if ISIS have been evolved by the world's security services, for example? ISIS is Saudi financed.
Western aggression is required, to what ends? To bail out the USA, because it is bankrupt and requires wars In order to generate dollars?
Obama, like Cameron et al, is required to ask how high should I jump.
Sorry northbank but we may not be poles apart with our thinking, but for an American bloke to determine there are 1.5 million suicide bombers on the planet well, that does concern me
wtf are you on about mate? It is a fact that there ARE over 1.5 billion Muslims. It is estimatedthat somewhere between 1% and 35% of them share extremist views. So which part do you not quite understand exactly? And what exactly does me being an American have to do with that

User avatar
GranadaJoe
Posts: 2412
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:21 pm

Re: Paris attacks

Post by GranadaJoe »

Top Londoner wrote:
Yankee_Gooner_Dandee wrote:There are ~1.5 billion Muslims on planet Earth. Even if only 1% of them are "radical extremists" then that is still a whopping 15 MILLION potential suicide bombers and terrorists. And 1% is a low, very low, estimate.


"15 million potential suicide bombers and terrorists"
1% being a low, very low estimate? Who GUESSED that? Let me guess,,,,,,,, Obama, right?

Really ????

Do me a favour pal.

I'd be fairly sure that "suicide bombers" have taken less lives this year than the crank Yanks with their guns.
FFS. Get a grip with your sweeping statements mate.

:banghead:
It's not a sweeping statement. YGD said "even if ...", but imo, if, as research shows, 200 to 300 million are 'radical' (i.e. they believe in imposing sharia law throughout the world, want a single religious caliphate, want to destroy the west etc) then 1% of that base would still be 3 million. None of us know if the true figure is 3 million, 1 million, 250k, but it's sure as hell at lot, and a lot more than just a few nutters.

User avatar
the playing mantis
Posts: 3926
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:36 pm
Location: EX

Re: Paris attacks

Post by the playing mantis »

the problems did not start by the iraq war, that clealry did not help though. the removal of saddam, gaddafi, and the aim of geeting rid of assad, are absolutely disasterous, and althought the right wing gets blamed for it, the liberal centre contributed an awful lot, those who didnt like what these leaders did to keep order and their own citizens in line, and reduce extremism.

the removal of these guys made the world a far more dangerous place, the arab spring was greeted by the left as brilliat. it wa a disaster. these countries cannot make democracy work as it always lead to fracture and extremism there. a hard strong man is needed to keep order. this has all been caused to a large extent (well the emergence of isil)by the failure to back assad and arming the 'moderate' rebels (just another branch of terrorists basically), had they been crushed by the west backing assad or at least not helping the rebels thi wouldnt be hapening to the extent it is. syria would be a reasonably safe, civilised, prosperous, modern, secular place, and damascus would be the city it was before all this, a, for a middle east city, relatively safe for westerners. syria is now back in the stone age. sure assad uses force and persecutes factions of his own people by nasty means, chemical weapons etc, but look what ha happened when he hasnt managed to, extremist nutters in his own populace taking over.

the west,should have taken the prgamatic better the devil you know attitude, as espoused by certain right wingers such as lord tebbit, rather than being intent on regime change in what is a continuation of the cold war with the us taking opposite stances to russia. thats what will undemine crushing isil. many hawks in the states wont cooperate properly with them. why does the west want assad gone? only another dictator in his place will be bale to keep order. another reason the usa will use to not cooperate with rusia is the nato eastern european countries. but i really dont give a shit abut these, a perceived threat from russia to them is far less concerning to all than a realised threat from isil. the eastern european countries should not even be in nato. there is no need and it was just done so the usa could piss russia off. (this triggered the ukraine conflict).

im conservative but some of the above is left wing thinking, ie the US's stupid attitude to russia.

refugees, pitching up here are not refugees, they are economic migrants (i dont blame them, but i cant just pitch up at the big house down the road as it takes my fancy). if they were refugees they would seek refuge in the first safe place. if these terroists in paris were in part refugees hopefully it will stop the madness of letting them in un adulterated, however merkel has probably fucked that completely for all of europe. or it may lead to the breakdown of schengen which would be fantastic as its a hige mistake for many reasons not least national security. Some are drawing comparison to jewish refugees in the 30's/40's. comparison is simply not valid, as other jews were not not causing atrocities or acts of terrorism, to their fellow jews or other religions, as the the muslim extremist currenlty are, hence there was no danger in accepting the jewish people back then as there is these muslim refugees now.

now on to the terorists, you will get the usual posters defending islam. however muslims as a whole do not do nearly enough to root out extremism and simply turn the other cheek. imo all religions are bollox, but islam is specifally violent and its adherents are retarded enough to act on it. sure the bible has violent bits in, but in this day and age, bar a tiny minority people do not act off it, sure they did hundreds of years ago, but not now. islam followers still do and although those who actively do it are in a minority, probably, the rest condone it, given they do so little to stop it or condemn it. as such wew ill never be safe. the enemy is amongst us and no one knows who it is and who will act on there beliefs.

i see no way out of this, apart from extreme measures that will nt happen in todays PC world, and are distinctly brutal and unfair. however i think at some point in the middle future, things will reach a tipping point, and the west will flip finally and potential civil war will break out in western countries against minorities which is terrible.

you cannot destroy a religion in this day and age, the cathars were destryed by their beliver being killed and texts being destroyed in therir entirity, with the internet this simply could never happen again.

a for the situation in the middle east, the elephant in the room is saudi arabia. they sponsor and fund these terrorists be it covertly, as they are anti iran. the west allows it due to the oil. the west will not lance the boil until the oil is gone and the house of sud has scarpered to london in all the properties they have bought up. these royals in the middle east once the oil runs out, will flee west, in the many properties they are buying up in advance as their populaces will become extreme, once they are no longer being bougt off with oil/gas revenues.

the small scale bombing is alo making thing worse, we either dont do anything and let isil form a true state, who we then ultimately attack/negotiate with, or we go in full scale, anniliahtion bombing to destroy the isil scum (unfortuantely inncoents will die, but id rather be safe myself), saturation of troops on the ground, and large peacekeeping forces in place longterm, 30+ years, and strong backing to 'safe' regimes, giving them time to get the countries to develop to a decent standing of living so that extremism is not as attractive, the at least temporary move away from enforcing democracy on these places, and stopping those complicit from assisting or loking the other way, turkey, saudi arabia etc.

a grand coalition of usa, russia, europe, china (who have there own islamic extremism problems) and iran, with big levels of military commintment is the only way i think to reduce this problem (it will never go away as long as there are different factions of islam). the ideal would be no western boots on the ground and the middle eatern countries doing the military work in colaition to destroy isis, as this would limit blaming the west for killing muslims, but turkey, saudi arabia, egypt, the middle eatsern countires who could do this, will not work with iran, the other middle eastern country that has the means to help out big time.

apologies this is kind of all over the place and difficult to read, but i have a lot of thoughts on this.
Last edited by the playing mantis on Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
northbank123
Posts: 12436
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:05 am
Location: Newcastle

Re: Paris attacks

Post by northbank123 »

Nut flush if those world forces dedicated their military power to eradicating IS they would do it in mere months.

Instead there will be too much posturing and bluffing and 3 months down the line IS will be even bigger, more powerful and more dangerous.

User avatar
augie
Posts: 29394
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Paris attacks

Post by augie »

northbank123 wrote:Nut flush if those world forces dedicated their military power to eradicating IS they would do it in mere months.

Instead there will be too much posturing and bluffing and 3 months down the line IS will be even bigger, more powerful and more dangerous.


Absolutely agree (again) northbank 8) I don't understand the thought process of people who think that the west can talk these terrorists down, or that if we ignore them they will go away - these c.unts have to be wiped from the face of this earth cos it is the only way that we have any hope of stopping these terrorists attacks in Europe. I'm not saying that bombing the shit out of Syria will finish these isis attacks forever, but I am saying that sitting back and talking loads but doing fcuk all WILL NOT WORK :roll:

All these comments about the politics of countries like Syria and who the usa and Russia want to be in charge of them, reminds me of the film Green Zone with matt damon - basically it was about the usa army trying (and succeeding) to remove whatever militant guy was running the country in question, and it then focused on the absolute mess that was left behind afterwards when their plan to hand over the country to someone they hand picked was deeply flawed :roll:

User avatar
Nos89
Posts: 4568
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:44 am

Re: Paris attacks

Post by Nos89 »

augie wrote:
northbank123 wrote:Nut flush if those world forces dedicated their military power to eradicating IS they would do it in mere months.

Instead there will be too much posturing and bluffing and 3 months down the line IS will be even bigger, more powerful and more dangerous.


Absolutely agree (again) northbank 8) I don't understand the thought process of people who think that the west can talk these terrorists down, or that if we ignore them they will go away - these c.unts have to be wiped from the face of this earth cos it is the only way that we have any hope of stopping these terrorists attacks in Europe. I'm not saying that bombing the shit out of Syria will finish these isis attacks forever, but I am saying that sitting back and talking loads but doing fcuk all WILL NOT WORK :roll:

All these comments about the politics of countries like Syria and who the usa and Russia want to be in charge of them, reminds me of the film Green Zone with matt damon - basically it was about the usa army trying (and succeeding) to remove whatever militant guy was running the country in question, and it then focused on the absolute mess that was left behind afterwards when their plan to hand over the country to someone they hand picked was deeply flawed :roll:
It's all about power. USA has been losing their financial and military power over the last 15 years and they don't know how to handle it other than using military action. USA should never have removed Hussein or Gaddaffi as they knew it would destabilise the middle east. Islamic State were a militant movement based on an extreme Islamic ideology, however, they have developed into a actually state. They have land, money and are growing in numbers. They want more power and more say in how the middle east is run. They're doing to us what Christianity did to them, what Christianity did to the Chinese, the Africans and the Indians over the last 400 years. War does seem to be the only answer because there is no foundation, no common ground to negotiate and engage them to stop the terrorism. It will be the western philosophy of life against the Islamic philosophy of life. With Russia upholding strong Christian values and seemingly open to cooperating with USA and Europe I'd suggest war is likely. I'd also suggest that at some point china will get involved, and when they do, whichever side they support, will win.

User avatar
the playing mantis
Posts: 3926
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:36 pm
Location: EX

Re: Paris attacks

Post by the playing mantis »

China will never side with isil. They have their own issues with islamists.

Even if they did and full scale war escalated China is still no where near able to compete with the usa milatarily.

User avatar
Yankee_Gooner_Dandee
Posts: 2902
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Paris attacks

Post by Yankee_Gooner_Dandee »

I'm no pro-war American, which seems to be the sterotype thrown our way. And the US has certainly lost some of its "power" in the world over the last decade. But let's not pretend like China has even a tenth of the military might this country does. They have a lot of boots but are severely behind in weapons and technology. This government spends ridiculous amounts of our tax dollars on the military. They are far ahead of China.

All of that is off topic though, as if the West really wanted to crush ISIS they could do so in a fucking week, lets be real. The problem is that the remainder who aren't killed just go on to create a new organization and do the same things. The Muslim situation in Europe is reaching the boiling point, but it's already boiled over in Africa, but no one cares because it's Africa.

A "West vs Muslim" war is not how it should be considering there are many types/nations of Muslims and most do not agree with the radical / sharia law version, but their radical cousins are making it real hard for non-Muslims to see the difference.

In the end, I think that is actually the ultimate goal of ISIS and other terrorist organizations. They WANT us to throw all Muslims into one category and go to War with them. Because they know they'll then get backing from Iran or whoever else. They WANT to start WW3. And they're doing a good job of starting it so far.

casgooner
Posts: 2664
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:21 pm
Location: England

Re: Paris attacks

Post by casgooner »

the playing mantis wrote:the problems did not start by the iraq war, that clealry did not help though. the removal of saddam, gaddafi, and the aim of geeting rid of assad, are absolutely disasterous, and althought the right wing gets blamed for it, the liberal centre contributed an awful lot, those who didnt like what these leaders did to keep order and their own citizens in line, and reduce extremism.

the removal of these guys made the world a far more dangerous place, the arab spring was greeted by the left as brilliat. it wa a disaster. these countries cannot make democracy work as it always lead to fracture and extremism there. a hard strong man is needed to keep order. this has all been caused to a large extent (well the emergence of isil)by the failure to back assad and arming the 'moderate' rebels (just another branch of terrorists basically), had they been crushed by the west backing assad or at least not helping the rebels thi wouldnt be hapening to the extent it is. syria would be a reasonably safe, civilised, prosperous, modern, secular place, and damascus would be the city it was before all this, a, for a middle east city, relatively safe for westerners. syria is now back in the stone age. sure assad uses force and persecutes factions of his own people by nasty means, chemical weapons etc, but look what ha happened when he hasnt managed to, extremist nutters in his own populace taking over.

the west,should have taken the prgamatic better the devil you know attitude, as espoused by certain right wingers such as lord tebbit, rather than being intent on regime change in what is a continuation of the cold war with the us taking opposite stances to russia. thats what will undemine crushing isil. many hawks in the states wont cooperate properly with them. why does the west want assad gone? only another dictator in his place will be bale to keep order. another reason the usa will use to not cooperate with rusia is the nato eastern european countries. but i really dont give a shit abut these, a perceived threat from russia to them is far less concerning to all than a realised threat from isil. the eastern european countries should not even be in nato. there is no need and it was just done so the usa could piss russia off. (this triggered the ukraine conflict).

im conservative but some of the above is left wing thinking, ie the US's stupid attitude to russia.

refugees, pitching up here are not refugees, they are economic migrants (i dont blame them, but i cant just pitch up at the big house down the road as it takes my fancy). if they were refugees they would seek refuge in the first safe place. if these terroists in paris were in part refugees hopefully it will stop the madness of letting them in un adulterated, however merkel has probably fucked that completely for all of europe. or it may lead to the breakdown of schengen which would be fantastic as its a hige mistake for many reasons not least national security. Some are drawing comparison to jewish refugees in the 30's/40's. comparison is simply not valid, as other jews were not not causing atrocities or acts of terrorism, to their fellow jews or other religions, as the the muslim extremist currenlty are, hence there was no danger in accepting the jewish people back then as there is these muslim refugees now.

now on to the terorists, you will get the usual posters defending islam. however muslims as a whole do not do nearly enough to root out extremism and simply turn the other cheek. imo all religions are bollox, but islam is specifally violent and its adherents are retarded enough to act on it. sure the bible has violent bits in, but in this day and age, bar a tiny minority people do not act off it, sure they did hundreds of years ago, but not now. islam followers still do and although those who actively do it are in a minority, probably, the rest condone it, given they do so little to stop it or condemn it. as such wew ill never be safe. the enemy is amongst us and no one knows who it is and who will act on there beliefs.

i see no way out of this, apart from extreme measures that will nt happen in todays PC world, and are distinctly brutal and unfair. however i think at some point in the middle future, things will reach a tipping point, and the west will flip finally and potential civil war will break out in western countries against minorities which is terrible.

you cannot destroy a religion in this day and age, the cathars were destryed by their beliver being killed and texts being destroyed in therir entirity, with the internet this simply could never happen again.

a for the situation in the middle east, the elephant in the room is saudi arabia. they sponsor and fund these terrorists be it covertly, as they are anti iran. the west allows it due to the oil. the west will not lance the boil until the oil is gone and the house of sud has scarpered to london in all the properties they have bought up. these royals in the middle east once the oil runs out, will flee west, in the many properties they are buying up in advance as their populaces will become extreme, once they are no longer being bougt off with oil/gas revenues.

the small scale bombing is alo making thing worse, we either dont do anything and let isil form a true state, who we then ultimately attack/negotiate with, or we go in full scale, anniliahtion bombing to destroy the isil scum (unfortuantely inncoents will die, but id rather be safe myself), saturation of troops on the ground, and large peacekeeping forces in place longterm, 30+ years, and strong backing to 'safe' regimes, giving them time to get the countries to develop to a decent standing of living so that extremism is not as attractive, the at least temporary move away from enforcing democracy on these places, and stopping those complicit from assisting or loking the other way, turkey, saudi arabia etc.

a grand coalition of usa, russia, europe, china (who have there own islamic extremism problems) and iran, with big levels of military commintment is the only way i think to reduce this problem (it will never go away as long as there are different factions of islam). the ideal would be no western boots on the ground and the middle eatern countries doing the military work in colaition to destroy isis, as this would limit blaming the west for killing muslims, but turkey, saudi arabia, egypt, the middle eatsern countires who could do this, will not work with iran, the other middle eastern country that has the means to help out big time.

apologies this is kind of all over the place and difficult to read, but i have a lot of thoughts on this.
Pretty much sums up how I feel. I did say on another thread that we would all regret Merkel's actions, it was totally irresponsible. I've had discussions in pubs with people saying they would give a bed to refugees, fine, but don't be surprised if they are not what you think they are. The guy they killed in France today had been moving through the refugee route at will. The cuddly, wuddlies seem to think that everyone would register and be good little people - as if. Another killer was a 'refugee'. How many more are there? Total naivety to let them in.

I was listening to a radio phone in when it was suggested that terrorist might pose as refugees, someone came on shouting almost, why would they risk their lives crossing the sea in a flimsy boat. Yeah right, the same people who strap explosives to themselves and detonate them!!! It makes me angry.

User avatar
scotgooner
Posts: 587
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:52 pm
Location: Bonnie Scotland

Re: Paris attacks

Post by scotgooner »

Yankee_Gooner_Dandee wrote:I'm no pro-war American, which seems to be the sterotype thrown our way. And the US has certainly lost some of its "power" in the world over the last decade. But let's not pretend like China has even a tenth of the military might this country does. They have a lot of boots but are severely behind in weapons and technology. This government spends ridiculous amounts of our tax dollars on the military. They are far ahead of China.

All of that is off topic though, as if the West really wanted to crush ISIS they could do so in a fucking week, lets be real. The problem is that the remainder who aren't killed just go on to create a new organization and do the same things. The Muslim situation in Europe is reaching the boiling point, but it's already boiled over in Africa, but no one cares because it's Africa.

A "West vs Muslim" war is not how it should be considering there are many types/nations of Muslims and most do not agree with the radical / sharia law version, but their radical cousins are making it real hard for non-Muslims to see the difference.

In the end, I think that is actually the ultimate goal of ISIS and other terrorist organizations. They WANT us to throw all Muslims into one category and go to War with them. Because they know they'll then get backing from Iran or whoever else. They WANT to start WW3. And they're doing a good job of starting it so far.
Good post. Agree entirely

armchair
Posts: 4279
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:30 pm
Location: Wengerhell

Re: Paris attacks

Post by armchair »


User avatar
northbank123
Posts: 12436
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:05 am
Location: Newcastle

Re: Paris attacks

Post by northbank123 »

Was about to post the same. Looking beyond this, I think that Andrew Neil is a fantastic broadcaster and just about the only decent political commentator/presenter/interviewer on tv. Asks tough questions, doesn't let people get away with shit but also a great sense of humour.

User avatar
g88ner
Posts: 14693
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:17 pm

Re: Paris attacks

Post by g88ner »


casgooner
Posts: 2664
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:21 pm
Location: England

Re: Paris attacks

Post by casgooner »

More killed in Mali. It never ends. RIP

Post Reply