Shootings and explosion in Paris!

[Guinness Boy]

No, my reply was to your quote "Sorry but while these crimes are shocking they are shocking because they are rare here (no one bothers showing the latest Baghdad bombings on UK telly, did you know 46 people died in suicide bombings in Beirut on Thursday?)".....i pointed out that these atrocities were by ISIS...you have veered over to what you feel are comparable deaths, such as road accidents in a country like others who have millions of car drivers, i find the comparison lame and insensitive, but then you can obviously find many other cases where there have been more than the fatalities in Paris a couple of days ago, although not good comparisons in my opinion.

You've taken a quote out of context then. The whole conversation had been a three way between me, beorthalem and Bry Nylon on internment and changing our laws / required standard of proof.

Nevertheless look at the bit of my quote that you've quoted again that I've put in bold. You may consider that the main point since it's not in brackets, unlike the side point.

 

[Albumen]

Jeremy Corbyn was right about Jihadi John - if you listened to his victims' families, you'd know that

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...victims-families-youd-know-that-a6733611.html

I will not lose any sleep or shed any tears over the apparent death of ‘Jihadi John’, also known as Mohammed Emwazi. Graphic reports of the beheadings of two British aid workers, David Haines and Alan Henning, back in 2014 remain prominent symbols of the current struggle against Isis – and Jihadi John was central to the videos of the murders released by the terrorist group. So when Jeremy Corbyn said this afternoon that it would have been ‘far better’ for the militant to have been tried in court rather than killed, I was not surprised at the initial backlash.

On the surface, this looks like just another line for someone to use to attack pacifists as weak and anti-patriotic. But when you take the time to understand the complexity of the situation, it seems that we have only given Jihadi John the honourable killing – the sensational martyrdom - that he sought from the beginning.

David Haines’ widow said after her husband’s passing that the only way families could achieve some form of ‘moral satisfaction’ would be with the capture and imprisonment of the terrorist. The family of murdered American Steven Sotloff hoped that Jihadi John would be ‘caught by American intelligence officials, brought to trial in the United States, and convicted for the crime of beheading their son.’ Elsewhere, the executed James Foley’s mother said that the strike gave her no satisfaction, and that her son was a peacemaker who wouldn’t have supported such state-sponsored murder.




‘It saddens me that here in America we are celebrating the death of this deranged, pathetic young man,’ she said during an interview on ABC News, before answering the question, ‘It gives you no solace?’ with ‘No, not at all. Had circumstances been different, [my son] might have befriended him and tried to help him.’

Killing Emwazi is no great victory for the West; instead it is a quick-fix solution that allows leaders to pretend we are winning the war against Isis.

What we have done today is simply plaster over a major problem that Western governments continue to dodge. We talk about dropping thousands of bombs on Syria, and there is still no real strategy to stop the Isis threat, or its accompanying dangers of mass radicalisation.

We have no plan to curb the attraction of joining the terrorist organisation; we can’t even stop young British citizens from leaving the country to do so. The victims’ families are those who are most important today, and no real justice has been achieved for them: they have been crystal clear on that. Their loved ones, they have told us, would have felt no great triumph – even if the US media continues to pump out a militaristic ‘We got him!’ gung-ho approach, as though the entire enterprise is a high stakes game.

An unmanned aircraft dropped a bomb from the sky that blew a man to pieces. We didn’t even take the chance to levy charges against him, to demonstrate how dangerous his ideology can be, to show the public that we are serious about bringing an end to this warping of minds.

No attempt was made to force ‘Jihadi John’ to accept what he did, to punish him in a manner that would have forced him to live with the trauma that he created and even attempt to make things right. There was no sentence given that would have brought closure to those who have suffered at this man’s hands, directly or indirectly. Instead, we did what was easy, and we did what works for TV. We blew him up.

Don’t tell me that I’m a sympathiser or a weak, unpatriotic pacifist for thinking so. This should have been a case of justice, for the families who lost their loved ones, for the men and women that fell at the hands of this vile, barbaric man. Instead, it was an exercise in the failure of Western foreign policy.

If we are to get serious about defeating Isis, then we better realise soon that giving the terrorists what they want is not, and never will be, a viable solution. And it may be counterintuitive, but it’s true: they want death – especially at the hands of a perceived western enemy.

It is too easy to offer simplistic solutions to brutality. It is time to face up to the danger and confront it strategically, logically and without clouded nationalistic emotion. That is the least we owe to those murdered by the likes of Jihadi John.

 

[carlzeiss]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...yazidi-women-discovered-in-iraq-a6735136.html

 

[Albumen]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Jeremy Corbyn was right about Jihadi John - if you listened to his victims' families, you'd know that

Have you posted this in the right thread ? And no he wasn't.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Jeremy Corbyn was right about Jihadi John - if you listened to his victims' families, you'd know that

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...victims-families-youd-know-that-a6733611.html

I will not lose any sleep or shed any tears over the apparent death of ‘Jihadi John’, also known as Mohammed Emwazi. Graphic reports of the beheadings of two British aid workers, David Haines and Alan Henning, back in 2014 remain prominent symbols of the current struggle against Isis – and Jihadi John was central to the videos of the murders released by the terrorist group. So when Jeremy Corbyn said this afternoon that it would have been ‘far better’ for the militant to have been tried in court rather than killed, I was not surprised at the initial backlash.

On the surface, this looks like just another line for someone to use to attack pacifists as weak and anti-patriotic. But when you take the time to understand the complexity of the situation, it seems that we have only given Jihadi John the honourable killing – the sensational martyrdom - that he sought from the beginning.

David Haines’ widow said after her husband’s passing that the only way families could achieve some form of ‘moral satisfaction’ would be with the capture and imprisonment of the terrorist. The family of murdered American Steven Sotloff hoped that Jihadi John would be ‘caught by American intelligence officials, brought to trial in the United States, and convicted for the crime of beheading their son.’ Elsewhere, the executed James Foley’s mother said that the strike gave her no satisfaction, and that her son was a peacemaker who wouldn’t have supported such state-sponsored murder.




‘It saddens me that here in America we are celebrating the death of this deranged, pathetic young man,’ she said during an interview on ABC News, before answering the question, ‘It gives you no solace?’ with ‘No, not at all. Had circumstances been different, [my son] might have befriended him and tried to help him.’

Killing Emwazi is no great victory for the West; instead it is a quick-fix solution that allows leaders to pretend we are winning the war against Isis.

What we have done today is simply plaster over a major problem that Western governments continue to dodge. We talk about dropping thousands of bombs on Syria, and there is still no real strategy to stop the Isis threat, or its accompanying dangers of mass radicalisation.

We have no plan to curb the attraction of joining the terrorist organisation; we can’t even stop young British citizens from leaving the country to do so. The victims’ families are those who are most important today, and no real justice has been achieved for them: they have been crystal clear on that. Their loved ones, they have told us, would have felt no great triumph – even if the US media continues to pump out a militaristic ‘We got him!’ gung-ho approach, as though the entire enterprise is a high stakes game.

An unmanned aircraft dropped a bomb from the sky that blew a man to pieces. We didn’t even take the chance to levy charges against him, to demonstrate how dangerous his ideology can be, to show the public that we are serious about bringing an end to this warping of minds.

No attempt was made to force ‘Jihadi John’ to accept what he did, to punish him in a manner that would have forced him to live with the trauma that he created and even attempt to make things right. There was no sentence given that would have brought closure to those who have suffered at this man’s hands, directly or indirectly. Instead, we did what was easy, and we did what works for TV. We blew him up.

Don’t tell me that I’m a sympathiser or a weak, unpatriotic pacifist for thinking so. This should have been a case of justice, for the families who lost their loved ones, for the men and women that fell at the hands of this vile, barbaric man. Instead, it was an exercise in the failure of Western foreign policy.

If we are to get serious about defeating Isis, then we better realise soon that giving the terrorists what they want is not, and never will be, a viable solution. And it may be counterintuitive, but it’s true: they want death – especially at the hands of a perceived western enemy.

It is too easy to offer simplistic solutions to brutality. It is time to face up to the danger and confront it strategically, logically and without clouded nationalistic emotion. That is the least we owe to those murdered by the likes of Jihadi John.

I'm sorry Liam Young, but being killed by a drone whilst sitting in a car is not martyrdom. You have to commit suicide whilst commiting jihad or be killed in active service to qualify.
Amwazi would not have accepted the consequences of his actions, even if convicted in a court of law. In fact, sitting in a jail would have given him the platform that he wanted. His groups would have used his imprisonment as an instrument of recruitment.

 

[Buzzer]

Jeremy Corbyn marches with Hamas and is best mates with IRA leaders. His opinions on terrorism are, frankly, skewed and irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[atomised]

Drone strikes whilst far from ideal seem to have proved effective in this case. How many soldiers lives could have been taken in a firefight with no guarantee of successfully taking him alive

 

[JC Footy Genius]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

Great source I bet you believe this drivel aswell

The threat to the European political establishment is not ISIL. The threats are the rising anti-EU, anti-immigrant political parties: Pegida in Germany, the UK Independence Party, and the National Front in France. The latest poll shows the National Front’s Marine Le Pen leading as the likely French president.

Something had to be done about the hords of refugees from Washington’s wars, or the establishment political parties faced defeat at the hands of political parties that are also unfriendly to Europe’s subservience to Washington.

EU rules about refugees and immigrants and Germany’s acceptance of one million of the refugees, together with heavy criticism of those governments in Eastern Europe that wanted to put up fences to keep out the refugees, made closing borders impossible.

With the Paris terror attacks, what was impossible became possible, and the President of France immediately announced the closing of France’s borders. The border closings will spread. The main issue of the rising dissident political parties will be defused. The EU will be safe, and so will Washington’s sovereignty over Europe.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pa...al-story-the-matrix-extends-its-reach/5489014

 

[wellquickwoody]

two examples proving this assumption wrong already given. countless examples in US and other nations.

Please remind me, honestly as I am struggling to recall, maybe I am missing the obvious?

Lone attacker killing hundreds?

 

[pastafarian]

Jeremy Corbyn was right about Jihadi John - if you listened to his victims' families, you'd know that

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...victims-families-youd-know-that-a6733611.html

I will not lose any sleep or shed any tears over the apparent death of ‘Jihadi John’, also known as Mohammed Emwazi. Graphic reports of the beheadings of two British aid workers, David Haines and Alan Henning, back in 2014 remain prominent symbols of the current struggle against Isis – and Jihadi John was central to the videos of the murders released by the terrorist group. So when Jeremy Corbyn said this afternoon that it would have been ‘far better’ for the militant to have been tried in court rather than killed, I was not surprised at the initial backlash.

On the surface, this looks like just another line for someone to use to attack pacifists as weak and anti-patriotic. But when you take the time to understand the complexity of the situation, it seems that we have only given Jihadi John the honourable killing – the sensational martyrdom - that he sought from the beginning.

David Haines’ widow said after her husband’s passing that the only way families could achieve some form of ‘moral satisfaction’ would be with the capture and imprisonment of the terrorist. The family of murdered American Steven Sotloff hoped that Jihadi John would be ‘caught by American intelligence officials, brought to trial in the United States, and convicted for the crime of beheading their son.’ Elsewhere, the executed James Foley’s mother said that the strike gave her no satisfaction, and that her son was a peacemaker who wouldn’t have supported such state-sponsored murder.




‘It saddens me that here in America we are celebrating the death of this deranged, pathetic young man,’ she said during an interview on ABC News, before answering the question, ‘It gives you no solace?’ with ‘No, not at all. Had circumstances been different, [my son] might have befriended him and tried to help him.’

Killing Emwazi is no great victory for the West; instead it is a quick-fix solution that allows leaders to pretend we are winning the war against Isis.

What we have done today is simply plaster over a major problem that Western governments continue to dodge. We talk about dropping thousands of bombs on Syria, and there is still no real strategy to stop the Isis threat, or its accompanying dangers of mass radicalisation.

We have no plan to curb the attraction of joining the terrorist organisation; we can’t even stop young British citizens from leaving the country to do so. The victims’ families are those who are most important today, and no real justice has been achieved for them: they have been crystal clear on that. Their loved ones, they have told us, would have felt no great triumph – even if the US media continues to pump out a militaristic ‘We got him!’ gung-ho approach, as though the entire enterprise is a high stakes game.

An unmanned aircraft dropped a bomb from the sky that blew a man to pieces. We didn’t even take the chance to levy charges against him, to demonstrate how dangerous his ideology can be, to show the public that we are serious about bringing an end to this warping of minds.

No attempt was made to force ‘Jihadi John’ to accept what he did, to punish him in a manner that would have forced him to live with the trauma that he created and even attempt to make things right. There was no sentence given that would have brought closure to those who have suffered at this man’s hands, directly or indirectly. Instead, we did what was easy, and we did what works for TV. We blew him up.

Don’t tell me that I’m a sympathiser or a weak, unpatriotic pacifist for thinking so. This should have been a case of justice, for the families who lost their loved ones, for the men and women that fell at the hands of this vile, barbaric man. Instead, it was an exercise in the failure of Western foreign policy.

If we are to get serious about defeating Isis, then we better realise soon that giving the terrorists what they want is not, and never will be, a viable solution. And it may be counterintuitive, but it’s true: they want death – especially at the hands of a perceived western enemy.

It is too easy to offer simplistic solutions to brutality. It is time to face up to the danger and confront it strategically, logically and without clouded nationalistic emotion. That is the least we owe to those murdered by the likes of Jihadi John.

its delusional thinking like this ........believing that the Jihadi Johns of this world somehow have a moral compass that continues to get people massacred.
these freaks are not for changing,they dont want peace talks or to be understood or befriended.
I wonder how many would have died trying to arrest him and bring him out alive,how many more would be have murdered before this happened?

missile on the head works fine in this instance.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Erm the guy in Norway?

Anders whatever his name was killed 77.

And the Crusaders, really? Nearly a thousand years ago. I am trying to have an honest discussion, not shift to other topics that have very little relevance, or maybe we should look to pay damages to Saladin?

 

[Diego Napier]

Jeremy Corbyn marches with Hamas and is best mates with IRA leaders. His opinions on terrorism are, frankly, skewed and irrelevant to this discussion.

But perhaps the opinions of David Haines' widow, the relatives of Stephen Sotlof and James Foley's mother are?

btw, if you're setting yourself up as the arbiter of opinions on terrorism on this thread that are, frankly, skewed and irrelevant, you've got your work cut out!

 

[Diego Napier]

Anders whatever his name was killed 77.

2011

 

[Buzzer]

But perhaps the opinions of David Haines' widow, the relatives of Stephen Sotlof and James Foley's mother are?

btw, if you're setting yourself up as the arbiter of opinions on terrorism on this thread that are, frankly, skewed and irrelevant, you've got your work cut out!

David Haines' daughter wanted a bullet between JJ's eyes. Other relatives of victims expressed similar opinions so it makes the point irrelevant. As irrelevant as Corbyn is in this matter.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03842jm

Interesting if true. If France does ask for assistance triggering article 5 of the NATO treaty any likely action will involve British forces. Talk of 10-15000 NATO troops on the ground would leave our debate on air strikes looking a bit redundant.

 

[Ernest]

View attachment 70019

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03842jm

Interesting if true. If France does ask for assistance triggering article 5 of the NATO treaty any likely action will involve British forces. Talk of 10-15000 NATO troops on the ground would leave our debate on air strikes looking a bit redundant.

And what forces have we got left to put on the ground now ?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

And what forces have we got left to put on the ground now ?

We have a range of forces capable of making a contribution if asked. The thousands deployed in Afghanistan and now returned home could play a role if needed.

 

[portslade seagull]

And what forces have we got left to put on the ground now ?

Even less is Corbyn has his way. I think sadly there is a long way to go with this within Europe

 

[Hampster Gull]

And what forces have we got left to put on the ground now ?

Nato will have plenty of troops, we are a cog in the wheel. Not sure i would put troops on the ground though