[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[Audax]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/20/manhattan-bomb-suspect-pleads-not-guilty-to-attempted-murder.html

This story (it's by Associated Press not Fox News in case anyone has hangups about that); showed this fellow being put in trial on trying to place bombs in New York and New Jersey. See story.

[yoda]

I have to say I have changed my plans on the back of things like this in the past.

Last year we had a trip to winter wonderland in London booked late December but just didn't feel comfortable going in the wake of the Bataclan attacks and the talk of capitals being targeted.

We shouldn't bow to it and let them win but easier said then done when your children are involved.[/quote

I think you have answered my point with the 1st line, these people are trying and succeeding little by little to change our liberal way of life in the west.

They need removing

[ABBEY]

Let me know how it is I wanted to go this year but left it too late to sort a date when we were all off!

its fantastic pal ,we went last year as well

AND BASIL BRUSH IS ON !!! GET IN

[Al]

IS (or whatever we call them this week) claim Berlin as one of their attacks.

Horrific events, but it's important to recognise the difference between a terrorist group, immigrants, and religious groups.

Why? If you are suspicious of them all you cover most of the problems.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Absolutely they can be all 3 (or claim to be - I see very little religious belief in terrorism, but that's a grey area for some - like those suicide bombers beleiving they are going to paradise etc ), but the point is that people need to be able to see the clear differences between the 3 things.

It will be very interesting to see Trumps reaction, the middle east needs to have leaders who can instill a rule of law, so the likes of IS cannot operate in it. Will trump back Putin in Syria, or continue the current US agenda of backing the Rebels?

IMO the whole thing needs a massive push, to force IS out of all territories. That needs international forces, and UN backing, has Trump got the nous and power to do That?

But if they can, and fairly regularly are, all 3, then how can people see the clear differences? Seems to me some effort has to go in to artificially insisting they are there.

I think Trump on a personal level definitely favours Assad over the rebels. It's the smart option for the west but it's very questionable morally and one that could lead to history judging him. There are plenty of people enthusiastic about sticking the boot in on western governments past middle east policy of favouring the lesser of 2 evils. The usual ammo for that is when that lesser of 2 evils then persecutes the defeated side or stirs up trouble for the west anyway. Supporting Assad in any overt manner (which even not supporting the rebels could be classed as) is risky in my opinion.

I agree on IS. I've wanted boots on the ground from day one. But the UN has proven beyond all doubt in recent years that it is completely ineffective. The international coalition conducting airstrikes can't even operate under the UN banner. The organisation is a complete failure if you ask me. So it'd be back to Iraq and the US and a handful of staunch allies going it alone. Trump won't do it because he knows the same people who took to the streets on his election win would be back and then some.

[Husky]

For rebels read 'terrorists' as that's basically what they are.

I find the anti-Russian stuff that the mainstream media is pushing to be quite ridiculous - so much so that one could argue that it helped radicalise the 'Turkish Policeman' to assassinate the Russian Ambassador.

In short, Russia is the least of 'our worries' - essentially a Christian country with largely 'Western values'.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are still a lot of people in the world that watch only the mainstream rubbish and nothing else. Why is it that when I look at other news sources that I'm seeing crowds of Aleppo residents celebrating the defeat of ISIS, government soldiers delivering aid and reports of 'US/Turkish undercover ops' being found with ISIS? Yet there's not any mention of this on mainstream liar stations like BBC/CNN etc.?

Also, anyone would think that Saudi Arabia (with US/British help) haven't been bombing the crap out of Yemen for the past 18 months or so as there's hardly been a whisper. In true political fashion they chose to finally admit their cluster bomb sales knowing the news would be buried in between the Berlin terrorist attack and the assassination . . no need to invent a Tony @#/? Blair style bird flu (or similar) story this time to keep it out of the headlines . . https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/saudi-arabia-admits-use-uk-made-cluster-bombs-yemen

How is one to feel when your home country is essentially on the same side as your perceived enemies?

[Husky]

I think the world has gone full retard.

In what kind of world do the 'authorities' release a pixilated photo of a suspected mass murderer at large?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

The media seems to be judging Russia by the same standards it judges us in terms of how you go about waging war. The UK and its close allies have been keeping civilian casualties as low as possible in the campaign against IS, which I would imagine makes objectives harder to achieve, so it takes longer and is more expensive. So our governments are prioritising human life over time and money, and rightly so in my opinion. Russia evidently has no such scruples. But then again neither does Saudi Arabia with the Houthis or Turkey with the Kurds, and I don’t see the media laying into them nearly as much as Russia. Fear of being accused of Islamophobia perhaps?

As for us selling arms to Saudi Arabia, we need to pack that in right now if you ask me. It’s an extremist country in many respects and it’s currently spending more than 1.5 times as much as we are on its military. At what point do we decide there’s a chance of it turning round and biting us?

[yoda]

I think the world has gone full retard.

In what kind of world do the 'authorities' release a pixilated photo of a suspected mass murderer at large?

We wouldn't want to infringe his human rights before he has had a cup of tea

[Steve Moss]

But if they can, and fairly regularly are, all 3, then how can people see the clear differences? Seems to me some effort has to go in to artificially insisting they are there.

I think Trump on a personal level definitely favours Assad over the rebels. It's the smart option for the west but it's very questionable morally and one that could lead to history judging him. There are plenty of people enthusiastic about sticking the boot in on western governments past middle east policy of favouring the lesser of 2 evils. The usual ammo for that is when that lesser of 2 evils then persecutes the defeated side or stirs up trouble for the west anyway. Supporting Assad in any overt manner (which even not supporting the rebels could be classed as) is risky in my opinion.

I agree on IS. I've wanted boots on the ground from day one. But the UN has proven beyond all doubt in recent years that it is completely ineffective. The international coalition conducting airstrikes can't even operate under the UN banner. The organisation is a complete failure if you ask me. So it'd be back to Iraq and the US and a handful of staunch allies going it alone. Trump won't do it because he knows the same people who took to the streets on his election win would be back and then some.

I agree with most of what you say in this post. But I don't think Trump will let protesters influence his thinking one way or the other. In fact the opposite may be true. If he thinks he'll get paid protesters out if he makes a certain decision, that's a twofer as far as he's concerned. He'll be bleeding someone (DNC, etc) of cash, while reminding his voters of the type of person than oppose him. Which is in itself a win.

[Steve Moss]

A Tunisian immigrant by the name of Anis Amri is the current suspect. Here's a non-pixilated photo. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4054140/How-German-police-bungled-hunt-Europe-s-wanted-man-Asylum-seeker-23-wrongly-blamed-Christmas-market-massacre-jumping-red-light.html

A few questions. Why is anyone without papers allowed in the country or allowed to stay once found? Second, how is it that Tunisia can refuse to take him back? Trump has the right idea, if a foreign country refuses to take back its bad guys we should put them up in the finest hotels, under guard, and bill the expense to the foreign aid account of whatever nation is refusing to take them. When it hits them in the pocket book, they'll take these crazies back and deal with them on a far more cost effective basis.

And GBH? Why was a person suspected of GBH walking the streets? Do the police seriously let these people go, thinking that they'll just turn themselves in when charges are formalized?

And here's another article on the type of maniacs with whom we're having to deal. A mother sends her 7 and 9 year old daughters out on a suicide bombing mission. Presumably because that makes Allah happy and girls are not as valuable as boys. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jihadi-parents-kiss-daughters-aged-9494372

Here's another article on how immigrants are succeeding in creating a nation within a nation, complete with misogynistic behavior codes, and we do nothing. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/marine-le-pen-promises-drive-machos-mosques/

There is a lot of madness in these articles. It's like western culture (or more likely our leaders) have a death wish.

[Al]

Never mind Tunisia refuses to take them back Put them on a plane, refuse to allow them back and let them sort out who will have them.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I agree with most of what you say in this post. But I don't think Trump will let protesters influence his thinking one way or the other. In fact the opposite may be true. If he thinks he'll get paid protesters out if he makes a certain decision, that's a twofer as far as he's concerned. He'll be bleeding someone (DNC, etc) of cash, while reminding his voters of the type of person than oppose him. Which is in itself a win.

Hmm I dunno, he's obviously a thick-skinned guy but he's gone through arguably the toughest, most venomous election battle in US history at 70 years of age. Seems to me with his more concilliatory tone since winning that he's decided now to start picking his battles.

I personally struggle to fathom the mentality of not wanting our governments to obliterate IS like the rabid animals deserve. But you look at the reaction in this country to the UK expanding air strikes into Syria (death threats for Labour politicians) and boots on the ground is clearly a politically rocky road to follow.

[jim mk2]

Would Syria now be a better place if the right wing warmongers had got their way in 2013 and Cameron had sent in armed forces to destabilise the Assad regime and help Isis take over the country ?

Answers on a postcard to

D Cameron (former PM - failed)

c/o Blairmore Holdings

Panama

[ABBEY]

Funny how Jim and cup o cha brigade have not condemned another terrorist

[yoda]

Would Syria now be a better place if the right wing warmongers had got their way in 2013 and Cameron had sent in armed forces to destabilise the Assad regime and help Isis take over the country ?

Answers on a postcard to

D Cameron (former PM - failed)

c/o Blairmore Holdings

Panama

Germany (and the Schengen zone) would be a better place if Merkel had not opened the flood gates

[ABBEY]

They have raped , pillaged and murdered all blood and guilt on that German bitche's hands

[jim mk2]

The trouble with interventionism is that it created a humanitarian disaster in Iraq from 2003 onward and another in Libya from 2011. The lesson from both of these should have been that the removal of a dictator may be desirable but the creation of a power vacuum can exacerbate an already dangerous situation. If we're going to wring our hands about what could have been done to avoid the Aleppo catastrophe, we should be thankful at least that the Commons denied Cameron and other blood thirsty right wingers the opportunity to make the Syrian situation very much worse.

[Audax]

Assad and Iran helped the forces, Jihadis, that were attacking the international coalition in the Iraq war. That is pretty well established on a timeline. In fact, apparently this Iranian General Soleimani led Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and killed coalition forces.

If one is going to do such an intervention, it seems a much larger troop presence was needed, even then, it seems that Obama drew down American troops in Iraq cerca 2011; the Libyan intervention seemed too, to have left-wingers like Obama playing a key part.

[Baz]

But if they can, and fairly regularly are, all 3, then how can people see the clear differences? Seems to me some effort has to go in to artificially insisting they are there.

I think Trump on a personal level definitely favours Assad over the rebels. It's the smart option for the west but it's very questionable morally and one that could lead to history judging him. There are plenty of people enthusiastic about sticking the boot in on western governments past middle east policy of favouring the lesser of 2 evils. The usual ammo for that is when that lesser of 2 evils then persecutes the defeated side or stirs up trouble for the west anyway. Supporting Assad in any overt manner (which even not supporting the rebels could be classed as) is risky in my opinion.

I agree on IS. I've wanted boots on the ground from day one. But the UN has proven beyond all doubt in recent years that it is completely ineffective. The international coalition conducting airstrikes can't even operate under the UN banner. The organisation is a complete failure if you ask me. So it'd be back to Iraq and the US and a handful of staunch allies going it alone. Trump won't do it because he knows the same people who took to the streets on his election win would be back and then some.

Whilst they can be all 3 things, it's still important to not use that as a reason to say because 1000 Muslims (or whatever number) are terrorists, then all Muslims must also be. It's a clear definition.

Regarding ISIS, it needs to be UN backed, and have a coalition including Russia, and also include at least some Islamic countries troops - with a clear aim AND a clear viable plan for what happens afterwards. That includes agreeing if the Kurds (one of the non-IS rebel groups) get their own country / or autonomous regions within Syria / Iraq etc. I don't think there's any appetite in this country to put British troops back in battle (especially given their decimation under the Conservative government), and I just cannot see Trumps having the ability to negotiate that kind of coalition - I can only see stalemate for the time being, Al Bashir in control of Aleppo, and IS / Kurds battling over the rest. Time for a good old US coop?

Why? If you are suspicious of them all you cover most of the problems.

So we should be suspicious of all Muslims as Terrorists?

[Steve Moss]

All Muslims are not terrorists. Many are wonderful, loving, productive, law abiding and patriotic.

There are very few actual jihadis. There are more Islamists (who sympathize and or vocally/quietly support jihadis). But there are more decent Muslims.

That being said, so what? It only takes a few virus cells to make a body deathly ill, even if most are fine. We have no obligation to take immigrants regardless of home country, ethnicity or religion. We decide who enters our country. Others, including the immigrants themselves, don't decide for us.

In my opinion, immigration is good if the immigrant benefits the country and we know who is entering. Otherwise, not.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Assad and Iran helped the forces, Jihadis, that were attacking the international coalition in the Iraq war. That is pretty well established on a timeline. In fact, apparently this Iranian General Soleimani led Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and killed coalition forces.

If one is going to do such an intervention, it seems a much larger troop presence was needed, even then, it seems that Obama drew down American troops in Iraq cerca 2011; the Libyan intervention seemed too, to have left-wingers like Obama playing a key part.

Mm, Obama is a left winger ? Well I suppose he is compared with Trump !

A Tunisian immigrant by the name of Anis Amri is the current suspect. Here's a non-pixilated photo. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4054140/How-German-police-bungled-hunt-Europe-s-wanted-man-Asylum-seeker-23-wrongly-blamed-Christmas-market-massacre-jumping-red-light.htmlA few questions. Why is anyone without papers allowed in the country or allowed to stay once found? Second, how is it that Tunisia can refuse to take him back? Trump has the right idea, if a foreign country refuses to take back its bad guys we should put them up in the finest hotels, under guard, and bill the expense to the foreign aid account of whatever nation is refusing to take them. When it hits them in the pocket book, they'll take these crazies back and deal with them on a far more cost effective basis.And GBH? Why was a person suspected of GBH walking the streets? Do the police seriously let these people go, thinking that they'll just turn themselves in when charges are formalized?And here's another article on the type of maniacs with whom we're having to deal. A mother sends her 7 and 9 year old daughters out on a suicide bombing mission. Presumably because that makes Allah happy and girls are not as valuable as boys. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jihadi-parents-kiss-daughters-aged-9494372Here's another article on how immigrants are succeeding in creating a nation within a nation, complete with misogynistic behavior codes, and we do nothing. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/marine-le-pen-promises-drive-machos-mosques/There is a lot of madness in these articles. It's like western culture (or more likely our leaders) have a death wish.

Let's just hope he's the guy they want and it's not the real killers idea of leaving some other guys documents in the cab putting the police totally off the scent while he gets clean away.

But if they can, and fairly regularly are, all 3, then how can people see the clear differences? Seems to me some effort has to go in to artificially insisting they are there.

I think Trump on a personal level definitely favours Assad over the rebels. It's the smart option for the west but it's very questionable morally and one that could lead to history judging him. There are plenty of people enthusiastic about sticking the boot in on western governments past middle east policy of favouring the lesser of 2 evils. The usual ammo for that is when that lesser of 2 evils then persecutes the defeated side or stirs up trouble for the west anyway. Supporting Assad in any overt manner (which even not supporting the rebels could be classed as) is risky in my opinion.

I agree on IS. I've wanted boots on the ground from day one. But the UN has proven beyond all doubt in recent years that it is completely ineffective. The international coalition conducting airstrikes can't even operate under the UN banner. The organisation is a complete failure if you ask me. So it'd be back to Iraq and the US and a handful of staunch allies going it alone. Trump won't do it because he knows the same people who took to the streets on his election win would be back and then some.

These boots you want on the ground , will your feet be in them ?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Whilst they can be all 3 things, it's still important to not use that as a reason to say because 1000 Muslims (or whatever number) are terrorists, then all Muslims must also be. It's a clear definition.

Regarding ISIS, it needs to be UN backed, and have a coalition including Russia, and also include at least some Islamic countries troops - with a clear aim AND a clear viable plan for what happens afterwards. That includes agreeing if the Kurds (one of the non-IS rebel groups) get their own country / or autonomous regions within Syria / Iraq etc. I don't think there's any appetite in this country to put British troops back in battle (especially given their decimation under the Conservative government), and I just cannot see Trumps having the ability to negotiate that kind of coalition - I can only see stalemate for the time being, Al Bashir in control of Aleppo, and IS / Kurds battling over the rest. Time for a good old US coop?

You can't say all Muslims are terrorists, you equally can't say there is no link between Muslims and terrorists. All the major conflicts, most of the minor conflicts and the vast majority of terrorist groups in the world at the moment have Muslims as the protagonists. Those are just facts.

I don't know if you're putting the task of getting the UN to authorise military action at the door of Trump but I think its unfair if so. God himself couldn't bring the UN to the table on this, it's an organization entirely unfit for its purpose. As I say the appetite for any conflict ever from both elements within the UN and within western populaces is zero, it would be a minus if that were possible.

For the last 3 years the world has watched a group carry out war crimes, human rights abuses, genocides of multiple religions, recruiting child soldiers, using civilians as human shields, weaponised rape, slavery, mass executions, use of chemical weapons and eradication of all non-Islamic cultural heritage in their territory.

If these f*****s were the bad guys in a fantasy film they'd be criticised for being too evil and so unrealistic. They are the type of blackness in the human condition that are the very reason armies exist and yet you've got millions of people worldwide who's rather we do nothing than use them.

Like Tyrone who thinks he can somehow embarass me every time I make this point because I'm not in the military. You should be embarassed mate, for 3 years we've allowed people to suffer atrocities of the like almost never seen in human history. If I'd supported that stance I'd be ashamed, never mind embarassed, for the rest of my life.

[Baz]

You can't say all Muslims are terrorists, you equally can't say there is no be lednk between Muslims and terrorists. All the major conflicts, most of the minor conflicts and the vast majority of terrorist groups in the world at the moment have Muslims as the protagonists. Those are just facts.

I don't know if you're putting the task of getting the UN to authorise military action at the door of Trump but I think its unfair if so. God himself couldn't bring the UN to the table on this, it's an organization entirely unfit for its purpose. As I say the appetite for any conflict ever from both elements within the UN and within western populaces is zero, it would be a minus if that were possible.

For the last 3 years the world has watched a group carry out war crimes, human rights abuses, genocides of multiple religions, recruiting child soldiers, using civilians as human shields, weaponised rape, slavery, mass executions, use of chemical weapons and eradication of all non-Islamic cultural heritage in their territory.

If these f*****s were the bad guys in a fantasy film they'd be criticised for being too evil and so unrealistic. They are the type of blackness in the human condition that are the very reason armies exist and yet you've got millions of people worldwide who's rather we do nothing than use them.

Like Tyrone who thinks he can somehow embarass me every time I make this point because I'm not in the military. You should be embarassed mate, for 3 years we've allowed people to suffer atrocities of the like almost never seen in human history. If I'd supported that stance I'd be ashamed, never mind embarassed, for the rest of my life.

It absolutely has to be Trump, he's the next leader of the free world, and if any coalition force was to be raised, it would have to be led by US forces. There's no one else going to do it. Not saying it's right, but in reality it's not going to be anyone else.

I don't deny that at present most active terrorist groups are Islamic, but that's not causality unique to Islam, almost all acts of terrorism in history have been based on religion or political ideology of some kind. The truth is that the vast majority of people from whatever religious beliefs are not terrorists, or want any part of it - even if they share some religious beliefs with the terrorists, or want some of the same things - like Northern Ireland.

[Steve Moss]

You can't say all Muslims are terrorists, you equally can't say there is no link between Muslims and terrorists. All the major conflicts, most of the minor conflicts and the vast majority of terrorist groups in the world at the moment have Muslims as the protagonists. Those are just facts.

More correctly, most terrorists committing terrorist acts in the Western world are Salafi Muslims (a sect of Sunnis). There are plenty of Shia terrorists, but they tend to torment other Shias.

I'm convinced once we start calling a spade a spade and ditch political correctness that we'd be able to narrow in rather precisely on who the killers are, where they are from, and what their ideology is. Our refusal to acknowledge or clearly define the parameters of the problem, or commit to the viciousness that we'll have to demonstrate to win, has hurt us immensely on the strategic level. I'm hopeful that Trump, who has no real ideology, will reverse this failure.

It absolutely has to be Trump, he's the next leader of the free world, and if any coalition force was to be raised, it would have to be led by US forces. There's no one else going to do it. Not saying it's right, but in reality it's not going to be anyone else.

I don't deny that at present most active terrorist groups are Islamic, but that's not causality unique to Islam, almost all acts of terrorism in history have been based on religion or political ideology of some kind. The truth is that the vast majority of people from whatever religious beliefs are not terrorists, or want any part of it - even if they share some religious beliefs with the terrorists, or want some of the same things - like Northern Ireland.

I agree that we need to deal decisively with ISIS. I have no interest in fighting Asad or the Russians. I have no respect for the UN. I suspect Trump feels the same way. If so, I think it is likely we'll see boots on the ground (with or without UN approval) but it will be an American/Russian partnership working with Asad to clean up Syria. We need peace and stability in the Middle East and if they can't handle democracy and the concept of religious and economic freedom, then strong men it is.