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

[ABBEY]

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160330/1037195187/daesh-europe-sleeper-cells.html

and here's yet another example of the madness rife in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12200926/Easter-quietly-dropped-from-Easter-eggs.html

i won two in a raffle and they both say chocalate eggs and no mention of easter

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

If anyone is to be feared it's the far-left. They pretty much want what '*the government want' in most cases - that being - complete division amongst the people (massively pushed through on religious grounds in recent times) a climate of fear, less freedom of speech (Newspeak) etc.

Long gone are the days when they were largely 'eco hippies'. Now they are basically a bunch of young(ish) fascist violent idiots with i-phones infiltrated and led by the *government - ready to put-down and label anyone that doesn't agree with them a "racist" - even when race isn't even involved.

Personally think the concepts of "far-left" and "far-right" to be unhelpful in muddying the waters. A political description should only be afforded to those who focus on dialogue.

Those who use an aggressive, intimidatory or violent approach to promote their views on any issue should be considered thuggish louts who are all exactly the same and whose views should immediately lose any credit whatsoever and should basically be completely ignored.

I would say its possible to have a far left or far right approach to politics without resorting to violence/intimidation and as such I think the traditional far left in this country has been hijacked in recent decades by sinister elements. One of the Lee Rigby killers spoke at a UAF rally, IS flags were spotted at Pro-Palestine rallies across Europe after the Israel invasion of the Gaza strip, there was the StopTheWar's disgraceful celebratory tweet about the Paris attacks and there's pretty good evidence to suggest the death threats to Labour MPs who supported the Syria bombing campaign were predominantly done by Islamists (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/30/man-jailed-for-online-threat-to-mp-who-voted-for-syria-airstrikes).

The far left has been infiltrated by Islamic extremists who are the driving force behind its recent lawlessness. Those who consider themselves to be a peaceful part of it and have so far chosen to ignore this are basically complicit in its increasingly sinister behaviour. Its almost like UKIP ignoring thousands of Neo-Nazis joining the party instead of taking great efforts to screen for them, can you imagine the reaction in the press.

[T J Hooker]

exactly pal. To many do gooders .

Yea thats why terrorism exists

[VinjayV4]

How long until someone bases a sitcom on this...

“Most of the people managed to stay calm, but as usual passengers on board made my day.

“A lovely Egyptian chap decided to call all his family and friends one by one in the middle of the hijacked plane when we were about to land to Cyprus and in a very loud voice “I’ve been kidnapped Mohamed, I’ve been kidnapped Fatma, etc lol).

One man was apparently calling his wife "to tell her about some money he was hiding in a bank," El Ashmawy wrote. "And the funniest part is his wife forgetting about the Hijack thing and asking him to repeat the bank name."

Another comical moment occurred when a passenger who had a frozen chicken in his handbag became irate that after the hostage negotiations were over and the passengers were boarding planes to return to Egypt, airline security wouldn't let him bring the chicken on the flight back to Cairo.

"He was so angry they are taking his farkha el baladi [local chicken] so the security guard, to end this funny discussion, told him they will put it in the fridge for him, leaving him [the passenger] shouting 'bet3ado hezam nasef we mesh 3ayezni akhod farkheti,'" which translates to "You guys let him take his explosive belt [on the plane] but you won't let me take my chicken?"

[Steve Moss]

Exactly. They aren't afraid of getting bombed are they? I'm flummoxed for a solution. The ideology is poisonous and that's above all what we need to stop. Whatever we have tried, these terror cells still exist. Like other similar groups they tend to prey on the weak. They are complete and utter wrong'uns.

We've bombed the crap out of them for a while now and it still hasn't stopped them or their attacks.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being a 'do gooder' on my part I can assure you.

Bombing is an incredibly poor way of demonstrating strength and resolve. First, it's indiscriminate. For every jihadi we bury we also kill many non-combatants which results in anger and rage so that jihadi is replaced (and maybe by more than one).

Second, it's considered cowardly. Yes, those pesky Westerners bombed us out of cities X, Y and Z, but they didn't face us in battle. Here's a great idea, let's take the battle into the West. See how they like it. The type of bombing campaign we're engaged in doesn't generate fear, it generates contempt and anger.

Third, related to the above, our supposed bombing campaign is incredibly small in comparison to what we've done in the past. We haven't leveled cities as we did in Germany and Japan. If we want to make them regret attacking us, we need to revisit the tactics of our ancestors.

Fourth, bombing doesn't take and hold territory. It reduces manpower and infrastructure but it doesn't take the fight in. Hard men well dug in can ride out a bombing, or leave and come back (or worse, travel to the West to fight here). If you want those men dead, you have to dig them out and shoot them.

There are doubtless other reasons I'm forgetting. But there is no provoking respect and fear via the type of bombing campaign we're running.

We need to either put boots on the ground, a lot of them, or we need to become merciless and cruel in a vast bombing campaign, or both. I suppose we could (though hope we don't) also engage in well published terror attacks of our own (for example, for everyone of ours killed via burning alive, we burn alive 10x the number of close relatives to known terrorists and tape it- this approximates the Russian/Mongol model). Finally, we could to simply get out. There is no winning a war of this nature with kindness, love and good manners. We must either being willing to send in armies, and spend both blood and money, to win and occupy for generations, or we must become crueler than our opponents. If we aren't willing to do that, we need to get out and let them slaughter each other.

I personally prefer to get out. If there are those who want to fight the "Caliphate" in the Middle East, we can give them weapons and wish them luck. And if Muslims commit acts of terror in the West, I think we should be extraordinarily cruel in response, including expulsion of entire families and/or neighborhoods which harbor them. If they won't police their own, then they need to go.

[VinjayV4]

Another comical moment occurred when a passenger who had a frozen chicken in his handbag became irate that after the hostage negotiations were over and the passengers were boarding planes to return to Egypt, airline security wouldn't let him bring the chicken on the flight back to Cairo.

"He was so angry they are taking his farkha el baladi [local chicken] so the security guard, to end this funny discussion, told him they will put it in the fridge for him, leaving him [the passenger] shouting 'bet3ado hezam nasef we mesh 3ayezni akhod farkheti,'" which translates to "You guys let him take his explosive belt [on the plane] but you won't let me take my chicken?"

Rumor has it his name was Balaji...

[yoda]

mmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

VinjayV4, on 30 Mar 2016 - 5:42 PM, said:

Another comical moment occurred when a passenger who had a frozen chicken in his handbag became irate that after the hostage negotiations were over and the passengers were boarding planes to return to Egypt, airline security wouldn't let him bring the chicken on the flight back to Cairo.

"He was so angry they are taking his farkha el baladi [local chicken] so the security guard, to end this funny discussion, told him they will put it in the fridge for him, leaving him [the passenger] shouting 'bet3ado hezam nasef we mesh 3ayezni akhod farkheti,'" which translates to "You guys let him take his explosive belt [on the plane] but you won't let me take my chicken?"

Rumor has it his name was Balaji...

Talking to yourself Vinjay ?

[VinjayV4]

mmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

VinjayV4, on 30 Mar 2016 - 5:42 PM, said:

Rumor has it his name was Balaji...

Talking to yourself Vinjay ?

Are you obsessed with my posts Yoda?

Afterthought with a chicken joke that probably wasn't particularly amusing (like most of them in the past) I'll just edit next time shall I?

[yoda]

Are you obsessed with my posts Yoda?

Afterthought with a chicken joke that probably wasn't particularly amusing (like most of them in the past) I'll just edit next time shall I?

Might be as well to edit it, not obsessed Vinjay, just can't get away from them

[joey_big_nose]

Bombing is an incredibly poor way of demonstrating strength and resolve. First, it's indiscriminate. For every jihadi we bury we also kill many non-combatants which results in anger and rage so that jihadi is replaced (and maybe by more than one).

Second, it's considered cowardly. Yes, those pesky Westerners bombed us out of cities X, Y and Z, but they didn't face us in battle. Here's a great idea, let's take the battle into the West. See how they like it. The type of bombing campaign we're engaged in doesn't generate fear, it generates contempt and anger.

Third, related to the above, our supposed bombing campaign is incredibly small in comparison to what we've done in the past. We haven't leveled cities as we did in Germany and Japan. If we want to make them regret attacking us, we need to revisit the tactics of our ancestors.

Fourth, bombing doesn't take and hold territory. It reduces manpower and infrastructure but it doesn't take the fight in. Hard men well dug in can ride out a bombing, or leave and come back (or worse, travel to the West to fight here). If you want those men dead, you have to dig them out and shoot them.

There are doubtless other reasons I'm forgetting. But there is no provoking respect and fear via the type of bombing campaign we're running.

We need to either put boots on the ground, a lot of them, or we need to become merciless and cruel in a vast bombing campaign, or both. I suppose we could (though hope we don't) also engage in well published terror attacks of our own (for example, for everyone of ours killed via burning alive, we burn alive 10x the number of close relatives to known terrorists and tape it- this approximates the Russian/Mongol model). Finally, we could to simply get out. There is no winning a war of this nature with kindness, love and good manners. We must either being willing to send in armies, and spend both blood and money, to win and occupy for generations, or we must become crueler than our opponents. If we aren't willing to do that, we need to get out and let them slaughter each other.

I personally prefer to get out. If there are those who want to fight the "Caliphate" in the Middle East, we can give them weapons and wish them luck. And if Muslims commit acts of terror in the West, I think we should be extraordinarily cruel in response, including expulsion of entire families and/or neighborhoods which harbor them. If they won't police their own, then they need to go.

That's the end of civilization right there.

Even if you are not a citizen of a country you are still entitled to a fair trial and to be punished as an individual, not a collective. To start collectively punishing groups would be the biggest regression in justice we have seen in modernity. It's unthinkable and also profoundly illegal.

Edit - agree with most of the post above though (except the totally immoral mass bombing and murdering of innocents part which is ludicrous) - the options are either pull out completely or commit huge ground forces. In between doesn't work.

[Steve Moss]

That's the end of civilization right there.

Even if you are not a citizen of a country you are still entitled to a fair trial and to be punished as an individual, not a collective. To start collectively punishing groups would be the biggest regression in justice we have seen in modernity. It's unthinkable and also profoundly illegal.

Edit - agree with most of the post above though (except the totally immoral mass bombing and murdering of innocents part which is ludicrous) - the options are either pull out completely or commit huge ground forces. In between doesn't work.

So I'm confused. Are you agreeing with the end of civilization?

Not being willing to man the walls and spill blood will be the end of civilization as we know it. Treating war as a criminal justice matter will be the end of civilization as we know it.

If we're at war, we kill people. We don't read them their rights and try to use the least amount of force to apprehend them. We kill them.

If we're dealing with domestic crime, not infiltrating terrorists and their supporters, then the criminal code applies.

And if we're dealing with terrorists/traitors, and those who give aid and comfort to terrorists/traitors (who are, as a result,terrorists/traitors themselves), we could, if you like, give them a trial before we line them up against the wall and shoot them. But I think expelling those who give them aid and comfort is a much more humane course of action and, maybe, result in them policing their own.

[VinjayV4]

So I'm confused. Are you agreeing with the end of civilization?

Not being willing to man the walls and spill blood will be the end of civilization as we know it. Treating war as a criminal justice matter will be the end of civilization as we know it.

If we're at war, we kill people. We don't read them their rights and try to use the least amount of force to apprehend them. We kill them.

If we're dealing with domestic crime, not infiltrating terrorists and their supporters, then the criminal code applies.

And if we're dealing with terrorists/traitors, and those who give aid and comfort to terrorists/traitors (who are, as a result,terrorists/traitors themselves), we could, if you like, give them a trial before we line them up against the wall and shoot them. But I think expelling those who give them aid and comfort is a much more humane course of action and, maybe, result in them policing their own.

By no means are their families always supporters as you suggested in the "burning alive" post. Bin Laden's family never supported him and when they were linked to Newcastle I would gladly have supported them buying Rovers. You can't judge people by their relatives.

Civilian casualties is a different matter its unfortunate but its always been that way in war. Innocent people get caught up in the fallout and probably always will. At least in the UK's case its not a policy to intentionally target civilians.

I still can't see how you can stop people willing to kill themselves. Kill as many as possible and take back territory (I agree force is needed against ISIS and the ones who aren't willing to blow themselves up will be stopped and punished) but how do you wipe out such individual networks?

[Steve Moss]

1. By no means are their families always supporters as you suggested in the "burning alive" post. Bin Laden's family never supported him and when they were linked to Newcastle I would gladly have supported them buying Rovers. You can't judge people by their relatives.

Civilian casualties is a different matter its unfortunate but its always been that way in war. Innocent people get caught up in the fallout and probably always will. At least in the UK's case its not a policy to intentionally target civilians.

I still can't see how you can stop people willing to kill themselves. Kill as many as possible and take back territory (I agree force is needed against ISIS and the ones who aren't willing to blow themselves up will be stopped and punished) but how do you wipe out such individual networks?

1. Try to be honest. I stated I disapproved of that tactic. It would, however, be effective as history has demonstrated.

2. A bullet. Many, many bullets. To repeat the advice of Gen. Curtis LeMay, "I'll tell you what war is about, you've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting." If they are suicidal, there is no reasoning with them so we may as well get to the task on hand of reuniting them with Allah.

[VinjayV4]

1. Try to be honest. I stated I disapproved of that tactic. It would, however, be effective as history has demonstrated.

2. A bullet. Many, many bullets. To repeat the advice of Gen. Curtis LeMay, "I'll tell you what war is about, you've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting." If they are suicidal, there is no reasoning with them so we may as well get to the task on hand of reuniting them with Allah.

Sorry I'll try to read it properly next time!

Its the number of suicidal fighters (particularly networks such as Brussels/Paris affiliated to IS) that nobody can seem to stop. Its like dealing with a slow, terminal disease you just can't find a definitive cure for.

[adopted scouser]

£280m per year in foreign aid to India alone (who have a space programme). Wouldn't that give the steel industry and it's 15,000 at risk British employees a leg up ?

[VinjayV4]

£280m per year in foreign aid to India alone (who have a space programme). Wouldn't that give the steel industry and it's 15,000 at risk British employees a leg up ?

Should be the responsibility of the Red Cross, etc (particularly in much poorer countries than India) to fundraise not the government. That might not seem particularly humanitarian but this country comes first. Refugees/Immigration needs to be controlled for resource reasons as well. That does not mean just stereotyping them all as terrorists or racially motivated. Nor does it make me a supporter of one issue parties such as UKIP. For the record I've usually switched my vote between Conservative and Labour. Probably will many times in future as well. Can't ever see myself being affiliated to one particular party its not made much difference to my life either way.

Yes was talking about the steel industry on twitter yesterday. Confused a reference to the British Steel industry as the British Steel that bought Jack out. That became part of Corus and now its part of TATA. The Walkersteel company that exists now in Blackburn has no connection to the old company (other than name) and Howard Walker isn't even involved anymore apparently.

[yoda]

Should be the responsibility of the Red Cross, etc (particularly in much poorer countries than India) to fundraise not the government. That might not seem particularly humanitarian but this country comes first. Refugees/Immigration needs to be controlled for resource reasons as well. That does not mean just stereotyping them all as terrorists or racially motivated. Nor does it make me a supporter of one issue parties such as UKIP. For the record I've usually switched my vote between Conservative and Labour. Probably will many times in future as well. Can't ever see myself being affiliated to one particular party its not made much difference to my life either way.

What made you change between the two parties, was it specific issues?

[adopted scouser]

Charity begins at home, not just a space programme but, err aircraft carriers when the Royal Navy is on it's knees.

The government can make up the £70m shortfall until we tell the Chinese to sod off. Should be something drawn up in statute that all new construction projects are fabricated using British Steel.

[yoda]

And them bloody Indian call centres should be moved back to England

[adopted scouser]

And them bloody Indian call centres should be moved back to England

Why not ?

It's difficult to understand what they are saying over the phone, despite them being called Trevor and Philip.

[VinjayV4]

What made you change between the two parties, was it specific issues?

No my votes have all been based on who I believe will be the better PM LOL. I thought Cameron would be better than Miliband. Before that I thought Brown would be better continuing than Cameron. It all seemed to go wrong for Brown from the moment he refused to call an early election. Can't remember if I voted in 2005 (not old enough in 2001) but probably would have been for Blair. Don't think Howard did anything to make me vote for him.

Yes I know we don't exactly "vote for a PM" but I couldn't care less about local politics. I vote for the seat from a party/PM perspective not the individual MPs. I certainly haven't been impressed by Hollern and Eastwood (or whatever his name was who was Conservative candidate) didn't impress me either though he got my vote based on what I've said. Hardly a big fan of Cameron but preferred to "stick with what you know" than go with Miliband.

Can't say Corbyn has made much of an impression on me. Certainly don't agree with his Trident policy which is main issue I have with him.

[yoda]

No my votes have all been based on who I believe will be the better PM LOL. I thought Cameron would be better than Miliband. Before that I thought Brown would be better continuing than Cameron. It all seemed to go wrong for Brown from the moment he refused to call an early election.

Yes I know we don't exactly "vote for a PM" but I couldn't care less about local politics. I vote for the seat from a party/PM perspective not the individuals. I certainly haven't been impressed by Hollern and Eastwood (or whatever his name was who was Conservative candidate) didn't impress me either. Hardly a big fan of Cameron but preferred to "stick with what you know" than go with Miliband.

Can't say Corbyn has made much of an impression on me. Certainly don't agree with his Trident policy which is main issue I have with him.

Looks like you will be trying to voting for Boris next then, problem is, if you put a red rose on a dead donkey it would get voted in, in Blackburn.

[VinjayV4]

Looks like you will be trying to voting for Boris next then, problem is, if you put a red rose on a dead donkey it would get voted in, in Blackburn.

Yeah that's true. Though it would have been interesting had Jack tried to influence people (which he wouldn't have) to vote Conservative. Still I just didn't think Labour did anything whatsoever to deserve my vote. Miliband didn't offend me he was just a non entity.

[yoda]

Yeah that's true. Though it would have been interesting had Jack tried to influence people (which he wouldn't have) to vote Conservative. Still I just didn't think Labour did anything whatsoever to deserve my vote. Miliband didn't offend me he was just a non entity.

Are you just assuming Jack was a conservative ?

[JBiz]

Why criticise the government for foreign aid when they just cut taxes for those who didn't need it, costing the country 500 billion?

I find criticism of giving to the poorest people sickening when we all know what some businesses in this country get away with, but that's just me.