Jump to content

Charlie Hebdo


Pickles
 Share

Recommended Posts

So ebaynut thinks that any none European or descendants from non Europeans should be kicked out.

Let's hope that North America does not take a similar stand. The UK will get a vast number from the US and Canada, France a whole load from Canada and some from the US, Italy and Spain from the US.

And what about Britain, let's kick out all those who are not descended from Anglo Saxons, or should we go back further.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote user="PaulT"]Let's hope that North America does not take a similar stand. 

And what about Britain, let's kick out all those who are not descended from Anglo Saxons, or should we go back further.[/quote]

Seeing as acording to the US governments website (Quick Facts) only 1.2% of Americans are native which means an awful lot of them are immigrants.

If you only kept Anglo Saxons in the UK the NHS would colapse over night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To return to the main topic of this thread and having just ploughed my way through  and have had some thoughts about the serious issues raised.

There is a legal axiom that "Hard cases make bad law". This I take to mean that reacting to horrific events without taking proper thought often leads to bad legislation. I see a risk that these events can lead to a demonization of all muslims and many immigrants. Some of the anti-muslim comments I have seen in the media are not so far removed from anti-Semitic remarks made in the 1930s.

IMO we do not have an absolute right to freedom of speech. For example we should not shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema unless there is a fire. As a small boy I was taught not to make personal remarks about people even if they were true. Perhaps we should remember that good manners and respect make the world a nicer place to live in. While nothing, IMO, justifies these tragic events  perhaps we should respect the sincere  views held by millions of Muslims. In return they should respect our views.  My own position is that everyone is free to believe whatever they want but their action must be consistent with the law of whichever country they live in/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone living close to Paris who is interested, a silent march will begin at 15h on Sunday, at Place de la Republique.

Because large crowds are expected, there are 3 routes leading from Place de la Republique - all ending at Place de la Nation:

Place de la Bastille

Blvd Richard Lenoir

Avenue Philippe Auguste

Metro stations in Bastille should be closed.

Bus services will be diverted or stopped altogether along the routes.

There will also be a march in Liverpool; a group of French people living in Liverpool are organising a peaceful, non-political march in support of the victims murdered in Paris and their families on Sunday.

The march will start in Derby Square at 2pm and continue around the city centre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While agreeing with the sentiment expressed by you Rabbie, you have hit the nail on the head with "In return, they should respect our views". I'm afraid the Saudi King and his ilk are not going to be persuaded by fine words. Witness the barbaric treatment meeted out to the chap yesterday who had expressed liberal views on his website - 10 years in jail and 50 lashes every week for 20 weeks - a thousand floggings. Apart from the physical cruelty, just imagine the mental torture of knowing that after each flogging, there will be the same next week and the week after....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, I hold no brief for the Saudi regime. As I understand it the unfortunate victim of this outrage is a Saudi citizen and was no doubt aware of the possible consequences of his actions. While I would welcome a change of heart by the Saudi regime I do not feel that it justifies violence. Two wrongs do not make a right
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 2 points here, Rabbie. The first is whether or not the rest of the world stands by while others commit atrocities against their citizens. We (including the USA) seem to pick and choose about which regimes justify being put in their place.

The second, of perhaps more relevant to this post, is that they are sending out indoctrinated murderers into our countries. We can't simply turn the other cheek to that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan

My understanding of what happens in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is that the Royal family have much less power than we might think.

Your analogy of blaming the king for the decision of a legal/religious court is akin to blaming the Queen for the Hillsborough cover up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony of it is that when Syria started attacking it's own citizens the French to start with wanted to attack the Syrian regime. They in turn said they were not fighting their own people so much as terrorist which we now know is actually ISIS. However so committed to this Syrian problem those involved are in so deep they can't see the woods for the trees and now have to continue regardless. As long at the west keeps getting involved in the middle east the Arabs will never sort out their own problems. There is an Arab league, possibly quite ineffective, and it is them to deal with things like the ISIS problem. Certainly put defences in place so it spreads no further than the middle east but thats as far as we should really go is my opinion.  Another interesting thing is that these murderers were trained in Yemen and the security people in the UK and France seem quite 'excited' by this. What the relevance of Yemen trained 'terrorists' are I am uncertain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Alan Zoff"]There are 2 points here, Rabbie. The first is whether or not the rest of the world stands by while others commit atrocities against their citizens. We (including the USA) seem to pick and choose about which regimes justify being put in their place.[/quote]

 

 It is a moot point if countries should intervene in other countries internal affairs. I do not think we would have appreciated it if the USA for example had intervened militarily in  Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

 

[quote user="Alan Zoff"] The second, of perhaps more relevant to this post, is that they are sending out indoctrinated murderers into our countries. We can't simply turn the other cheek to that.[/quote]Are you saying this is being done by the Saudi government. Do you have proof

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it is moot point Rabbie but as I said, we and the US have intervened when it suited.

Of course I don't have proof myself about Saudi involvement with the Paris attacks but the intelligence services appear to have plenty of information about the backing and training for those carrying out the atrocities. Whether it's Al Qaeda with or without Saudi funding, there is an extreme religious power base that is dictating events.

Excellent article, Norman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect it's a bit less centralized and more chaotic than that. I don't doubt there are one or two bigger 'organisations' that have some sort of campaign .but there are also a lot of smaller groups, acting on their own but under similar motivations. I doubt any of them have an office or a headquarters or anything that can be targeted and probably do much of their Western recruiting from a laptop, searching the internet and social media for vulnerable individuals that they can indoctrinate. The training camps are probably a group of people setting up a camp somewhere in the desert and then moving on when the job is done. My guess would be much of the funding comes from criminal activities (drug smuggling, arms dealing, extortion). It's not a particularly high cost operation.

Of course no one should sit back and do nothing but there isn't an obvious action that can be taken. The Americans tried obliteration but that didn't work.. Any attempt to ban anything will only lead to things become even more difficult to follow. I think covert undercover operations are the only way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lifted from news report a couple of hours old .

A German newspaper in Hamburg that reprinted Mohammed cartoons from the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo was the target of an arson attack early Sunday, police said.

"Rocks and then a burning object were thrown through the window,” a police spokesman said. “Two rooms on lower floors were damaged but the fire was put out quickly.”

The regional tabloid daily, the Hamburger Morgenpost, had splashed three Charlie Hebdo cartoons on its front page after the massacre at the Paris publication, running the headline “This much freedom must be possible!”

No one was hurt in the attack, which police said occurred at about 0120 GMT.

Two people were detained, while state security has opened an investigation, police said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this writer, after the deluge of media over-hype, is far closer to cogent analysis than the majority. His espoused view certainly very much chimes with my own conclusions.

Here:

We live in an age, sadly, where people of limited intellect and personal development are motivated by copycatting.

Everyone who has a cause, real or imagined can find excuses to try and justify aberrant actions.

As Samuel Johnson wrote so profoundly."Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel!".

Simply substitute "Religion" for the first word............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if it is therefore considered that free speech should encompass telling us about absolutely everything? Let's be a tiny bit realistic. After all, if they tell US what they're doing, then they might just as well tell ISIS and Al Qaeda what plans they've put in place to combat them, surely?

I know I'm a bit of a dullard, but isn't there a bit of a difference between being able to express your views freely and telling people stuff which is private, classified information?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between opinion and information.

In my opinion, and this is more debatable there is a difference between an opinion expressed by someone in a position of influence (such as a TV presenter) and one expressed by a private individual.

My objection to Zemmour is that he uses his position as journalist to push an agenda which he would be perfectly entitled to put forward privately, but the public arena 'legitimises' his views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'I wonder if it is therefore considered that free speech should encompass telling us about absolutely everything? Let's be a tiny bit realistic. After all, if they tell US what they're doing, then they might just as well tell ISIS and Al Qaeda what plans they've put in place to combat them, surely? '

But what about history - for example, the report on the Iraq war that is being suppressed. That is not telling the enemy it is telling those, the taxpayer, who paid for Generalissimo Blairs fun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as with so many of these things, we think we have a right to know everything, but as we don't know what we're not being told, we have no idea whether it's right that we should be told, or not.

In the end, we should trust the people who do know. But I don't know many people who are prepared to do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...