12 dead in attack on Paris newspaper; France goes on alert

[Mossfinn]

As for secret talks between the IRA and the UK Gov't, search for the 'Mountain Climber' mid '70s, more precisely I think '73, however I could be a year or two out.

If you are really interested, the best commentator on Ireland in the past 30 years is Peter Taylor, look him up, completely impartial. and regarded with great respect from the Irish and British alike.

Or you could listen to John Major,

When he declared to the House of Commons in November 1993 that "to sit down and talk with Mr. Adams and the Provisional IRA... would turn my stomach",[

He was in full talks, but I reiterate, secret talks were going on in the early seventies.

[Lissos]

Seems like the terrorists have defeated both the BBC and the Daily mail as neither dared published this very mild cover, gutless.

Infact it was shown on the BBC 6 O'Clock News (here in Britain) today, albeit with a 'warning' that it was coming up.

Let's be realistic, tough talk about them being gutless is easy to express on the internet when it is being sent 'viral' on things like facebook, twitter or any number of sites to send it viral with little to no risk whatsoever to the ones doing it in most cases. The BBC on the other hand has to consider several things first, realistically, before it joins the bandwagon. It has journalists embedded all over the world, likely staying in known locations in the hot spots possibly with little to no security and maybe families staying with them too. Its staff are also out and about reporting and must be taken into account before they do rush to circulate the latest 'blasphemy' (as it seems to be seen). Therefore, any delay was understandable. I said this in another post a while ago, that if we're all going to take this course then we'd damn well better be prepared to go all the way and not change our minds half way across when things may not be going so swimmingly, because the ones who oppose us certainly are very willing to keep on killing.

I fully 'get' the sentiment to shove that attack back in their faces by doing the total 'opposite' of what they want, but with freedom comes responsibility and as we all know there is a whole generation of people out there now who cherish the luxury of enjoying freedoms to do or say things without wanting to accept the responsibility that comes with that, instead ever so quick to pull the 'blame' card against someone else when their chosen 'freedom' comes back to bite them either personally or upon other people. I say this only as a reminder. We hear a lot of - "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" thrown around as if people truly mean it. I don't believe they do in most cases and suggest that few of us in the west are actually prepared to put our lives or the lives of family or strangers on the line for someone else's latest naff opinion.

As it happens, I personally think the current cartoon is a perfect riposte, suggesting that Muhammad himself would be ashamed. True or not, doesn't matter. It's a good riposte that should make a lot of everyday Muslims ponder a little too. However, what I think about it is not relevant because I'm not a brainwashed Jihadi. It is what the brainwashed jihadis think, and 'their' staying power that needs to be taken into account before commiting.

[JDGRUEN]

The Most Wanted List of France's EU neighbor...

http://www.swedensmostwanted.se/

[Thai at Heart]

Ask the New York Times. They called him "an expert on intelligence" and he frequently testifies before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

What a truly frightening thought.

I wonder if he dares to visit Europe at all, or even crosses the state lines to see them northern liberal types.

[Ulysses G.]

else As for secret talks between the IRA and the UK Gov't, search for the 'Mountain Climber' mid '70s, more precisely I think '73, however I could be a year or two out.

Secret talks are not what is in dispute. That is more deflection. 7by7 claimed over and over again that there were no preconditions for participation in the Northern Ireland talks. He insisted on it. His link does not address that issue at all and there clearly WERE preconditions for participation in the Northern Ireland talks, which he continues to deny even when presented with conclusive evidence, which is typical of his behavior on this forum. As usual, he won't admit his "mistake" and keeps trying to change the subject to anything and everything else in order to cloud the issue.

After the IRA ceasefire of 1994, U.S. Senator George Mitchell, called in as a mediator, laid down ground rules for participation in the Northern Ireland talks. All the parties to the conflict then agreed to a code of conduct. The first principle was a commitment by all sides to "democratic and exclusively peaceful means" of resolving political issues. The second was a commitment to "the total disarmament" of all paramilitary groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/opinion/31iht-edevrony.1.7331274.html?_r=1&

Edited January 14, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[H1w4yR1da]

If you are talking about no go zones as what you might also describe as 'culturally enriched' zones, then I would agree with you that such places do exist.

"'culturally enriched' zones"? You're having a laugh, aren't you?

Ooo, we mustn't call them no-go areas as it stigmatizes Muslims. And you wonder why you're labelled an apologist.

So when the next white guy or gal that gets attacked, mugged, sharia-patrolled or abused in the no-g....er...I mean culturally enriched zone, we can all say to them, sorry pal, you weren't mugged, you've just been culturally-enriched!!

'culturally enriched' zones my arse!

Edited January 14, 2015 by H1w4yR1da

[CMNightRider]

The Most Wanted List of France's EU neighbor...

http://www.swedensmostwanted.se/

Good post. What a group of losers.

[H1w4yR1da]

Some French Muslim kids at school refuse to participate in moment of silence for terror victims.

http://therightscoop.com/french-muslim-children-refused-to-participate-in-schools-moment-of-silence-for-terror-victims/

Shocking! Let's hope their hides were belted.

gladly oblige.

British, Irish, Hitler?

What has this got to do with Charlie???

Absolutely nothing! But some here love to go for a bit of deflection whenever Islam is criticized.

Charlie Hebdo's latest edition to depict Prophet Muhammad

The cover of the latest edition of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been published in French media, and depicts the Prophet Muhammad.

The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading "I am Charlie", below the words "all is forgiven"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30786211

And the BBC doesn't show the cover. Typical!

Edited January 14, 2015 by H1w4yR1da

[H1w4yR1da]

Anyway, the French should have been more on guard after previous Islamic atrocities in the country, like the one below.

[Exsexyman]

Some French Muslim kids at school refuse to participate in moment of silence for terror victims.

http://therightscoop.com/french-muslim-children-refused-to-participate-in-schools-moment-of-silence-for-terror-victims/

Shocking! Let's hope their hides were belted.

gladly oblige.

British, Irish, Hitler?

What has this got to do with Charlie???

Absolutely nothing! But some here love to go for a bit of deflection whenever Islam is criticized.

Charlie Hebdo's latest edition to depict Prophet Muhammad

The cover of the latest edition of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been published in French media, and depicts the Prophet Muhammad.

The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading "I am Charlie", below the words "all is forgiven"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30786211

And the BBC doesn't show the cover. Typical!

From the BBC today. They do show the cover. So you are wrong again. Typical.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30794973

[H1w4yR1da]

From the BBC today. They do show the cover. So you are wrong again. Typical.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30794973

Not in the link in posted. Gest your facts right. Another apologist FAIL!

The Most Wanted List of France's EU neighbor...

http://www.swedensmostwanted.se/

Good post. What a group of losers.

Islam being somewhat over-represented, surprise surprise! Edited January 14, 2015 by H1w4yR1da

[simple1]

From the BBC today. They do show the cover. So you are wrong again. Typical.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30794973

Not in the link in posted. Gest your facts right. Another apologist FAIL!

Wrong again. BBC has published the graphic in the link and as mentioned in a few prior posts have done so in other news segments. As someone mentioned BBC has correspondents in many areas of the world where staff would be at risk. It's really a cheap shot to constantly attack the BBC as their reporters do put their lives at risk. Journalists can be a target, last year 61 were killed, many in Islamic majority countries.

Whilst you and others may not like the content 'TEP' posts, many times he is articulate and well-read in support of his opinions. Not on every occasion, but he can make reasoned arguments unlike some on TV who just indulge in inflammatory and derogatory comment.

[JDGRUEN]

[Steely Dan]

Pathetic that you both want to yet again drag this important thread off topic so you can have your childish digs at me!

Ulysses G even claims to know more about the Northern Ireland peace process than those actually involved; like Peter Brooke, the Northern Ireland Secretary when the informal, and secret at the time, talks began between the UK government and Sinn Fein/IRA in 1990! (See here)

Still, I suppose I should be flattered that you not only pay so much attention to my posts, but also have no other way of refuting them!

It is not necessary to refute facts which you make up and when you mis quote famous writers, merely to point out that you are incorrect. Some humility on your part when it comes to this might mean you do not attract so much attention.

I am not taking sides here because I do not know the extent of the previous squabbles, but myself and 7by7 have had head to heads in the past, and when wrong, he has made that clear.

However, I am not suggesting in any way that others do not, or that he is correct here, I would need to look deeper into the threads, and they appear to be rather long.

They are always rather long, off topic and intentionally so.

[Steely Dan]

10898108_859901614053821_3353314345787522553_n.jpg

terrorists.jpg

The West Bank of the Seine

[chuckd]

From the BBC today. They do show the cover. So you are wrong again. Typical.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30794973

Not in the link in posted. Gest your facts right. Another apologist FAIL!

Wrong again. BBC has published the graphic in the link and as mentioned in a few prior posts have done so in other news segments. As someone mentioned BBC has correspondents in many areas of the world where staff would be at risk. It's really a cheap shot to constantly attack the BBC as their reporters do put their lives at risk. Journalists can be a target, last year 61 were killed, many in Islamic majority countries.

Whilst you and others may not like the content 'TEP' posts, many times he is articulate and well-read in support of his opinions. Not on every occasion, but he can make reasoned arguments unlike some on TV who just indulge in inflammatory and derogatory comment.

"As someone mentioned BBC has correspondents in many areas of the world where staff would be at risk. It's really a cheap shot to constantly attack the BBC as their reporters do put their lives at risk. Journalists can be a target, last year 61 were killed, many in Islamic majority countries."

This part of your post brings up a rather interesting question.

Would you feel the NY Times insistence on posting the photos from Abu Ghraib world wide would be justified now, knowing full well there were literally thousands of US citizens and other westerners working and living in Muslim countries?

I was working in Saudi then with nearly 200 American employees. Believe me, we kept a very low profile and answered many questions after the release of the photos and didn't really relax for a month or more after the Times used their alleged conscience in publishing the photos.

Did they not feel the same responsibility then for their actions that other news media so fear this time around?

The same principal applies...just different targets in the Islamic radical's gun sights.

[Mosha]

Europol are saying around 5000 could return from fighting in Syria. From Sky News.

[ggold]

Some French Muslim kids at school refuse to participate in moment of silence for terror victims.

http://therightscoop.com/french-muslim-children-refused-to-participate-in-schools-moment-of-silence-for-terror-victims/

Shocking! Let's hope their hides were belted.

gladly oblige.

British, Irish, Hitler?

What has this got to do with Charlie???

Absolutely nothing! But some here love to go for a bit of deflection whenever Islam is criticized.

Charlie Hebdo's latest edition to depict Prophet Muhammad

The cover of the latest edition of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been published in French media, and depicts the Prophet Muhammad.

The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading "I am Charlie", below the words "all is forgiven"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30786211

And the BBC doesn't show the cover. Typical!

The BBC have a policy not to depict Islam in an offensive way.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/01/is-the-bbc-reconsidering-its-restrictions-on-depicting-mohammed/

BBC to revise its restrictions on depicting Mohammed

Last night’s Question Time saw David Dimbleby chair a debate on freedom of expression following the Charlie Hebdo shootings. During the programme, Dimbleby stated that the BBC’s policy with regards to representations of Mohammed was to not depict the Prophet in any shape or form. This policy was met with criticism from panel and audience members alike.

[nontabury]

Anyway, the French should have been more on guard after previous Islamic atrocities in the country, like the one below.

Sickening. How on earth can so called educated people make excuses for these scum.

On another theme, the mayor of Rotterdam, Ahmed Aboutaleb has stated quite strongly his belief that those immigrants who are not preferred to accept the laws and freedom of their new country should <deleted> off, and this from a Muslim. Perhaps those contributors to this thread who like to throw the word Bigot around, will also call this gentleman a Bigot.

Can you even start to imagine the flak that would be directed at any non-Muslim politician who dared to make such comments. Basically I suppose he was just saying"when in Rome do as the Romans do".

[JockPieandBeans]

Anyway, the French should have been more on guard after previous Islamic atrocities in the country, like the one below.

Sickening. How on earth can so called educated people make excuses for these scum.

On another theme, the mayor of Rotterdam, Ahmed Aboutaleb has stated quite strongly his belief that those immigrants who are not preferred to accept the laws and freedom of their new country should <deleted> off, and this from a Muslim. Perhaps those contributors to this thread who like to throw the word Bigot around, will also call this gentleman a Bigot.

Can you even start to imagine the flak that would be directed at any non-Muslim politician who dared to make such comments. Basically I suppose he was just saying"when in Rome do as the Romans do".

Exactly what all us " Bigots and Islamaphobes " have been saying for months.

Come and live by our rules and laws, if you do not like them and wish to live under Sharia, there are plenty of other Countries that you can go and live in.

[Morch]

On another theme, the mayor of Rotterdam, Ahmed Aboutaleb has stated quite strongly his belief that those immigrants who are not preferred to accept the laws and freedom of their new country should <deleted> off, and this from a Muslim. Perhaps those contributors to this thread who like to throw the word Bigot around, will also call this gentleman a Bigot.

Can you even start to imagine the flak that would be directed at any non-Muslim politician who dared to make such comments. Basically I suppose he was just saying"when in Rome do as the Romans do".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/charlie-hebdo-mayor-rotterdam-tells-4970496

[JDGRUEN]

By "no go zones" you probably mean ghettos. How many Moslems live in those ghettos, and do you want their percentage to increase?

Suggesting that Muslim self-imposed 'No Go Zones' in France and other places are 'ghettos' of the classic diffinition is ridiculous ... Muslims really do 'self-impose' their isolation - it has a purpose. It is not done as a result of an economic disparity - where the Muslims cannot leave due to cost of living. In short Muslims just do not want anyone else - infidels to be living in their ideologically blocked off sanctuary. And it is done to stake out claims to territories and then further expand them as each year goes by. In this way Muslims act similar to 'squatters' - move in and displace who ever is in the homestead... little by little. It is not difficult to see that planned Muslim self-imposed 'ghetto' creation is growing all over Europe where it is allowed and not resisted. The planned end result is to push everyone else out.

Your Muslim colored glasses are distorting your vision.

[canman]

By "no go zones" you probably mean ghettos. How many Moslems live in those ghettos, and do you want their percentage to increase?

Suggesting that Muslim self-imposed 'No Go Zones' in France and other places are 'ghettos' of the classic diffinition is ridiculous ... Muslims really do 'self-impose' their isolation - it has a purpose. It is not done as a result of an economic disparity - where the Muslims cannot leave due to cost of living. In short Muslims just do not want anyone else - infidels to be living in their ideologically blocked off sanctuary. And it is done to stake out claims to territories and then further expand them as each year goes by. In this way Muslims act similar to 'squatters' - move in and displace who ever is in the homestead... little by little. It is not difficult to see that planned Muslim self-imposed 'ghetto' creation is growing all over Europe where it is allowed and not resisted. The planned end result is to push everyone else out.

Your Muslim colored glasses are distorting your vision.

Also known as jihad by stealth.

[Mosha]

By "no go zones" you probably mean ghettos. How many Moslems live in those ghettos, and do you want their percentage to increase?

Suggesting that Muslim self-imposed 'No Go Zones' in France and other places are 'ghettos' of the classic diffinition is ridiculous ... Muslims really do 'self-impose' their isolation - it has a purpose. It is not done as a result of an economic disparity - where the Muslims cannot leave due to cost of living. In short Muslims just do not want anyone else - infidels to be living in their ideologically blocked off sanctuary. And it is done to stake out claims to territories and then further expand them as each year goes by. In this way Muslims act similar to 'squatters' - move in and displace who ever is in the homestead... little by little. It is not difficult to see that planned Muslim self-imposed 'ghetto' creation is growing all over Europe where it is allowed and not resisted. The planned end result is to push everyone else out.

Your Muslim colored glasses are distorting your vision.

Also known as jihad by stealth.

Until you see it with your own eyes, it's hard to believe. In the 60s it started with about 5000 that the capitalist mill owners brought to my home town. We were not getting the cream of the crop. The hindus were all from the lower castes. The muslims mostly from the border areas with Afghanistan. The hindus soon moved on. They did not want to be near the muslims.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Mosha

[micmichd]

By "no go zones" you probably mean ghettos. How many Moslems live in those ghettos, and do you want their percentage to increase?

Suggesting that Muslim self-imposed 'No Go Zones' in France and other places are 'ghettos' of the classic diffinition is ridiculous ... Muslims really do 'self-impose' their isolation - it has a purpose. It is not done as a result of an economic disparity - where the Muslims cannot leave due to cost of living. In short Muslims just do not want anyone else - infidels to be living in their ideologically blocked off sanctuary. And it is done to stake out claims to territories and then further expand them as each year goes by. In this way Muslims act similar to 'squatters' - move in and displace who ever is in the homestead... little by little. It is not difficult to see that planned Muslim self-imposed 'ghetto' creation is growing all over Europe where it is allowed and not resisted. The planned end result is to push everyone else out.

Your Muslim colored glasses are distorting your vision.

Also known as jihad by stealth.

Until you see it with your own eyes, it's hard to believe. In the 60s it started with about 5000 that the capitalist mill owners brought to my home town. We were not getting the cream of the crop. The hindus were all from the lower castes. The muslims mostly from the border areas with Afghanistan. The hindus soon moved on. They did not want to be near the muslims.

Maybe your observation that most Hindus came from the lower castes is right. Then what?

1. The majority of Hindus in India might be from lower castes, too.

2. Hindus from lower castes might wish to improve in the hierarchy of an open society.

Isn't that what you (and Islam) propagate all the time: an open society?

[Tep]

A bit confusing, at least for me, as sometimes seems your response incorporates my post with SD's. In case it was missed, here is my previous comment on SD's reply - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/789984-12-dead-in-attack-on-paris-newspaper;-france-goes-on-alert/?p=8928207

I tend to find defining the exact -isms as not being a germane, so apologies for avoiding getting entangled in definitions. Often seem too restrictive for application. If, however, some are needed to anchor my thoughts, then perhaps pragmatism, or realism, would temporarily serve.

The UN is a fine notion, and probably the precursor of things to come (Hopefully, in my opinion. Other options less alluring). But at the same time, the UN is not as yet quite what it was envisaged to be, nor quite resembling what is suggested by its name. The UN is a construct of Western ideals and values, which came about as a result of the West having a position of prominence (achieved through less than liberal means, one might add). There was no universal debate and inclusion of alternative views, but rather presupposition of Western ideals taking their rightful place. Many reasons for this being accepted as the nominal global standard, most do not have much to do with the values represented by the ideals themselves. It is a simple matter of reality to check just how many members of the UN practice these ideals or to what extent misbehaving members get sanctioned by the UN. Even worse, how many Western members fully live up to these ideals or even to their own national versions of them?

The point is that ideals, even when put on a fancy paper, are...well...ideals. They are something to strive toward in a reality that is less than perfect. History teaches us that confusion between ideals and reality (whether in economic, political, social or religious context) can lead to some pretty adverse outcomes. Off the top of my head - communism, post-colonial anywhere, the Khmer Rouge. And yes, may want to add hardcore interpretation and application of Islam to the list (as as side note, well aware that issues can be found with specific examples, but I think the idea is clear enough). Granted, It could be somewhat harder to apply the above with regards to modern Western ideals, although, perhaps more a matter of the degree in respect to adverse outcomes than invalidating the principal.

It would seem that rather than there being a genuine global acceptance regarding the superiority of Western ideals, they are in fact made global (at least on a superficial level) by a tacit exertion of might. This is more along the lines of asserting that some ideals ought to be generally accepted as a standard and postulating that in time, whether through coercion or conviction - they will be. If putting it this way is somewhat reminiscent of certain Islamic preaching, well...yeah. It essentially boils down to "my way or the highway".

To be clear, I do not have much issues with the suggested view: ideologies, countries, civilizations, religions all used the same mechanism for ages. Identifying with these ideals (even if not necessarily with all of their actual imperfect manifestations) makes it easier to accept it as favorable, but does not preclude acknowledgment that it is basically a sales pitch. I'm still buying, surely if considering the alternatives.

What is the liberal reaction, then, to Muslims not willing to change their set of ideals as they "must"? How do things apply with regards to Muslims asserting that it is the West who needs to adjust to their point of view? How to remain true to Western ideals and treat Muslims hanging on to their belief systems in their own countries? Do these fall under that "must" as well? As the good captain might have said.....(note Naam in the back, ready to pounce):

Maslow's pyramid could be interpreted in less than complimenting ways regarding human beings, when applied to real world situations. Furthermore, acceptance of the model does not exclude the possibility of different meanings (thinking culturally or religiously originated) attached to the nominal steps in the hierarchy. It could also be suggested that certain cultural, religious or ideologies may cause people to construct alternative orders (consider a suicide bomber).

Been a while since I read Hegel, so could be wrong on this - if memory serves, "Thesis Antithesis Synthesis" does not postulate the nature of the outcome or the relative part of each former concept in it. Also, does the notion of progress necessarily mean advancement? I seem to recall (but again, been a while and not a favorite) at least one interpretation which sees it more by way of change, without necessarily qualifying further. Even assuming that liberalism can facilitate the synthesis itself, does it mean that it will survive the outcome?

Guess I'm seeing it pretty much the way I see global warming issues (and for the love of all that is sacred, let us not go there):

Human actions have an effect, Human counter-efforts got an effect. In the overall scheme of things, it remains doubtful what is their relative weight in relation to something which is essentially an independent and wider scope process. Doesn't mean that no action should be taken, just that we recognize the proportions of possible effects. On the other hand, willing to concede that the negative effects are easier to notice (relevant to the current discussion, this would be avoiding engagement with Muslims).

Thank you for the discussion. You raise a number of interesting counterpoints to my earlier posts. I am particularly interesting in further thinking about the 'advancement' idea which I automatically view as a product of liberal humanism. But that is why I say I am guilty as chafed by the elitism accusation. However, it seems that I have been troubled by gnats lately so I am taking a break. This thread was about something that is quite dear to my heart and I felt the need to express myself about this outrage. I think I have clarified some of my own thinking with the help of yours and others responses.

[metisdead]

Inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

Please stay on the topic of the thread. That means addressing the issues presented in the post, not in making comments to or about other posters. Doing so is off-topic and your post will be removed and you could face a suspension.

You have every right to express your opinion about the topic. You may disagree, but it must be done in a civil manner.

[micmichd]

Inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

Please stay on the topic of the thread. That means addressing the issues presented in the post, not in making comments to or about other posters. Doing so is off-topic and your post will be removed and you could face a suspension.

You have every right to express your opinion about the topic. You may disagree, but it must be done in a civil manner.

This is an extremely interesting topic, and surely too important to be messed up. Problem is the best contributions take the longest time, and it also gets very complicated to pick the proper threads.

Would it be a solution to split the topic into different aspects ?

[metisdead]

Another inflammatory post has been removed.

As to whether to split the topic into different aspects?

The discussion will just have to be contained to the topics already running on this subject.

[7by7]

It seems that the much lauded French freedom of expression and freedom to offend is not universal!

Dieudonné arrested over Facebook post on Paris gunman

The French government has in the past banned Dieudonnés shows because it considers them antisemitic.

His comment was, in my opinion, at the very least in the worst taste and extremely offensive; as is much of his output.

But shouldn't he have the same right to offend granted to others?

Or is that right dependant on the target of the offensive remarks, cartoons, publication etc.?

Edited January 14, 2015 by 7by7