Paris

Disturbing news about shootings and explosion in Paris this evening

Doesn't look good. Talk of 50+ hostages as well as those already killed.

Yes very worrying...being described as an unprecedented terrorist attack.

All France borders closed and state of emergency declared!

I feel this may be the the shape of things to come here in the uk also!
totally pointless loss of innocent victims lives!

Horrific year for Paris, worryingly close too. Good fuel for the internet info collection legislation being proposed.

Agonising decision for the special troops commander to make especially with the number of fatalities at the concert hall.

Just hearing that the concert was the Eagles of Death Metal who I really like.. I hope they are all ok.

What the hell can be done about this kind of thing though? Drone strikes are clearly not working.

Very frightening. All my friends in Paris seem to be marked as safe on Facebook, which is a relief from a selfish point of view.
I think Paris may be being punished for its defiance in the face of the Charlie Hebdo attack, as well as France's involvement in Syria.

I think you will find Jihadi John may disagree with you on that fact .

Do you think that the attacks will stop now one IS scumbag has been killed?

I don't. If anything, I'd argue that his perpetual violence upon violence is only escalating the problem.

I never said one attack would stop anyone thats a very nieve thought . There is nothing that can be done . If one group of religious people cant even get on with another group of people (sunni and shiite ) in its own religion there is no hope .

And people wonder about my opposition to any and all forms of religion...

Well quite. Time and again religion is used as justification for unspeakable acts.

As has been seen with other terrorists the only solution is to talk and to compromise. Flexing muscles bombing and talking tough is not the way to deal with those who are prepared to fight terrorist campaigns against innocents.

Did sending more British Soldiers into Ireland work? NO, it just brought more killing to the streets of England! As much as I find certain persons form that conflict abhorrent I would rather they shake their fists over tables and spout rubbish than plant bombs in shopping centers.

I think you've way over-simplified the Troubles and I'm not at all sure what relevance it has to this discussion.

I also kinda doubt that ISIS is an organisation with which you can sit down and negotiate. They come across as just a bunch of sociopaths

I hope this TGV derailment, as terrible as it is on its own, isn't a continuation of this

I just saw that and had the same thought.

Seems like it might have been a test run that went wrong

With regard your first point, relevance. They too had terrorists. As much as we now try and forget, those terrorists brought death and destruction to innocents too. The solution only came from talking...



Agree with the sociopath comment but if your assessment that there will be no talking to such people is correct, then our future looks rather bleak

Yup - whilst Ireland was mostly resolved by talking, we weren't flying sorties to bomb those terrorists. Equally the Irish terrorists ended up talking because they were making no progress towards their aims. IS is different altogether.

Latest news is that at least one of the Paris bombers came through Greece as a migrant. I'm afraid that isn't going to be good news for the legitimate migrants.

Not sure what to say. It's a sad sad state of affairs.
Can't see talking to isis working, their demands would involve many people being ruled in way that no western government (infact civilised) could accept as being a sensible solution.

There are 2 ways that would solve it:

Nuke the out of the area and wipe out the majority of them and their resources / ways of earning cash.

Find an even worse set of scumbags to fight for power in the region to derail them.

Diplomacy vanished with the wmd debacle. They blow up planes, buildings and world treasures with disregard.

Maybe the Internet needs switching off???

Well who didn't see that coming? Just earlier than expected.

Watching the news now, it appears even worse than I thought it was when I saw it this morning.
I work for a French company with offices in that area of Paris. Hope there's no bad news on Monday.

Really want to keep out of this / obviously horrendous as it is, the Irish situation was a totally different story.

Yes - Ireland was a totally different situation.

Well yes it's true that unspeakable acts have been carried out using religion as a cause.

But ultimately it's all about power over others. Here,s a list of other culprits that can be put alongside religion.

Past kings and queens.

Pagan Chiefs.

Various dictators.

Oh and politicians! Now there's a bee's nest for discussion.

We really have to take a long look at what past governments from all over the world have been and are involved in.

No one is blameless.

It's very shocking for us now it's on our doorstep but it's on someone's doorstep everyday.

A terrible state of affairs.

Joe, I've tried to keep out of this as said, I agree with what you've said & I'm probably a bit....this would never happen in my neck of the woods, sounding all too selfish. This is devastating to say the least. So much history in the past as Joe has pointed out. The human bombs however are something else.Again I'm stating the obvious. The one thing that we all agree on is the fact no one has an answer.

Question : How do you talk to an organisation who want to live in the middle ages and shun everything western .

Not sure what the point of the post quoting me was making. Never said it wasn't about power. Most of those listed will have used religion as the justification for war which kind of proves the point.

Its some what of a circular argument as those in power (King/Queen/Chief/Pope/etc) are often the religious leaders as well, or have the immense sway over those that are.

Are IS (or whoever) powerful because they are religious or vice versa? they pretty much go hand in glove.

Not having a crack at anyones beliefs or any one group. Just agreeing with Neil that religion as a concept is flawed because humans are flawed.

Post deleted

Could the above be removed?

I'm from northern ireland and really this isn't the place to sort our problems out.

Agree.

So it's OK to decry the efforts of the SF personnel who died in NI, but not to stand up for them . OK post deleted but please don't anyone ever do so again. I wadn't going to respond to BBs comments, but in the end couldn't let it go. 

I've really had to think on this, & I would just ignore things that have been said. I've always regarded the forum as pretty much fair minded although you will always have the odd difference of opinion, I accept that. I have friends in NI & bringing N Ireland to the table in respect to whats happened to Paris is to say the least very naive.

It was used as an example of force not working in the context of fighting terrorism by another poster. It does, but it has to be unfettered, and that won't sit well with most of the general population. Although look at the glee when King Hussain of Jordan responded to the burning of his pilot, and the current embracing of Putins actions, even though he's supporting the "wrong side" in Syria (wrong being decided by the US/UK).

The mood is changing, and many won't like where we end up. And decent Moslems are likely to suffer, which is the whole point of the ISIS attack.

So when you deride what I and my colleagues have done, it's naive to think you won't get a response. Even if that offends the sensibilities of those we protected, even if they didn't appreciate our efforts.

Perhaps I find myself at a different place RK. Possibly, we probably agree that things in the world are not right. It's only too easy to vent off & bring all sorts to the table. Bringing NI into the equation was a tad off limits in my thinking of the bigger picture.
I live in a lovely place in the Highlands, possibly far from the throbbing nuisances from life, that said I'm certainly not a sad old git when it comes to mass killings & how this affects people.

Jim, my point is I didn't bring it to the table. Look back through the posts, I wasn't even the 3rd person to mention NI. I responded to a comment which was factually incorrect, and purported to prove the theory force doesn't work when fighting terrorism. It can do if Government has the will to use it. It rarely has, and not in this country.

No matter, I should have stuck to my first decision and not commented. I really think it may be time for me to move on.

I'm interested to understand how 'force' would be used to good effect to defeat ISIS.

Stating the obvious, we are all alarmed by whats unfolding in Paris. I find it, again & again that when it comes to peoples thoughts on here, it tends to go round a bit. Perhaps I'm guilty as well, but in all honesty what is the answer.

One point which occurs to me, and (while I am sure it has occurred to those whose job it is to consider such things) I have never heard discussed in the media: what is the supply chain for ISIS?

One hears that they are making money selling oil and such antiquities as they can refrain from demolishing, as well as extorting money from those unwillingly or otherwise remaining in areas controlled by them - but where are they buying arms and ammunition in such quantities? *Somebody* must be supplying them... who, and why? What are the routes and where are the stockpiles?

There is a saying that amateurs consider tactics, while professionals consider logistics... surely the airstrikes on the whole are aimed at disrupting the supply chains of ISIS, yet oddly we hear nothing of it.

My comment with regard the IRA was made in an effort to show that dealing with terrorists is nothing like fighting a War. Whilst that situation is far from resolved it has to be accepted that talking significantly reduced the killing. This is not to suggest anything is resolved, far from it, but the situation is far better than it was.

I suspect our media is significant in the supply chain. Do we really need to see mass coverage of "Shocking" images on our TV. And should we name the killers? Next we'll be giving them nicknames, as we did the other recent scumbag. Do we really need our news to be "LIVE" from Paris? WHY???

Sadly it seems our media are willing feeders of the ISIS propaganda machine.

Never a truer word spoke.

Well, like it or not, we live in a democracy and in a democracy people need to be informed (and, yes, I understand it is distorted but these days there are many many sources to cross-reference). Without being informed, we would not understand what actions need to be taken and why. I don't think you can just gloss over it - unless, of course, you're just willing to accept it.

Well if we dont they people would wonder why this news was been kept from us . You have an on and off button . People watch/listen /read the news some take it in some dont . Give people more credit than that

I don't think it has anything to do with giving people credit. You simply can't unwatch the news and thus you have a preconceived idea based on third hand information.

I think Bob has hit it on the head; why is there a need to further sensationalise an already terrible atrocity by reporting speculation?

I think that people have a difference in their thoughts of "sensationalise" - give the global outpouring of both shock and support (as is shown by the lighting up of buildings in the tricolour, black armbands, silences etc) I think it's hard to say that the public aren't interested. It's too much for me but I recognise the response of others. I think showing solidarity is important in winning the battle though. And, let's face it, the terrorists rarely ultimately win out - there have been plenty that have tried and failed.

No one forces you to watch the news . If you do watch the news you have a choice of a left or right stance and can make of that what you will . You make it sound like we all watch TASS russian news agency . Who or what news agency is reporting "speculation " .

ISIS are getting money from the banks, there is a lot of money to be made by lending to them and let's face it they have no scruples at all (banks or the terrorists) . Let's not forget the oil they produce too, which eventually ends up in our fuel tanks

Oh yes and funding from Qatar, lovely country, and we are playing the World Cup there, world's biggest money laundering operation.

I feel there is a significant difference between reporting news (The Facts) and sensationalising news (For morbid fascination) but maybe I'm wrong. And, for the record, I don't suggest for one minute that anything should be suppressed or hidden.

I do however feel that streaming live from the scene and including reports with a "disturbing scenes follow" caveat is unacceptable on National TV. If someone informs me that a plane has crashed does seeing body parts and personal effects of the dead, on prime time national news, really keep me better informed?

Respect for the dead and affected should surely carry a decency clause.

No I totally agree was watching the extended report on the BBC last night. So many reporters standing outside anywhere they can for reports which add no news facts. Completely unnecessary. And best not mention the awful montage at the end.

Bald facts are bald facts. Many people want to understand the "human interest" side of things - what was it actually like to be caught up on it? - how has it affected the mindset of the locals? I think that this is probably legitimate. After all, what's the point in reporting incidents if you don't understand their impact because, if you don't understand the impact, how can you judge the resulting actions? I agree that it crosses a line from time-to-time but that "line" isn't the same for everyone.

Last Thursday, MrsC and I attended the funeral of her friend and colleague, Jacky Sutton. Jacky was an extraordinary woman, who worked fearlessly in some of the most dangerous places in the world. The job to which she was returning when she seemingly took her own life, involved helping people in Erbil and throughout Iraq to get their voices heard to try and bring about change in their circumstances.
For those interested, she worked for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting .
Apart from being desperately sad, as Jacky's siblings spoke raw and tearful words about their sister, it was also an occasion for her friends from many walks of life touched by conflict to get together and talk - with IS (or Daesh as many prefer to call it - a pejorative Arabic term, removing the much resented association with Islam) being a prominent topic.

Interestingly, I overheard a discussion between a senior (non-English) journalist working in Afghanistan and a British expert on development in Pakistan saying that, against all their beliefs, knowledge and experience, they felt that "bombing the f_ck out of them" was possibly the only way to deal with Daesh, since their only aim is destruction; unlike other terrorist groups, they have no terms that can be met, even if one was willing.
Unfortunately, as both went on to acknowledge, the problem is not solved in this way, just postponed, mutated and increased by the inevitable side-effects of mass killing.

All this, of course, was before Paris suffered the attacks on Friday. I have a close affiliation with France and the French, my kids and many close friends live there, and I understand the upwelling of horror, fear and anger both in France and worldwide. My daughters have both changed their Facebook profiles - like so many others - to the tricolore and I don't have anything against it, although I agree that the hashtag #prayforparis is somewhat ironic and unhelpful. But the attacks in France - if they are ever to have any positive meaning - MUST be seen in the context of the other bloody massacres taking place throughout the Middle East and beyond.

One statistic of many that I found particularly dismal is that the number of people killed in the Syrian conflict equates to a Paris attack every day for the last 4 years.

It's not a competition for who can suffer most and it's not to belittle Paris' experience, but the people of Beirut, Syria, Iraq and too many other places equally deserve our thoughts and determination to prevent such disgusting crimes.

I've seen this same sentiment echoed across Facebook for the few days, Jim. "What about the 60 people in Lebanon on Thursday", etc. And they're right, we should care just as much.

But I don't think it's unnatural to be more reactive to this kind of attack in Paris than in, say, Syria.

Most of us have never been to Syria and probably never will. Many of us in Britain will have been to France. We can all name French sportspeople, actors, authors and musicians. We've all had Moules Frites and sipped a nice Bordeaux with some Brie.

I'd struggle to list three famous Syrians. A lot of people in this country would struggle to name its capital.

We also relate in other ways; I had tickets to see EoDM a couple of weeks ago in Southampton but my brother in law went in my place. Had the massacre happened at one of their London gigs I would certainly have known a dozen people in attendance.

And, dare I say it, we also relate more because of who's being killed. We don't have a full list of victims yet but when we do they will be overwhelming white and from Western countries.

Of course it's not right that we are more shocked and outraged, but it's understandable.

Ali, as I say, I DO understand and I don't want to see a situation where people are tastelessly outdoing each other for sympathising with more obscure conflict zones.
My point is that if the killings in France are to have any chance of not being in vain, then there is no alternative BUT to associate them with others in places that are more foreign to us.

As has been pointed out, the Syrian refugees coming to Europe are fleeing the exact same killers that struck in Paris. That, more than anything, should unite us, not divide.

And - to pre-empt anyone mentioning it - yes, one of the murderers did cross into Greece with other migrants, but to try to extrapolate a significant correlation between terrorists and refugees is, at best, simplistic.

I know you do, Jim, and I think we agree on most of this.

I'm now reading things saying that media didn't ignore the Lebanon bombings the day before Paris, the readers did. However, whilst it may have been given some airtime which we all ignored, it clearly wasn't given anywhere near the same kind of coverage as Paris.

For anyone interested who has a spare hour or two, this is a very informative piece (it is several months old, FYI)

What ISIS really wants

What I'm bored of hearing is comments related to football.

I couldn't give a toss what Roy or Wayne think or if the friendly goes ahead or not. Why oh why does the media insist on repeatedly telling me about a shitty game of football?
The BBC are now starting to address the important issue of the European championships. Who cares?? There's a big difference between what's important and football!!!

<end rant>

I waded through that Atlantic piece, but was left with the very strong impression of an agenda being pushed. Our own AndrewR came up with another, equally-informative and - to my mind - rather less slanted piece: The Nation article

Fair point about coverage of Lebanon being invisible until Paris shone a spotlight on it...

as someone once said " its only a game " . To think i've learnt the French national anthem for tonights game too. . Wayne has a problem singing the English one , so he's got naff all chance with the French one.

That's if Wembley is still standing at 7-55pm !!

Sorry BM but I have to disagree with you.....

The press were also 'commenting' about the GP drivers in Brazil, the Tennis players in London and even the English and Pakistani players in Sharjah.

I feel sorry for Hodgson, he's not a politician or a Frenchman, he's a manager of a football team who are playing against a team who are representing a country who have just suffered attack in their capital.

I think it's commendable what the teams and fans are doing.

I for one wholeheartedly support the game tonight. And I'm not a football fan.

I see the Turkish fans didn't respect the minute's silence in Istanbul tonight. They like us when they're taking our money in the shops/restaurants/markets.....

Wtf? I said I am sick of hearing about it and I don't see the relationship between football and people dying.

What the fans did was brill, I agree and it was good to see the French appreciate it and Wembley sell out because people wanted to show support for the victims..but then I never said it wasn't. The world's full of donkeys reading things that aren't written, do you work for the tabloid press by any chance?

I actually think there is, indirectly, a massive relationship between the two.

As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread and the media, we need to stand together whether we are French, Muslim, Russian or Christian (other races and religions are available).

The one universal thing that brings nations and races together is sport, football not only being one of the most popular, but also extremely prominent at the moment.

Happenstance dictated that France were due to play England at this point in history. A total godsend to the media, but not the fault of the participants who, in my view, all behaved with uplifting dignity and humanity in spite of the media frenzy.

It was only a matter of time until Amnesty jumped on the new terror emergency laws.

John Dalheisun needs to be air-dropped into the Syrian bad lands. I'm sure Daesh would love too listen to Amnesty prattle on about human rights.

The thing is, Jimbo, that is what Amnesty is there for, so of course they will question the new measures. If I were a conspiracy theory kinda guy (I'm not), then I might be inclined to reflect on how handy an attack such as the Paris one is for the supporters of increased State surveillance at such a time. How can we possibly object to any powers that could possibly prevent something like this? I mean none of us has anything to hide, right?
I'm glad there is someone out there at least asking the questions, even if they haven't a snowball's of stopping anything.

I don't think they need an excuse to fit concrete wellies to the high risk known suspects and take them for swimming lessons. If they wanted to do so then it would happen, they don't need to host an elaborate show.

It just concerns me Amnesty seem to want to protect all these people on the same list, think Abu Hamza, etc.

All Amnesty is concerned with is that due process is followed. There will be abuses with greater or lesser sanction by the State, but I'd still rather someone was keeping a neutral eye to ensure it doesn't become too commonplace.

They want to protect you. And me. And everyone else posting here. Rights are worthless unless they apply to everyone, and USED. So Jimbo wants to take the people attacking the freedoms of our society and summarily execute them, yet Jimbo is the person posting attacks on the freedom of our society.

Which is it going to be for you then Jimbo, hangman's noose or 9mm to the back of the head?

Err hang on, I don't want to execute anyone?

I just questioned Amnesty's actions on protecting the guilty. Anyway, I'm not here for an argument so I'll leave you guys to it.

Amnesty is do gooders disconnected from the real world. If the perpetrators of crime have rights, what about the victims? Their rights have already been violated.
In the case of hamza, he flauts the human rights act for his own benefit, knowing he can cry Wolf. He is truly the worst kind of person, preaching hate towards the west then using its laws to.protect him. Under the rules of Sharia he'd be dead.

Save your breath Muzzie, the same do gooders police this forum.

And for that reason, I'm out.

Says a lot about some peoples priorities when doing good is seen as a term of abuse....

So you're saying we should stoop to his level?

If we don't behave in a better manner than these people then what does that make us?

Ha haha!! Second person in a week to try and twist what I say for a reaction. Get a grip, you obviously condone his views so I'll agree with jimbo, I'm out.

To my mind the human rights act (HRA) is something to which we should not need, but sadly, do.

The big problem with it is that it is too wide and capable of too much interpretation: great things for a politician but applicable to too many things for which it was (probably) not intended. And the snag is - there's no such things as human rights *unless and until* a government chooses to grant them. They're no airy-fairy concept; no-one has a 'right to life' or to 'a family life' or to 'practice a religion'. They just have opportunities to do so and the HRA ensures that the judicial powers do their best to ensure that they can.

To be honest, I'd rather do without, but I'd rather have it than live in a state where due process is bypassed for political expediency.

Example: someone shot because they're standing over bodies and are in the act of killing more: no problem. Someone charged because they once looked at a website owned by someone who spoke to someone who sent an email to someone who might be planning something? Meh...

I have always believed that anybody that commits a heinous crime should automatically loose any human rights as a defence

Did anyone hear Andrew Neil's rant regarding IS in the introduction to his 'This Week' show?

Quite amusing to many, not so to some....

Not sure if it'll play though.

You say something as horrible as this and then claim I'm the one who needs to get a grip.

Grow up.

Yeah, an "Inbetweeners 2" quote on this thread.. Who'd have thought

Yes, I wonder if it was for George Galloway's benefit. Being that however you feel about GG he is probably unsurpassed in the oratory department.

The sudden outpouring of venom actually made me feel slightly uncomfortable, even if I can't really challenge any of its authenticity. I didn't feel it was a very good example to set to would-be ISIS fans, more like a goad or much of the same extremist rhetoric.

I did enjoy Portillo's naughty question to GG though "Are you available for Labour leadership?"

1. a compliment to George's eloquence and er, forthrightness
2. George as leader, hahahahahahaha he hasn't a chance, rubbing it in
3. George as leader, Tories guaranteed power for foreseeable future

John Oliver's was better, and earlier.

Not quite sure why anyone's using Abu Hamza to support their case against yoghurt-knitting liberals, he was extradited to the US last year where he's now doing forever with no parole. Amnesty's disconnected you say...

Agreed and true.