Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

Nodin · 03-12-2015 08:32PM

custard gannet wrote: »

But it hasn't. All anyone posted were a few opinion pieces from the Guardian which were....Well....Opinion. Along with an unverified article from Vice from someone who claimed to have done the poll which only served to point out how clear the question asked had been.
...............

This is not an opinion -

"YouGov said it did not want to carry out the study because it could not be confident that it could accurately represent the British Muslim population within the timeframe and budget set by the paper."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/24/criticism-grows-over-suns-muslim-poll

custard gannet · 03-12-2015 08:39PM

Nodin wrote: »

This is not an opinion -

"YouGov said it did not want to carry out the study because it could not be confident to obtain a result that would have the Corbynites demanding the CEO of YouGov resign for broadcasting results the left don't like [/URL]

FYP.

Of course, 14 dead Californians can testify to the power of leftist pressure on individuals not to say the wrong thing more than we could ever know. You keep seem to be avoiding that point Nodin, that if it wasn't for your lot telling us to ignore our intuition 14 civilians would still be alive today.

My name is URL · 03-12-2015 08:45PM

Wurzelbert wrote: »

bombing should be focused on oil refineries and infrastructure, as trump and others have also suggested

Trump has also suggested killing family members of suspected ISIS members.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/12/03/3727303/donald-trump-kill-isis-family-members/

I wonder how many of his fans on this thread would agree with him on that

edit: Oh nevermind, I see you've addressed that already by attempting to twist and excuse what he actually said

custard gannet · 03-12-2015 08:46PM

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Again, it did not do this. Again, you appear to have no idea how accurate research is conducted. Although something tells me if the number was 1% we'd be getting lectures on methodological rigour from you.

So what in your opinion defines accurate, flawless research.

If you go to the CSO site, in 2006 something like 40,000 residents of Meath were listed as being born in Dublin.

The 2011 census gives a result of around 6000. Which kind of blows your mickey measuring contest between YG and the other crowd clean out of the water.

Nodin · 03-12-2015 08:47PM

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Again, it did not do this. Again, you appear to have no idea how accurate research is conducted. Although something tells me if the number was 1% we'd be getting lectures on methodological rigour from you.

The fact is that a leading pollster would not touch the assignment with a bargepole, and that the questions are - one could well say - deliberately vague. While this isn't illegal, it's clearly designed to create a result rather than find one.

custard gannet · 03-12-2015 08:53PM

Nodin wrote: »

The fact is that a leading pollster would not touch the assignment with a bargepole, and that the questions are - one could well say - deliberately vague. While this isn't illegal, it's clearly designed to create a result rather than find one.

But they are not deliberately vague. The amount of young British Muslims fighting for Isis and Al Nusra vs the amount fighting with the Kurds or with Assad is almost non existent.

And you know it. Those answering know it. It is the equivalent of being asked in a Peruvian airport to bring a bag of what you are told is sugar back to Europe with you and trying to claim you had no idea coke comes from the region.

Again, why are you avoiding openly celebrating that your pressure on people not to use their own critical thought has led to the deaths of 14 civilians. Why do you keep avoiding this question- are you disappointed because we are not hitting four figure Rotherham numbers?

Frank Grimes · 03-12-2015 08:56PM

custard gannet wrote: »

So what in your opinion defines accurate, flawless research.

In this case, if the Sun wanted to know about support for ISIS they should have included this in the question, not in the vague, open to interpretation manner in which the question was asked. If they didn't have control over the questions being asked they shouldn't have assumed the answers were talking about ISIS specifically.

If you go to the CSO site, in 2006 something like 40,000 residents of Meath were listed as being born in Dublin.

The 2011 census gives a result of around 6000. Which kind of blows your mickey measuring contest between YG and the other crowd clean out of the water.

I couldn't be bothered addressing this.

Frank Grimes · 03-12-2015 08:58PM

custard gannet wrote: »

But they are not deliberately vague. The amount of young British Muslims fighting for Isis and Al Nusra vs the amount fighting with the Kurds or with Assad is almost non existent.

And you know it. Those answering know it. It is the equivalent of being asked in a Peruvian airport to bring a bag of what you are told is sugar back to Europe with you and trying to claim you had no idea coke comes from the region.

The point you seem unwilling or unable to understand is that for research to be accurate the questions shouldn't be open to this sort of interpretation. Even using the word sympathy in the question is open to interpretation.

Nodin · 03-12-2015 09:11PM

custard gannet wrote: »

But they are not deliberately vague. ?

...they are most certainly vague, and that's just one of the issues with the poll.

custard gannet · 03-12-2015 09:24PM

Nodin wrote: »

...they are most certainly vague, and that's just one of the issues with the poll.

Again, why are you avoiding openly celebrating that your pressure on people not to use their own critical thought has led to the deaths of 14 civilians. Why do you keep avoiding this question.

Banned.

BoatMad · 04-12-2015 02:47AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah, military force really helped Ireland change it's mind about that whole independence thing. Shut us ad our ideas right on up, so it did!

It succeeded in neutralising the old ira by the outbreak of ww1 , not dissimilar to us in Afghanistan. But different scale of course. ( and more civilised " rules " )

Billy86 · 04-12-2015 03:39AM

BoatMad wrote: »

It succeeded in neutralising the old ira by the outbreak of ww1 , not dissimilar to us in Afghanistan. But different scale of course. ( and more civilised " rules " )

But and what happened after WWI, again? One led the the Irish nationalist movement growing in power, and Afghanistan is a very big reason why what happened in Paris did. Neither of those situations turned out well for the Britain, or those who got involved in Afghanistan.

BoatMad · 04-12-2015 04:01AM

Billy86 wrote: »

But and what happened after WWI, again? One led the the Irish nationalist movement growing in power, and Afghanistan is a very big reason why what happened in Paris did. Neither of those situations turned out well for the Britain, or those who got involved in Afghanistan.

Military intervention doesn't deal with underlying causes , it never did and it never will . Historically it was used primarily to annex territory a role that it's quite useful for ( see Crimea )

Today annexing territory isn't quite as easy. So we tend to use military intervention as a way of temporarily effecting change, we use it to subdue conflict not eliminate it. It that it's quite effective too , if we are prepared to accept it may need to Intervene for very long periods.

Drive by military intervention, long the hall mark of US escapades has arguably done more damage then good. The US needs to learn that with the " ability " to intervene anywhere , comes the responsibility of staying there to deal with the resulting upheaval. At least the Brits took about 400 years to disengage , the us is at about 400 days.

kupus · 04-12-2015 10:40AM

isis smysys, shycess, deash dash doobie.

just call it the saudi empire.

Saudi arabian islamic empire.

From now on Im going to call it Saudi Empire Xpansion plan.

SEXp for short.

kettlehead · 04-12-2015 11:27PM

The cops are after two new suspects who they believe helped with the escape.

SEARCHES ARE UNDERWAY for two new suspects over the Paris attacks.

Belgium said this afternoon it is searching for two “armed and dangerous” but unidentified suspects who used false ID papers to help wanted Paris attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam travel to Hungary in September.

The fake identity card of one of the suspects was also used to wire money from Brussels to Paris to the cousin of attacks ringleader Abdelhamid Abaaoud four days after the massacre in the French capital, the Belgian prosecutors office said.

http://www.thejournal.ie/two-new-suspects-sought-paris-attacks-2484185-Dec2015/

seanaway · 05-12-2015 11:05PM

Never thought I'd hear myself echo and agree with George Bush Junior - but 'hunt 'em down, smoke 'em out, and shoot 'em'. They don't don't want a peace agreement/peace/USA etc..out.. they want to kill ALL who don't agree ....

Danger to HUMANITY- not just Americans/Europeans/Christians/Jews ... all humanity is in danger ..

Do NOT let these low lifes bring humanity into the dark ages again...

seanaway · 05-12-2015 11:05PM

Never thought I'd hear myself echo and agree with George Bush Junior - but 'hunt 'em down, smoke 'em out, and shoot 'em'. They don't don't want a peace agreement/peace/USA etc..out.. they want to kill ALL who don't agree ....

Danger to HUMANITY- not just Americans/Europeans/Christians/Jews ... all humanity is in danger ..

Do NOT let these low lifes bring humanity into the dark ages again...

KingBrian2 · 05-12-2015 11:26PM

seanaway wrote: »

Never thought I'd hear myself echo and agree with George Bush Junior - but 'hunt 'em down, smoke 'em out, and shoot 'em'. They don't don't want a peace agreement/peace/USA etc..out.. they want to kill ALL who don't agree ....

Danger to HUMANITY- not just Americans/Europeans/Christians/Jews ... all humanity is in danger ..

Do NOT let these low lifes bring humanity into the dark ages again...

It's not hard to agree with Bush he says what is straight forward, it is how you do it that is important. It is way too simple talking about lets grab khaki trousers and a cap and go into battle. You need a trained army that lives in that part of the world that has a stake in this fight. Actually willing to make the hard calls, prepared to get into the rat holes and fight them in the field. The Russians did it in Stalingrad and flushed the Germans, Romanians, Italians, hardened SS troops.

Competent Syrian commanders that have a track record of eradicating terrorists. It was Syrian commanders that took out the Muslim Brotherhood in the 80's and they would have taken out the Al Nusra if they did not have outside help building up the numbers of foreign fighters. The key is to smother the supply lines of fighters and weapons moving into Syria.

seanaway · 05-12-2015 11:47PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It's not hard to agree with Bush he says what is straight forward, it is how you do it that is important. It is way too simple talking about lets grab khaki trousers and a cap and go into battle. You need a trained army that lives in that part of the world that has a stake in this fight. Actually willing to make the hard calls, prepared to get into the rat holes and fight them in the field. The Russians did it in Stalingrad and flushed the Germans, Romanians, Italians, hardened SS troops.

Competent Syrian commanders that have a track record of eradicating terrorists. It was Syrian commanders that took out the Muslim Brotherhood in the 80's and they would have taken out the Al Nusra if they did not have outside help building up the numbers of foreign fighters. The key is to smother the supply lines of fighters and weapons moving into Syria.

Finally someone here who actually fuc*ing knows something about history! Agree with you most of the way....1 or 2 things I don't really agree with...mind you you may still be right

All round 100% well done!

piuswal · 06-12-2015 12:07AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingBrian2 View Post
It's not hard to agree with Bush he says what is straight forward, it is how you do it that is important. It is way too simple talking about lets grab khaki trousers and a cap and go into battle. You need a trained army that lives in that part of the world that has a stake in this fight. Actually willing to make the hard calls, prepared to get into the rat holes and fight them in the field. The Russians did it in Stalingrad and flushed the Germans, Romanians, Italians, hardened SS troops.

Competent Syrian commanders that have a track record of eradicating terrorists. It was Syrian commanders that took out the Muslim Brotherhood in the 80's and they would have taken out the Al Nusra if they did not have outside help building up the numbers of foreign fighters. The key is to smother the supply lines of fighters and weapons moving into Syria.

seanaway wrote: »

Finally someone here who actually fuc*ing knows something about history! Agree with you most of the way....1 or 2 things I don't really agree with...mind you you may still be right

All round 100% well done!

So, lets say that solves the immediate Daesh problem! What happens next?
The older Bush went into IRAQ, on faulty intelligence - or intelligence manipulated by Cheney et al - to take out Saddam and could be said to have eventually given rise to Daesh, which contains many of the IRAQI military discarded by Bush.

It will need soldiers on the ground to eliminate Daesh. Where from?

The US will not commit troops, or will they? Or use proxies like the Brits did in Europe in the 18th and 19th century.

What happened when the NAZIs were defeated? Marshall Aid, but that was Europe these are only poor Middle Easterners and mainly non-Christian. So what chance a similar type programme?

KingBrian2 · 06-12-2015 12:46AM

piuswal wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingBrian2 View Post
It's not hard to agree with Bush he says what is straight forward, it is how you do it that is important. It is way too simple talking about lets grab khaki trousers and a cap and go into battle. You need a trained army that lives in that part of the world that has a stake in this fight. Actually willing to make the hard calls, prepared to get into the rat holes and fight them in the field. The Russians did it in Stalingrad and flushed the Germans, Romanians, Italians, hardened SS troops.

Competent Syrian commanders that have a track record of eradicating terrorists. It was Syrian commanders that took out the Muslim Brotherhood in the 80's and they would have taken out the Al Nusra if they did not have outside help building up the numbers of foreign fighters. The key is to smother the supply lines of fighters and weapons moving into Syria.

So, lets say that solves the immediate Daesh problem! What happens next?
The older Bush went into IRAQ, on faulty intelligence - or intelligence manipulated by Cheney et al - to take out Saddam and could be said to have eventually given rise to Daesh, which contains many of the IRAQI military discarded by Bush.

It will need soldiers on the ground to eliminate Daesh. Where from?

The US will not commit troops, or will they? Or use proxies like the Brits did in Europe in the 18th and 19th century.

What happened when the NAZIs were defeated? Marshall Aid, but that was Europe these are only poor Middle Easterners and mainly non-Christian. So what chance a similar type programme?

The circumstance today are very different. Iraq and Syria are Arab Nations. Arabic speaking peoples are the key to resolving the turmoil in the region. We all know the politics of religious violence will pull apart these countries. Keep the political parties advocating for sharia law well away from civilians.

Yeah_Right · 06-12-2015 12:51AM

seanaway wrote: »

Finally someone here who actually fuc*ing knows something about history! Agree with you most of the way....1 or 2 things I don't really agree with...mind you you may still be right

All round 100% well done!

Really?!? You do know how the USSR won the battle of Stalingrad?

I agree on the point that we need troops on the ground. I am not sure that a massive occupying force is the way to go. I think "terrorists" amongst the terrorists. Special forces operators and local underground fighters creating chaos and terror in ISIS territories.

KingBrian2 · 06-12-2015 01:27AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Really?!? You do know how the USSR won the battle of Stalingrad?

I agree on the point that we need troops on the ground. I am not sure that a massive occupying force is the way to go. I think "terrorists" amongst the terrorists. Special forces operators and local underground fighters creating chaos and terror in ISIS territories.

We need a National army composed of Syrian citizens that will fight for their homeland. Dedicated & disciplined soldiers that actually live there. ISIS are made up of foreigners a fair few Brits and French are in with that crowd. Mobilising that army is the duty of the President and as the first citizen of any country it is that persons responsibility to pursue the terrorists with the full force of the military whatever the cost may be. The luxuries of maintaining a token force that will allow ISIS and other groups to spread Jihadism is not an option.

kettlehead · 06-12-2015 09:41AM

Today's regional election results should be interesting. FN look set to do well on the back of the attacks.

FRANCE’S FAR-RIGHT National Front (FN) is today widely predicted to take a step towards grabbing control of at least one region for the first time, with both leader Marine Le Pen and her niece expected to perform strongly.

The first round of regional elections comes three weeks after the jihadist attacks in Paris that left 130 people dead, thrusting the FN’s anti-immigration and sometimes Islamophobic message to the fore.

Around 44 million people are eligible to vote and ballots will be cast under tight security with France in a state of emergency following the attacks on the capital. First projections are expected at 7pm.

Le Pen is on course to top the poll in the economically-depressed Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie region in the north, once a bastion of the left.

Her 25-year-old niece Marion Marechal-Le Pen, meanwhile, seems to be heading for an equally strong score in the vast southeastern Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur region that includes the beaches thronged by sun-seekers in the summer.

Opinion polls give the FN between 27 percent and 30 percent of the vote in the first round, a similar score to the centre-right Republicans led by former president Nicolas Sarkozy.

http://www.thejournal.ie/far-right-french-election-gains-major-2485821-Dec2015/?utm_source=fb_more

JPNelsforearm · 06-12-2015 03:29PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

We need a National army composed of Syrian citizens that will fight for their homeland. Dedicated & disciplined soldiers that actually live there. ISIS are made up of foreigners a fair few Brits and French are in with that crowd. Mobilising that army is the duty of the President and as the first citizen of any country it is that persons responsibility to pursue the terrorists with the full force of the military whatever the cost may be. The luxuries of maintaining a token force that will allow ISIS and other groups to spread Jihadism is not an option.

It already exists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHC4LKn6Jhg

IrishTrajan · 06-12-2015 05:04PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

We need a National army composed of Syrian citizens that will fight for their homeland. Dedicated & disciplined soldiers that actually live there. ISIS are made up of foreigners a fair few Brits and French are in with that crowd. Mobilising that army is the duty of the President and as the first citizen of any country it is that persons responsibility to pursue the terrorists with the full force of the military whatever the cost may be. The luxuries of maintaining a token force that will allow ISIS and other groups to spread Jihadism is not an option.

Why would Syrians fight for the guy dropping barrel bombs on their families? Not even the Alawites will fight for him, thousands of them fleeing to avoid conscription, so why would Sunnis?

JPNelsforearm · 06-12-2015 05:14PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Why would Syrians fight for the guy dropping barrel bombs on their families? Not even the Alawites will fight for him, thousands of them fleeing to avoid conscription, so why would Sunnis?

barrel bombs......just so much more hideous than regular bombs rofl :rolleyes::rolleyes:

IrishTrajan · 06-12-2015 05:52PM

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

barrel bombs......just so much more hideous than regular bombs rofl :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Regular bombs, as in the ones being used by the West, are infinitely more accurate and, thus, have an infinitely lower chance of hitting innocents - characterized by the fact Britain has killed several hundred IS fighters without a single civilian casualty.

Barrel bombs are flung out of a helicopter, fall to the earth without any ability to correct its path, onto civilian populated areas, and more often than not, miss the rebels and hit the civilians.

So, yes, they are much more hideous than conventional missiles, and only a moron would dispute that.

nokia69 · 06-12-2015 07:12PM

well maybe the west should give Assad some "regular bombs" then he can be just as good as the saudis who are bombing Yemen

bodhrandude · 06-12-2015 07:14PM

I don't recall seeing this news story in 17th July but it came up in my Facebook feed just there, in its reveal it uncovers that a UK Tory MP, Nadhim Zahawi was caught selling oil to ISIL. So I thought I'd post the link here if anyone is interested.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=619_1437121336#5RmmKHc7uMkuM1XC.01

Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

Comments