Terror incident in Paris

namloc1980 wrote: »

Hang on a second. Didn't Trump proclaim he had a peace deal with the Taliban? Yes he did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AOLEAm1Si0

Not much of a deal if you are suggesting it's falling apart already. So much for the master dealmaker and his "art of the deal".

He has, but from the Talibans point of view it looks like a violent coup with the democrats stealing power. A few splinter groups will get out of hand but in the grand scheme of things they will hold tight and see if democracy can happen.

If you signed a phone contract with 3 after having an issue with virgin media and virgin media seized all their offices and shops a few weeks later chanting defund the police would you be happy?

artanevilla wrote: »

The Taliban don't operate in the middle east.

Technically they do but not under their own banner. Pakistani and Afghani Taliban fighters have operated as part of Iranian proxies such as Liwa Fatemiyon and Liwa Zainebiyoun in Syria.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Obviously the mainstream media are in collusion with muslim extremists to impose sharia law on us unsuspecting westerners. Better look to the ports, you never know what's stirring inside the cargo bay. You take Dun Laoghaire tonight just in case, I'll keep a watchful eye on Rosslare.

Ahem. OK, here’s what we've got:
the Rand Corporation Antifa, in conjunction with the saucer people NWO, under the supervision of the reverse vampires lizard people, are forcing our parents patriots to go to bed early be racist in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner! brown faces and "different".
We’re through the looking glass, here, people.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And for stupidest post of the thread the winner is......

:pac:

It's not his fault. It's his phone. He's typing perfectly sensible stuff but the broken phone adds, removes and reorders the words to make the posts look stupid. That kind of malware has been around for ages. It often gets installed with gab/voat/parler/waifu bundle installer.

Man with broke phone wrote: »

If you signed a phone contract with 3 after having an issue with virgin media and virgin media seized all their offices and shops a few weeks later chanting defund the police would you be happy?

That's brilliant in fairness. Compete nonsense but hilarious

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And for stupidest post of the thread the winner is......

:pac:

That's an early call in a thread like this. Like giving man of the match in the 10th minute.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I suppose if your social media feed is populated by reactionary headbangers who jump on every incident to fill your brain with 'the world is ending' hysterics then it would appear that the mainstream news-media is involved in some 'leftist' conspiracy, or some mad shit like that.

Well the media tends to be more left wing than right, I think that's a given.

But there's no cover up of this story at all. It's not a massive story (nobody is dead.. yet at any rate), but it's well reported. The fact that it is Islamic terrorism is not in dispute either.

Man with broke phone wrote: »

He has, but from the Talibans point of view it looks like a violent coup with the democrats stealing power.

Ya what?

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

I disagree, Charlie hebdo should never have printed those incendiary pictures

Some people just want to watch the world burn, and making excuses for them is doing the devil's work. The Charlie Hebdo massacre was only one of dozens ISIL inspired attacks in France.

I suppose the Bataclan theater should not have shown public support for Israel. The Hypercacher kosher supermarket should not have been allowed to have provocative Jewish products. The Toulouse and Montauban shootings was in retaliation for the provocative ban on wearing religious clothing, and also because of the presence of Jews in France. The Nice attack was generally due to the provocative French bombing of ISIL targets. The perpetrator of the Paris bomb plot (who eventually went on to behead a priest in a church in Normandy) was motivated by.. the provocative presence of French people.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well the media tends to be more left wing than right, I think that's a given..

The corporate media? The media owned by billionaires? The media whose journalists prostitute themselves to corporate power? The corporate, billionaire owned, hack media, is 'left wing'?

I'm sure you've been well conditioned by reactionary oddballs to come to that conclusion alright.

The collective bed-wetting the corporate media engages in when Sanders in the US, Corbyn in the UK, or Mary Lou here, get near the levers of power demonstrates perfectly to those of a more thoughtful disposition exactly how 'left wing' the media is.

Edit: And the idea that the three names above indicate some sort of leftward paradigm shift is absolutely laughable and indicates just how thoroughly defeated 'the left' is.

GT89 wrote: »

Mainstream media not reporting on this much there's a surprise

Yeah your Twitter feed is so underground maannnn

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The corporate media? The media owned by billionaires? The media whose journalists prostitute themselves to corporate power? The corporate, billionaire owned, hack media, is 'left wing'?

Predominantly, yes. Or you could describe it as 'liberal' if you like. This doesn't necessarily have a bearing on the authenticity of the journalism, you understand, but it's generally an appropriate description of the political leaning.

What part is hard to understand? Is it the billionaire aspect? The large corporation bit? The same can be said of universities, particularly in America. Is your view similarly that Hardvard, Yale, Stanford, Rutgers are all right wing establishments, because of the plutocrats that run them?

Finally I have an explanation for all the far-right propaganda on Channel 4. It's because they are corporate media owned by billionaires. Thanks Junkyard Tom for your as ever, insightful analysis.

I don't think there's been any paradigm shift to the left. Journalism for many, many years has been more left than right wing.

I don't know why the media was so dead set against Corbyn. But the labour elite were antagonistic to Corbyn, so I'd say that would have a bearing on it. The corporate billionare connection after all. The same thing may well have been true in relation to Sanders - he did not have the backing of the elite within the Democratic party.

Just because someone has left-wing affiliation doesn't necessarily mean that they espouse those values.

And for what it's worth, Mary Lou is a nationalist, not a socialist.

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

Say that to families who had loved ones slaughtered like pigs because of those pictures.

Nobody was slaughtered because of those pictures. The pictures are not to blame.