Paris Terrorist Attack

Says the was betrothed at 6 or 7 and the marriage was 'consummated' when she was 9 or 10 everywhere I've looked. Sure things were different back then though. King John sounds like a paedo-rapist too. Thing is, I'm not holding him up as a role model who's so perfect it's offensive to draw a pic of him. Go on - draw away!

Anyway, it's good to see you keeping the tradition alive and well in Rotherham, Rochdale, Derby and Oxford etc.

P.S. What's with this 10,000 years? The last ice-age? It's OK. I know religious mumbojumboists struggle a bit with dates.

 

Oh wow, here comes your true feelings. Knew they were bottled in somewhere.

Jimmy Saville?

Are all white men, 65 years above and work in the media now paedo's?

Fu*k off you ignorant pri*k. Not worth the time.

 

As predicted. Don't like the evidence up 'em. Sure individual white guys did the same. But they didn't hunt in gangs in taxis. The ones that did that were Muslims with attitides derived from medieval Pakistan. Don't like the evidence? Doesn't surprise me. Religious mumbojumbo is nothing if not consistently always in denial of the evidence. Plus it's your community that sends reluctant child brides to Pakistan and elsewhere to marry a stinking old git. Plus it's your community that sends poor wee girls off to some hovel in the desert to have their cl.toris sliced off with a blunt scalpel. By all means practise your religion. But I have to ask. Why is it that, above all others, it's members of your religious community that resist being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century?

 

OK. I take back whining appeaser. Well at least the whining bit. Have to say I've missed the irony though.

 

I assure, you white paedophiles are a lot more prominent than Pakistani ones.

Ironically your attitude is rather medieval too.

 

I think we agree mostly.

First, the examples you gave of representing the English, or Clarkson representing the English are not relevant. The Islamic problem has no borders, it is based on beliefs, not a line on a map. We are talking about different interpretations of the same religion, here. There are different interpretations in Christianity. Catholic, CofE, Baptist, Methodists, etc, etc. who would all say that they are Christian. There is the same in Islam. That is a necessary fact of life when much of what all Christians and Muslims know is based on ancient books, written in an ancient world and been interpreted over the centuries by umpteen individuals who think they know best.

ISIS say they represent Islam and that theirs is the true interpretation. They not only hate us, but they also hate other branches of Islam such as the Shias. I am in no position to argue who is right, as I wouldn't know the front of the Quran from the back. But I am happy to go along with what I am told by people like Squibba who tell me that ISIS are not correct for my own piece of mind. But that doesn't change the overall picture. ISIS say they are Muslims, no matter how unwanted they are. That is what matters in this situation. They are in the prime place to sort out the issues, not us.

I am afraid (to use an example), If Watford supporters travel to the QPR game with us wearing the Watford colours, stand with us on the terraces, sing our songs, wave our flags and banners - and then start a riot outside the ground, it does not matter how much we deplore what they are doing - they represent Watford. We cannot just shut our eyes and keep quiet about what we have seen. But that does not mean that all Watford supporters are to blame, but we are likely to be in a better position to help stop it happening again than the QPR supporters are. That is all I am saying, Muslims are in the driving seat when it comes it sorting out this problem - and they must accept that, in my view.

We should not be *****footing around Muslims in this country, nor creating a them and us environment but instead we should be going out of our way to support them if they play their part. But that is not going to be easy.

 

You in the pub, Kelso?

 

Evidence please?

How so?

 

Nope. Lying on the sofa. Are you suggesting there might be a correlation between how many beers I've had and how confrontational I get?

If so, I think you're right. I do seem to have a tendency to chuck in a counter-productive and unnecessarily pushy line when I've had a couple and subsequently regret it.

Thank you for drawing this to my attention. I will try and rectify the problem.

 

I think we agree on the board points and just differ slightly out in the weeds.

The last paragraph I strongly agree with. This isn't "our" problem or "their" problem, it's just a problem (albeit a nasty one) and all should stand together to fix it. Agree completely that no solution is going to be easy, even more so if people continue to try and create the "them and us" environment you mentioned.

Unfortunately, in this country many are trying to do exactly that (see the recent comments on Birmingham/London by an "expert" who acts as an expert witness for US Congress on a regular basis), but the fact that the current position of the US right wing is pretty crazy shouldn't be news to anyone. They're honestly not that far to the left of the Nazis at this point, which is quite worrying for a country that has the military might of the US.

 

Fair post and thank you. The ashamed to be a supporter of the same club bit ... throwaway line when I was in the mood. Happy to join you on the Rookery any day.

On the point of principle. I am a bit of a stickler for it. In particular, this clash is between the scientifically derived modern world based on empirical evidence and the medieval world based on fairy stories and superstition. In this conflict there can only be one eventual winner because one argument is based on empirical truth and the other is based on superstitious falsehood. Unfortunately it seems that the obvious eventual loser isn't going to go quietly.

 

So a world leader march (aka "photo op") intended to show support for various capital-f Freedoms is covered by various journalism outfits, and what does one Israeli outlet do?

Photoshop all the female leaders out of the picture.

You can't make it up.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...er-merkel-women-charlie-hebdo-rally?CMP=fb_gu

EDIT: a response from an Irish satire paper:

http://www.thejournal.ie/paris-image-waterford-whispers-news-1881521-Jan2015/?utm_source=shortlink

Hilarious stuff.

 

Is it really? The problem berween you and me as I see it is this. Whatever example I point out (and I've pointed out lots) your constant response is along the lines of 'nothing to do with me mate'. Of course that's correct. It's nothing to do with you personally. But all the examples I give are problems that emanate from within your religious community. You even cite Boko Haram in your defence. A problem that eminates from within your religious community. This is what annoys me and I believed ZZT too. Community self-denial. A denial that it is members of your community, in particular, that have a problem with integrating and joining the 21st century. A collective washing your hands of it and certainly a reluctance to be in the vanguard of the solution.

So what is the end game here? Well the UKIP pot simmers nicely. And there are lots of far more nasty guys out there. So if all this continues unchecked then the gas will be turned up further and further until the pot boils over. I think you know the rest.

None of that is a statement of intent, certainly not on my behalf. Despite what I might appear to be to you on here, I am an entirely live and let live kinda guy.

It is merely an observation. And a prediction.

 

Whoops. Swap like for dislike.

 

OK. I think I see what you're saying in your first sentence. Individual white male paedophiles have a higher public profile than those of Pakistani origin. Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc etc. This is true. The common factor amongst these perverts is that they were all part of the light entertainment industry going back to at least the 1980s and beyond (in Saville's case the 1950s). As far as I'm aware, there were no prominent light entertainment figures of Pakistani origin back then. Anyway, the problem is an historical one it would seem. But you can be sure that the light entertainment industry will be well aware that it was their problem in particular and will be right at the forefront of making sure it won't happpen again. They will be self-policing. Get it?

The current problem is certainly not all down to the Pakistani heritage community. There are gangs of eastern Europeans trafficking young women for commercial profit and there is also another historical investigation underway into a gang of senior public figures (parliamentarians, the judiciary, captains of industry etc) who preyed on (and maybe murdered) young boys in the 1980s. In addition to all of this there are obviously individual paedophiles on the prowl. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Muslims are disproportionately paedophilic as individuals. If anything, the opposite.

Then we come to Rotherham, Rochdale, Derby and Oxford etc. I use etc because they are only the high profile cases. There are a number of others and the implication is that there are similar problems in every town north of L.ton (and maybe south of it too given that Oxford is included). So, having pointed out the light entertainment common factor above I now point out the common factors here. Certainly that the perpetrators are Muslims of Pakistani decent. Taxis and kebab shops feature prominently too. Some say these guys were deliberately targeting white girls. I don't see any evidence of that. White girls were the ones available because firstly there are a lot more of them and secondly, because they're the ones wandering the streets in the middle of the night half dressed and half pissed. It is very commendable that the Muslim community look after their teenage daughters better than many white parents and make sure they know where they are and tuck them up in bed at night. Modesty is encouraged with the hijab and alcohol is frowned upon. All this will make teenage Muslim girls less vulnerable and is to be commended.

However, I raised these cases because there are obviously common denominators. I may have done so confrontationally but I'm afraid there does seem to be a direct line from the life of the prophet, via his holy book to the systematic abuse of teenage girls in northern industrial towns, forced marriages and female genital mutilation. Or would you claim that the fact that these problems exist virtually entirely within the Muslim community as being in some way coincidental?

For all of the above you could substitute 'how to counteract the terrorist threat' for 'how to minimise child abuse'. But if you deny your religious community even has a particular problem then you're even further away from being part of the solution. You can't be in the vanguard of solving a problem if you deny there's a problem in the first place.

There are currently moves afoot to increase the police and the security services' powers to monitor phone conversations and texting. You have drawn our attention to this. Whether those powers remain the same as they currently are, or if they're increased, I will ask you this. Seeing as you refuse to recognise an obvious problem when it stares you in the face and seem to be in persistent denial, would it be reasonable to expect that your phone is more likely to be monitored than mine as a retired, white agnostic? Similarly, might you expect to be more likely to be properly searched when you pass through an airport? It's called the targeting of resources to maximum effect.

P.S. Just so as you know that this is a pragmatic post as opposed to an anti-Muslin rant, I'll give you this. Philippine said he could find no example of persecution of the Islamic faith in the same way as Christians are persucuted in many Islamic countries. Well there is currently severe persecution of the Rohingya islamic community in Buddhist/Communist south-east Myanmar along the Thai border to the extent that they are being forced across that border and out of Myanmar.

 

Charlie print run currently 5 million.

Go CHARLIE go, go, go ...

I see there was a large protest against the front cover in the Philippines. I also see the Pope's on an Asian tour. Where's his next stop? Yep - you guessed it - the Philippines. A crowd of 5 million Catholics is expected to gather for his main address. Sounds like a huge security risk to me.

 

That protest was in the southern island of Mindanao which is where almost all the Muslims in the Philippines live. It is also, incidentally, the only area of the Philippines the British government has designated not safe to travel.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/philippines

 

What is this about? No, I have no intention of getting hold of a copy of the latest Charlie edition and taking it along to the Mosque kitchen to read and leaving it behind, front cover up, when I go. That would be deliberately confrontational and pointless.

What I will do, if I get hold of a copy, is take it home, read it and have a laugh at Muhammad's, Allah's, the Pope's, Jesus's, Benyamin Netanyahu's or anyone else's expense that happens to be in the firing line this week. What I won't do is accept that I and the rest of the secular western world shouldn't publish it, read it and look at it in misguided respect of a medieval edict issued on behalf of a minority which isn't relevant in any way to the vast majority of us at all. That would be an entirely regressive step. In fact 'medieval edict' might be wrong. It would seem that this is maybe a more modern edict.

I have no wish to make Muslims read it or look at it. They don't have to and they don't have to buy it. But to try and stop the rest of us doing so is simply religious arrogance and an expectation that respect should be given when it's entirely unwarranted and undeserved. And that goes for all religions. There is nothing about any religion that should make them a special case or expect special treatment over and above the law of the land.

 

OK. But presumably there are planes and boats between Mindanao, Tacloban and Luzon.

 

Of course there are (there are boats and planes between London and Syria too). That said most domestic flights (some international ones too) have been cancelled due to the visit and a boat would take a week or more it's over 1000 miles away from Manila.

 

OK. I should have read that travel guidance before banging on about aeroplanes. Thanks. But it looks like only about 100 miles from northern Mindanao to Tacloban. A half day boat trip then? Plenty of time to have made that journey in the past eight days. And their must be some Muslim sympathisers living in the Christian islands too.

All I'm saying is that, if the Pope's visit was seen as a particular security risk some time in advance due to religious tensions in the islands (and I presume those travel restrictions were already in place), then it sure is now!

 

Which goes to show that all ortodox/extremist/conservative branches of religion are FIJCKING IDIOTS.

The Amish, for example however, have luckily shunned modern technology like AK47s and C4.

 

They shipped his Pope-mobile in, he is invincible in that!

 

To criticise a religion is fine. To criticise someone for, or because of their religion is not.
It's a subtle difference that many people get wrong. both the citicisers and the offended.

To deliberately provoke is treading on dangerous ground. Part of me thinks that the public backlash has gone further than outrage at the perpetrators of this heinous crime and we have a situation where mob rule will start to take over. They are dragging us down to their level rather than letting the law handle it. Days of mourning are fine. An act of defiance is fine, but repeated top billing on the news, multiple re-prints of the magazine? I'm not so sure.

I'm fully aware these are probably unpopular views, but my feelings are that much like the ice bucket challenge, I wonder if "Je suis charlie" is becoming a trendy statement and people are using it without understanding the circumstances.
A quick google provided websites flogging T-shirts, with no statement as to where the proceeds were heading.

We are inadvertently giving these people the advertising platform they want.

 

Not unpopular with me, I've been saying much the same from the start.

 

If you havent watched Panorama on I-player, you really should.

 

Saw him (or rather his predecessor) in it in Princes Street, Edinburgh in 2010. Seeing as his predecessor was a prat I felt the need to have a go at him and did. I do like to be even-handed! I got in with a crowd of Spaniards who felt the same way and we jogged the length of Princes Street (about a mile) having a go at him. We weren't very popular but there were about a dozen of us so who cares? What a laugh!

I wouldn't feel the need to 'have a go' at the current one though. He's very good. Talks the talk and walks the walk.

 

Yes of course there is a degree of jumping on the bandwagon and using an easy soundbite for its own sake and for commercial purposes. There always is. But there's also a very serious point underlying it all.

Not all of the 5 million copies will be sold to those who are thinking about the serious issue though for sure. Many will probably regard it simply as an investment. It's being bargained for ridiculous amounts on e-bay apparently.

 

That's pretty aggressive secularism/atheism.

 

Or a statement against his failures as a pope.

 

Maybe. Well secularism/agnosticism on my part. But would you say the same if I, or someone else, had a similar go at a political figure? Why should a religious figure be shown any more respect unless he's earnt it? The previous Pope didn't. He was a particularly bad example of a dinosaur that was long past its sell by date and with particularly damaging views inhibiting progress towards a more caring and inclusive world, not least his views on Islam. Those adulating him were mostly doing so because he was THE Pope. I had a go because he was a particular Pope. As indicated, I wouldn't do the same to his successor (or for that matter, would I have done to his predecessor). But if devotees got upset just because they think he should be above load, vocal criticism just because he's THE Pope, well tough. They're all fair game.

 

To me if you've gone out of your way to do that then it sounds a little bit sad. Life's too short. I have no interest in or particular respect for any Pope - doesn't mean I'd pop into town if they were visiting and chase after them heckling. For what it's worth I probably would say the same if it was a political figure. Seems pretty borish to me.

 

Then you and I will just have to disagree. Nothing will change while these figures continue to receive adulation and respect they don't deserve. Or if their followers aren't made very aware that there are others out there who have a very different view of their main man and are prepared to say so. It's all bunk and a crutch to lean on. Nothing else. Otherwise you'd have to believe one's entirely right and all the others wrong which would be ridiculous.

What I remember was that it was a lovely day. It was only 20 mins walk straight downhill to where it started and I would have been going that way anyway. So hardly putting myself out (although I'd like to think I would have done if it had been necessary). When I got there I was all by myself and thought - Jesus, I'm gonna get crucified here! Ha! Then I spotted the Spaniards and all was well. There were hundreds of thousands along the route all obviously cheering and facing the road and the Popemobile and away from us behind them. Then we sussed that the best tactic was to get a bit ahead of the game and start being annoying in advance. Most of the adoring masses still didn't notice us or ignored us. But plenty did and were obviously annoyed and put out and told us to shut up which we obviously didn't. Then there was loads of cheering and flag-waving. There may have been a Vatican City/Saltire half-scarf for all I know. My only regret? Maybe they thought we were Protestants!

If you think that's borish and churlish so be it. To detract from a few families' happy-clappy day out with a bit of dissension. It was definitely the best thing I did that day and all that week. I'm as proud of it now as I was then. So I say, what was borish and churlish was a bloke sitting in his ivory tower in Rome, reading his books and, with no handle on the real world, delivering his edicts to directly compromise the advancement of religious harmony and women's equality. Not me and a few others pointing out the errors of his ways.

 

No but we are more fearful of attacks which are closer to home, and can relate more to ones with a similar value of life to us. In the same way that hearing about somebody you have never met who lived a few roads away from you was killed in an accident would be more interesting to you than one in the suburbs of Wigan.

Rightly or wrongly, you find it harder to imagine a mass killing in Africa, but can easily relate to people at their local supermarket or workplace being shot in their similar lives by those who you think are irrational.

 

Caught his Sri Lanka gig on Sky the other night. Played all his new material and nothing from the back catalogue.

It's a no from me