Attacks in Paris

Do countries not report news that largely has the most relevance to its citizens, so will go for news of countries close to it rather than those further away on the whole? Is that not logical and reasonable?
So we get French news rather than Ghana, picking a country further away at random.
Germany rather than Puerto Rico?

Belgium rather than Brazil? You get my drift.

But now that IS is more relevant to us, we will get Lebanon news or whereever.

The police, including the armed response teams, constantly do training for exactly this sort of thing, ( I have police officers in the family) and they do so many training days,so that they are ready for almost any situation.
You can never allow for crazy people who will blow themselves up, so we can never be really safe, but that can happen anywhere.

On the other subject, it's natural that we are more interested in our neighbour France, than in further flung countries.

Without a world view though we will never get a handle on IS. They operate throughout the world particularly in areas where they stand a chance of dividing the existing population.

The media and world governments must treat them as a global organism, simply because that is how they function.

I see them as the type of under ground fungus that emanates from the centre and pops up where conditions allow it. If you separate a piece of it though it can still function which is why it is so difficult to control, but if we don't everything will become rotten in its wake.

Put all the refugees on an island( Don't know where) build there own community as they don't want to live in our communities and go by our laws and way of life.

The refugees are not the problem

I am not more or less interested in France than other countries

But what is the point of it all? I don't understand what the terrorists hope to gain by doing these dreadful things. But it is worrying how many are coming to 'our' world and yet they despise everything we stand for. Oh someone help.

A little extreme I thinkannette18 but I do agree that anyone coming here for a better life should be prepared to abide by our laws.

I don't know how you can be so sure whitewave ?

We changed the laws and way of life of many countries

The refugees are fleeing from IS. Now, whether some IS come in on their backs is another issue, and something Europe will need to address. It is notable that so far with Charlie Hebbo, and so far those identified this time are all home grown.

I'm sorry but I don't want our way of life to change Anniebach I don't want me DGD's to be forced to wear a bloody hijab or be treat like 3rd class citizens because they are girls. I don't want them to be forced to marry some old crone in order to protect the family honour....... I could go on and on.

So gillybob , you see IS in control of parliament in the next generation, I do not

If things are allowed to carry on the way they are Anniebachthen, yes there is a distinct possibility that we may have a hard line Muslim in charge.

Perhaps not within the next generation but the one after that.

It is this kind of thing that worries me.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3319941/Radical-panellists-event-demand-establishment-Islamic-State.html

As for world news it is simply the case the UK news channels are dire at covering stories. Sky (free view 132) is better than the BBC at times but watch Aljazeera (free view 133) they cover the UK and world news and they cover Middle East news constantly. So there was coverage of Beirut on our news channels.

To be honest bringing up what news there was on Beirut , mentioning the fact more Muslims have been killed by IS or the British calling German forces 'Gerries' has little bearing on the attack in Paris.

The world is at war with IS and it's about time the UN got it's act together. IS fighters have only one aim in life , to dominate the world with their barbaric, medieval brand of the Muslim faith. They do not care if they exterminate the Jew, the Christian, Muslims of any faith who do not believe in the Islamic State, the Caliphate.

As for the question of our defence against IS and our ability to defend the UK against terror attacks there are 2 views. Some think the likes of Edward Snowden are practically heroic in divulging matters of state secrecy, others think they are b----y traitors. Some think the present government are trying to impose too much survailance on our human rights, others are more than happy to allow the survailance as they believe it is a tool to keep us safe. Some say we shouldn't sell arms and equipment to the Arab Nations , other's think well if they do not have arms and equipment to fight how could they protect their own people. The list of opposite views could go on and on.

The UK has been clearly warned ' over the past few years ' we are on code red alert for acts of terrorism and it cannot have failed to be known by most people that Home Secretary Theresa May has been outspoken of the fact we have 'thwarted' potential terror attacks , this has been the case prior to the tragic Lee Rugby murder, the be headings of Jihadi John and any bombing of IS insurgents in Syria. It is a fact we all have to accept in the UK and any other country in the world, IS is out to attack us , not only by murder but including our way of life which they hate so much because of their desire to rule the world as a Caliphate.

All we can do is continually raise our game, accept the realistic need for extra surveillance, accept our security agencies need to have the tools to detect and hopefully thwart potential attacks on us and stop being so precious about our 'civil liberties', IS doesn't give a toss about our 'liberties' IS thanks the likes of Snowden, IS relies on our liberal way of life/thinking it gives them an open goal to wage their war on us.

gillybob did you miss the word radical in that article? Most Muslims in the UK are not radical and many Muslim women do not wear hijab. I worked with women you wouldn't even know were Muslim.

I am gobsmacked and sad that you actually believe we could be governed by Muslim law. In fact, I think it verges on the point of scaremongering.

We are accepting refugees to supposedly safe their lives but we are now sacrificing our own people in the process.

They can be kept safe and well in refugee camps if all money and effort from other countries were put towards running these safety and efficiently. They are then best placed to go back to their own country when safe.

Any parent who puts their child are risk by putting them in a dingy/boat from a safe place like Turkey to reach Greece should not be pitied by the rest of the world but condemned.

Put refugees in camps where ? The refugees in the camp in Calais have been subjected to police brutality for ages , we will not accept them here so why should we expect other countries to have camps ?

It is me who is scared Wilma and if others seek to bury their heads in the sand or vote for a pacifist then that's up to them.

One of the people on this panel is well know to be an extremist.

I agree most Muslims are not extremists but some (maybe more than we realise) are.

Many Muslim women don't wear hijab. So what?

POGS I agree with you, as long as the Muslim community is not demonised in the process. I don't want to see an us and them situation in the UK, unless it's the UK versus radical Islam. That said, the Muslim community must raise its profile in its efforts to demonstrate it is against Islamic extremism. I know it is involved, but it is not enough and must be seen as part of integrated demonstrations.

We all need to be against IS, just like we were against the Nazis.

............and just how often do you see Muslim leaders in the UK demonising radical Islam Wilma ?

You have still not answered my question, AB, or anyone else who abhors all violence and interference in other cultures, and blames "the west" for the situation.

The past cannot be changed. There was intolerance on all sides - NOT only from "the west". So what NOW?

Should we kneel before IS, bare our necks and say "It is all our fault. Your killings were justice, ours were not. Be merciful, in the name of Allah" ? and just what do you think would happen if we did? That all would then be sweetness and light? That there would not be exultation in the ranks of those who are hot to establish a caliphate over all of Europe and Africa? That they would quietly settle back into peaceful co-existence? That our own culture, traditions, religious freedom and all that we have achieved over the centuries would not be under threat?

The genie is out of the bottle, and containing and resisting it by all means possible is the way forward. Diplomatic negotiation, personal contacts where they are possible, condemnation of terrorist attacks and suicide bombings and yes, even concentrated military action on the IS strongholds if we must.

There must be international standards of screening of migrants, and observation of those who seem to have dodgy papers. Not at all easy to do and likely to offend - but it could filter out some of those who want to cause harm to the country that takes then in. "Citizenship" and language classes for immigrants could teach them the good values of the country they come to, to counteract what they see as bad aspects.

Just repeating that "We are worse than them, and atrocities in other countries are being ignored" is not constructive.