Attacks in Paris

This is interesting.

tompride.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/paris-attacks-not-designated-as-terrorism-by-uk-government-to-save-money/

The Paris attacks were not terrorist attacks according to the government.
I wonder what they were? Friendly fire?

Perhaps Iam64 most of it boils down to the failure of many Muslim families to integrate into normal everyday society. But surely it is up to the young people to promote change, not to become radicalized.

Ed Hussein is someone who formerly supported Isil/jihad but is now equally opposed to it. I heard him interviewed recently, I think he said it's about 4 or 5 years since he rejected terrorism. He talked about finally realising and accepting that he's gay.
He blames his radicalisation on family life, although his parents were not jihadi they were devout and disliked western values. He said he grew up with these powerful influences which led him to believing jihad was the only way to live. He claimed that within his family and wider culture, there is no acceptance of homosexuality. He was brought up to believe homosexuals were either mentally ill or very bad people so repressed his own feelings until very recently.
Reports in the press this weekend about the key individuals in the Paris atrocity reminded me of this young man.

Not in my mind- but in many ;)

Do the two , left wing and sissy necessarily follow?

Leftwing sissy? Watch your language Granjura

Well this guy is no left wing sissy, ex US marine makes interesting comments:

youtu.be/uziurhZotFI

I wish I could remember where I saw or heard that the jihadists were the misfits in society, the equivalent of New York or Los Angeles gang members. It may have been in the huffing ton post. I think there is an element of truth. Didn't the 911bombers avail themselves of prostitutes before they set off. They seem to have easy access to drugs(as in enough money)

I would elevate their status to pond life petra.

I just don't get their rationale, they partake of everything they purport to despise. Some have lived in Syria where they lord it over the indigenous population and punish them so harshly for minor transgressions.

I'm on the wrong thread for this, but I'm so glad Andrew Neil said what he did about them.

TerriBull. Your post suggests that this pond life thinks. It doesn't, it's like a jelly fish, it operates on muscle spasm.

Having read an article in The Sunday Times today regarding the Paris terrorists it seems that a few of them embraced excesses of a Western lifestyle, drugs and casual sexual partnerships. Are these not deemed haram? which I believe means forbidden in Islam. Allegedly the young man on the run frequented gay clubs and is gay himself. It seems unbelievable therefore that anyone of that persuasion would align themselves to a version of a religion that dishes out such awful punishments to anyone they suspect of being a homosexual. It's hard to understand their mindset per se, but particularly when they have not observed the draconian beliefs which they wish to import and inflict on the rest of us. Hypocrites!

I think we need to take a deep breath and reconcile ourselves to more of the same.

And now.....A hotel in Mali. There's no end to it

Whitewave, you must learn not to think of displaced people,innocent people, children, just think collateral damage .

Jen, I am a member of Hope not Hate

When the military action is extended I hope we have sensible plans in place for all the displaced folk.

Good to see your kink Jen, I agree with him


Oops! Ab! Ray Davies?

One of my favourite groups, Annie. How did you know?

I agree with him, too.

Just been reading an email from Al Jazeera. There's almost a book about how Isil started.

interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2015/riseofisil/index.html

Far too much to read tonight, but it is interesting, what I've read so far.

Good to see your kink Jen, I agree with him

www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/nick/the-terrorists-win-if-we-abandon-our-values-4644

If you research WW1 you can get a good picture of why that war was fought and how this country got embroiled in it. It did serve a purpose contrary to popular belief.

This is getting convoluted and rather pointless. We can all read what was said in the relevant posts and draw our own conclusions, but if there was no misunderstanding of the implications of the usage of "Great" in the "Great War" then there was nothing to discuss or frankly, reason the raise the subject in the first place. There was no mention of a DGS for several posts or of his questioning of the term and it has all become a bit of a non-issue.

ooops inappropriate.

I will take anno's advice and leave it. But for the record, I didn't 'make 'such a big fuss about it' - roses questionned it, which was fine, and then others pounced. My initial post on the subject made it clear I didn't missunderstand the word, but found it tragically misappropriate, after my GS's question.

And if you 'quite obviously' explained to him what the 'great' in this instance meant, why make such a big fuss about it on here...?