Paris under attack

Hacker Khan said:
;

Not that I condone what he is saying in any way shape or form, but all he is doing is using the tragic events to forward his own political agenda. In the same way certain elements of the press (hello Sunday Times headline today) and I am sure a few on here, are desperate to link the terrorists with the Syrian refugee crisis. In their minds it helps to justify their position on gun laws or immigration.

Very undignified but depressingly not unexpected.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what he is doing - that was the point I was making. That some people are that low they use tradegy when raw to push their own political agenda
 
HomerJSimpson said:
Trump is a fool and this was a poor attempt to use a huge tragedy to promote his own agenda and political views. Terrible
Click to expand...
He was probably trying to pander to the gun lobby in the US. Not sure that small pistols that ordinary citizens might carry around with them would have been much of a match for assault weapons anyway!
 
Stolen but may/or may not help:

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)


So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.


By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.


Getting back to Syria.


So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?


But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).


Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.


So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.


Now the British (obviously good, except some freak called Corbyn who, incidentally wears a corduroy jacket, which is dead give away as that's never good) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).


So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).


To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!)


Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmmm... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.


So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?


I hope that clears all this up for you.
 
Old Skier said:
Stolen but may/or may not help:

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)


So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.


By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.


Getting back to Syria.


So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?


But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).


Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.


So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.


Now the British (obviously good, except some freak called Corbyn who, incidentally wears a corduroy jacket, which is dead give away as that's never good) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).


So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).


To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!)


Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmmm... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.


So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?


I hope that clears all this up for you.
Click to expand...

Brilliant - apply ad infinitum to every historical conflict
 
Old Skier said:
Stolen but may/or may not help:

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)


So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.


By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.


Getting back to Syria.


So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?


But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).


Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.


So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.


Now the British (obviously good, except some freak called Corbyn who, incidentally wears a corduroy jacket, which is dead give away as that's never good) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).


So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).


To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!)


Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmmm... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.


So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?


I hope that clears all this up for you.
Click to expand...

Ha ha great post
 
Old Skier said:
Stolen but may/or may not help:

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)


So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.


By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.


Getting back to Syria.


So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?


But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).


Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.


So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.


Now the British (obviously good, except some freak called Corbyn who, incidentally wears a corduroy jacket, which is dead give away as that's never good) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).


So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).


To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!)


Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmmm... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.


So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?


I hope that clears all this up for you.
Click to expand...


The Americans are good. Really?

Aren't they the ones who have repeatedly interfered in the affairs of sovereign states, particularly in the Middle East, starting with Iran in 1954, and several times since, including being friends with Saddam, then enemies with Saddam, then removing him and unplugging the balance of power that existed, not caring too much about theist Islamic factions believing they would just screw around with people in the local area, and allowing other actors to rise, not to mention supporting Israel's move to nuclear power, which now carries a risk of Armageddon in the region.

I think there is s simpler analysis of the region. There are only ever two options, bad and worse, although it is impossible to tell which is which, so mess with it at your peril.
 
Last edited:
Ethan said:
The Americans are good. Really?
.
Click to expand...

Quite agree, they at times choose which terrorist organization they like to support and made some very poor decisions. Just need to look at 1970-1990,s.

I see you have allowed your political views and *******ized the logo being used by the French and their supporters.

Its a tear drop and not some poor hash up of the ban the bomb sign.
 
And so the swivel-eyed loons are on the march.

Listening to a phone-in earlier one contributor decided that because the French had naval vessels and aircraft in the vicinity before Friday - he reckoned that it is highly convenient that Friday's atrocities happened - giving a reason for the French to engage in a 'war' with ISIS. And making 1+1=3 his logical conclusion was that the French government and secret services were behind Friday. Oh yes - the French themselves encouraged or enabled ISIS to attack paris on Friday. You couldn't make this sort of stuff up - but of course you can ...
 
Last edited:
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
And so the swivel-eyed loons are on the march.

Listening to a phone-in earlier one contributor decided that because the French had naval vessels and aircraft in the vicinity before Friday - he reckoned that it is highly convenient that Friday's atrocities happened - giving a reason for the French to engage in a 'war' with ISIS. And making 1+1=3 his logical conclusion was that the French government and secret services were behind Friday. Oh yes - the French themselves encouraged or enabled ISIS to attack paris on Friday. You couldn't make this sort of stuff up - but of course you can ...
Click to expand...

That will teach you for listening to Talk Sport....
 
Old Skier said:
Quite agree, they at times choose which terrorist organization they like to support and made some very poor decisions. Just need to look at 1970-1990,s.

I see you have allowed your political views and *******ized the logo being used by the French and their supporters.

Its a tear drop and not some poor hash up of the ban the bomb sign.
Click to expand...

I haven't changed the logo, just copied it in from Facebook. Sorry if you disapprove (although I am not really sorry).

It is a mixture of the Eiffel Tower and the traditional peace symbol, obviously. The same peace symbol is the basis of CND's logo. The artist didn't mention anything to do with a tear drop.
 
Old Skier said:
Stolen but may/or may not help:

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)


So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.


By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.


Getting back to Syria.


So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?


But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).


Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.


So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.


Now the British (obviously good, except some freak called Corbyn who, incidentally wears a corduroy jacket, which is dead give away as that's never good) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).


So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).


To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!)


Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmmm... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.


So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?


I hope that clears all this up for you.
Click to expand...

Clear as mud but funny
 
Standoff in operation, heavy gunfire exchanges going on currently, 2 possibly 3 men barricaded inside a complex, looks at face value they've found the other people involved, can't see them surrendering so this will depend on the scale of weapons they have inside to how this unfolds.
 
Just been evacuated from Marseilles Airport. Seems like they have found an unattended suitcase.....either a nobhead who has no idea how stupid it is to leave anything unattended, or it's the real thing.....hoping for the nobhead theory.

Roads in and out have been closed, but I was lucky enough to find a taxi driver who was prepared to drive off road to get away from the airport.
Arrived at the hotel safely.....coming home Friday night.
 
rickg said:
Just been evacuated from Marseilles Airport. Seems like they have found an unattended suitcase.....either a nobhead who has no idea how stupid it is to leave anything unattended, or it's the real thing.....hoping for the nobhead theory.

Roads in and out have been closed, but I was lucky enough to find a taxi driver who was prepared to drive off road to get away from the airport.
Arrived at the hotel safely.....coming home Friday night.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that makes it even more real. I hope its nothing! Be safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Norrin Radd
AJ in car crash.
Replies
3
Views
288
Arthur Wedge
Arthur Wedge
Arthur Wedge
VE Day
Replies
16
Views
2K
Doon frae Troon
D
SwingsitlikeHogan
Rental Rights Act
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
jim8flog
jim8flog
H
Are junior handicaps different?
Replies
15
Views
2K
jim8flog
jim8flog
Slime
Irons fitting.
Replies
7
Views
3K
MACM85
MACM85
Top