The terrorist threat in this country is severe. If someone's suspected of terrorist activity in this climate and doesn't surrender the police have no choice - they could have a bomb for all they know and they can't risk missing. So they have to go for the biggest target - the chest. I agree the incident you pointed out was tragic but these are very few and far between.
Really? Wasn't Mark Duggan unarmed when Police shot him in Tottenham? And you're probably still far more likely to die in a traffic accident than a terrorist attack. Let's not over react, eh? Especially so soon after Friday's atrocities, when feelings are running high.
Saudi and Iran will never ally. One's Shia, one's Sunni. One's Arab, one's Persian (try calling an Iranian an "arab" and see what happens). The level of mutual distrust and dislike there goes back, way back. If anything they are exacerbating the situation by backing the religious zealots of their own persuasion in other countries. It helps to understand that the schism between Sunni and Shia is deeper than between any branches of Christianity. It's severe enough that some Muslims would see Christians as closer allies than the rival branch of Islam. Vin
An earlier post by me on that very subject: http://www.not606.com/threads/koemans-korner.271457/page-906#post-8559081 - Hugely more likely to die in a road accident. Vin
The quote is taken out of context, besides he didn't say he would contradict police action he said he would not be happy. I would not be happy if the police in our country find themselves in a position where shooting to kill is a necessity. I guess we hear and interpret what we hear differently.
**** sake. The issues surrounding all this are hugely complex, but the stupidity and greed are all too crystal clear.
These attacks, although utterly, utterly horrific, are very much (in my opinion) lone wolf jobs that the 'central command' of ISIS are all too happy to take credit for, as it feeds their propaganda machine so well. That weirdly makes it more comforting in that they aren't quite able to effectively direct this kind of thing from their power base (no matter what people might lead you to believe).
Corbyn is finding himself in the difficult position where he is discovering that his strongly held beliefs are fine for the back benches, but hard to hold onto if you are responsible for a country and its safety. He is now just having to start back peddling....luckily, he is a stalking horse and will never be in a position of power. He is one of those strange left wingers (and I don't mean all left-wingers) who seem to dislike their own country.
Just noticed this on Saints twitter....suppose it's true of everything in life...all you can do is march on. The number of good people far outnumber the number of evil.
Interesting that having strongly held beliefs, or a man of principle are only good for the back benches, does it follow that leaders have to be the opposite, or is it just that you disagree with him? A stalking horse for whom? Is there as yet some unknown left winger who is going to replace him? I've not seen anything to suggest he dislikes his country. He's a republican and a seeker of peace, how very 'un' British. Someone who seeks a fairer more peaceful world how very 'un' British.
Wasn't suggesting that leaders didn't have principles...just that they had to be pragmatic....which is just what Corbyn is finding. He can't just impress the already committed.,,,he now has to see the world as most people see it. May not be 'true to himself', but it is the way he has to go to gain support. I bet most members of the Labour Party don't see him as a serious candidate for PM, but as an interim leader.
I fully admit that I usually take a bury my head in the sand approach to most 'news'. The events in Paris this weekend have however been hard to ignore, which sounds harsh, but I like to live in my own little world where the worst thing to happen is someone eats my last Rolo. I wanted to try and understand a bit more about the whole ISIS situation because I just can't understand how people can do such things. Though that article doesn't explain to me why they are so evil, I now have a much better understanding of the situation in Iraq and its bordering countries, so thank you for that. I did start to read the previous link that you posted but got lost quite quickly with the more complex writing. This was easy to understand and follow. I can't say that I'll now be keeping up with whats going on, because it's far too upsetting and depressing. I hope that's not too ignorant and disrespectful to the people that have to live it, because they don't get a choice.
I think I partly agree with your analysis. There is one area where I think further comment is needed and one I would disagree. The further comment is that Mr Corbyn's record leaves him in the position whereby he either retains his principled position and is vilified by the right wing media or he compromises and is branded as a hypocrite by the aforementioned media. However there is a younger generation for whom political debate is not the private monopoly of the media but they use the web and the wealth of information it contains. It may be that political views in the younger generation will be less tainted by the Murdochs of this world. The area where I disagree is that 'most members of the Labour Party don't see him as a serious candidate'. They voted for Mr Corbyn. It maybe that they all thought: 'You know we will vote for an interim leader while we find someone more acceptable and pragmatic', but it seemed to me that Mr Corbyn was the only candidate who was anti austerity and as the effects of the policy come home to roost his stock may rise.
I would question whether the young are better informed by trawling the internet...used wisely they will be, but there is an awful lot of tripe out there. The young always think they know best...us oldies have all been young and remember when we knew everything as well.
I find it easy to understand and to accept because I have the same view. I don't read daily newspapers and I don't watch television news. In all honesty, I know almost no detail of the attack in France, just the headline news and numbers. I do, without ever delving into detail, try to keep up-to-date on a more strategic level via my weekly dose of the Economist (and articles such as those mentioned in this thread). Knowing how things fit together is more important to me than tales of individuals and what happened to them. I've never been as happy as I have been since I stopped reading the newspapers. I've mentioned it before but I've never, except a second or two of programmes glimpsed by accident, seen the attacks on the twin towers. I did subscribe to "Delayed Gratification" a newspaper that reports on the news long after it has happened but it was so badly written that I had to desist. http://www.slow-journalism.com/ Vin
I hear you Vin. I've never been happier than the six months I spent on a desert island in the Phillipines. Not a phone, computer of tv in sight. Just life.
