The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Paris

Paris

by 297 Comments

On a night like this
In this great city
The same skies these trees these passers by
The whole calm romantic clumsy life

I’d like to go to Paris on the Seine
‘Cos Paris is a friend
A proper friend of mine

1

Comments

    • To me the purpose is obvious. France has lead the attack on Daesh, particularly the bombing. The planner sof these attacks say, you can’t just bomb our people from afar and not expect the battle to come home.

      Keep bombing us and we will continue to attack your people on home soil.

      I’m not saying I agree with them but it is logical.

      Reminds me of Vietnam- the Americans pilloried the VC for sneak attacks, for guerilla warfare. Well what did they expect -tanks at 100 paces. You play to your strengths.

  4. ‘And the north wind takes them
    Into the cold night of oblivion.’
    https://youtu.be/pnxeKl-Kbqw?list=RDGsz3mrnIBd0

    Les feuilles mortes

    Oh ! je voudrais tant que tu te souviennes
    Des jours heureux où nous étions amis.
    En ce temps-là la vie était plus belle,
    Et le soleil plus brûlant qu’aujourd’hui.
    Les feuilles mortes se ramassent à la pelle.
    Tu vois, je n’ai pas oublié…
    Les feuilles mortes se ramassent à la pelle,
    Les souvenirs et les regrets aussi
    Et le vent du nord les emporte
    Dans la nuit froide de l’oubli.
    Tu vois, je n’ai pas oublié
    La chanson que tu me chantais.

    {Refrain:}
    C’est une chanson qui nous ressemble.
    Toi, tu m’aimais et je t’aimais
    Et nous vivions tous les deux ensemble,
    Toi qui m’aimais, moi qui t’aimais.
    Mais la vie sépare ceux qui s’aiment,
    Tout doucement, sans faire de bruit
    Et la mer efface sur le sable
    les pas des amants désunis.

  7. Can’t muster a feeling of anger or outrage ? Really ? That’s exactly how I feel.
    Who does it serve ? They are saying we are all vulnerable. We are, until we confront the threat and deal with it.
    It won’t go away by ignoring it.
    But that’s an argument for another.
    Appalling.

    • It’s of course right to feel outrage and anger, but last night, as I was watching the news unfold, all I felt was a deep sense of sadness and despondency.

  8. 12 hours after the events, some commentators are still saying that it’s ‘too early’ to speculate about who is responsible.

    The Jehova’s Witnesses, perhaps? Or how about the Quakers?

      • One really depressing thing is that it gives the likes of Theresa May and the security services even more of an excuse to invade our privacy in the name of preventing further outrages.

        Another really depressing thing is that it is no longer such a shock to hear that there has been a terrorist attack in a major city.

        My feelings are of sadness more than anything. And there will surely be more attacks like it again.

        • As the ultimate aim of IS would appear to be the destruction of Western civilization and the obliteration of Europe and America from the face of the planet, in pursuance of which aim some sources would have us believe they are already busily attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, I’m quite happy to have a little bit of my privacy invaded for the greater good. As I’m not part of a clandestine terror cell indulging in a plot to bring death and mayhem to innocent people on a colossal scale, I’m quite happy for Theresa May to check my phone records every now and again and rifle through my bank accounts if she needs to. She can even come and stay in my spare room if it would help.

  9. Whoever the perpetrators are and I think we all have a good idea, it is not something you can stop by adding more violence to the melting pot. Unfortunately I don’t think our politicians understand that and I fully expect the French to launch reprisal attacks over the next days. All that does is prolong the misery and exacerbate the problem. There is no leadership on this -you have Russia and the USA playing geopolitics in the middle of the most unstable region of the World. No wonder there is an overriding sense of futility.

  10. Futility?
    It is all I feel now, prior to this tragedy and I fear for the future.
    Those who are responsible and those who harbour them do not give a damn for the lives of others and themselves all in a skewed religious cause.
    The people who harbour these murdering bastards and I include the communities who know of these people but fail to give them up should feel shame, deep shame.
    Let us not fool ourselves we are at WAR, the same atrocities can and will continue to happen as long as we have weak leadership across the Western World and no action is taken against those who stir up this hatred.
    Strong words I know, but true.

    • I am with you Baron. Well said.

      It is a depressing day for dear Paris, the French and above all for the families and friends of those people who have been murdered. People who went for a drink, a meal, to a game, to a concert. In other words, US ALL.

    • Well here’s the dilemma. SteveT thinks that the people who we have given responsibility for responding to this will use it as an excuse to launch rockets at people they don’t like. You think they will shirk the responsibility of fighting a war against terrorists.

      The only thing you agree about is that whether they do or don’t do the thing they should or shouldn’t do, whatever that is, they will be wrong. That’s a really hard mandate for a Government to work with.

      • Hi Chiz, I dont disagree with you. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t (launch reprisals). One thing for sure we can carpet bomb whatever is left of Syria and it won’t make a fucking difference. That is the futility of the situation – you can’t educate these people to think differently. They are indoctrinated in the ways of the Middle Ages and believe they are right. We, on the other hand ,are open to persuasive contrary opinions to our own. Modern thinking and generosity of spirit to those who oppose us are the losers in this battle of ideology. I hate to say but I think a Middle East Caliphate is only a short step away and that is just the beginning of the troubles we will face. How many of the moderate Muslims in this country will stand up to this nonsense? They are as scared as we are.

        • I admire your pessimism and objectivity in equal measure. I would only add that the ‘Caliphate’ already exists – in mind and spirit if not yet physically within a wholly established or secured territory. I do believe that will only be a matter of time. As I see it, this is the dilemma presented to the West and the more ‘liberal’ (and thus far ineffective) states immediately surrounding ‘Isis’.

          Where in the world could such a state be established? Nowhere other than it’s present locale. Why? Because Iraq is a vacuum and Syria is at war. The more liberal near neighbours will not act against fundamentally tribal internecine and extremism for fear of importing or activating the same or similar sympathy within their own borders (and tribes). But, it is their problem and they will ultimately have to act against it if they are to preserve their own more forward thinking ambitions.

          What has happened in Paris is an atrocity. In the same way that what happened in NY, Madrid, London, Bali, Riyadh, Sousse, the Sinai peninsula and countless African states were atrocities. Are they linked? Many would argue that they are not, where the perpetrators claim specific tribal/political/religious/national allegiances. This is all fatuous.

          It is for the same reason that the establishment of a ‘Caliphate’ may be the best route to it’s own ultimate undoing and implosion.

          The western powers must retain their distance. By all means collaborate in the detached degradation of the ‘Caliphate’ (targeted bombing, shared intelligence, drone strikes, etc), but overall The West must maintain a centrally humanitarian position.

          Today, nous sommes Paris. (Not an Afterword T-shirt).

    • Unfortunately Baron, they will feel no shame.

      It is one of the contradictions of terrorist attacks that the perpetrators, and those who support them, see themselves as moral actors, seeking to right a wrong. (It shouldn’t need saying, but I fear if I don’t spell it out I will be picked up on this and I will be accused by someone of being a supporter of terrorism and suggesting that their moral stance excuses their actions – I think these murders are totally immoral and evil).

      We saw that in Mohammed Sidique Khan’s suicide video, released via Al Jazeera about a year after the attacks on London transport in 2005. “I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe…. We are at war and I am a soldier.”

      That is a mentality we have to challenge and overcome. Islamic State has a very sophisticated propaganda operation with a huge daily output (their brutality videos shown on our news media are only a tiny fraction of their output) and we in the west are doing nothing to challenge it with our own, persuasive narrative to counter their output. It’s only part of the response we need to put in place, but it is I believe a necessary one.

      • Yes, well put. We have the Quilliam foundation and other groups largely made up of ex-fundamentalists who are doing good work as are secular and women’s Islamic groups in this country. It is imperative that they are listened to and supported.

  12. Sadly, I think people in the West and the Middle East are going to have to put up with more terror and suffering.

    Dexter Gordon from Our Man In Paris, Willow Weep For Me.

  13. I don’t know if we have any posters or lurkers based in France (or people with family there), and I don’t know if it is any comfort or help whatsoever, but I’m sure that the shock and anger felt there is echoed across the globe. This obscenity is an attack on freedom, equality and brother and sisterhood everywhere.

  14. The terrorist acts in Paris are, in large part, a provocation, designed to put us at each other’s throats and thereby furthering their apocalyptic philosophy. We defeat them by not allowing ourselves to give in to hate.

    Meantime:

    • That clip is wonderful, as is the whole film of course. Stirring stuff.

      I think I agree with your general sentiment as well, but then again maybe that clip is not the best illustration. After all, few if any movements have been hated as much as the Nazis. Even relatively innocuous (certainly compared to the suicide murderers in Paris) right-wing groups like the EDL are hated with a passion by those who view themselves progressive. There’s precious little ‘engagement’ and ‘outreach’ to groups such as this. No ‘well they’re only upset because of (insert chosen grievance here), bless them’. They are despised and written off as scum, end of story.

      The Labour party in particular (as well as offshoots like the laughably named Respect) has utterly abandoned, indeed demonised, its former core constituency and made common cause with some highly unsavoury figures and organisations who have the sole ‘redeeming characteristic’ of being from an ethnic minority.

  15. This was an attack about intimidation, and let us not forget that the more fundamentalist Islamists (as with most fundamentalists) see music and singing as blasphemy, and rock music as literally satanic. Kids in metal band t-shirts can be killed in the Middle East, all the better to scare off others. I cant think of a better way to harden public attitudes and strengthen sympathies for nationalist movements in Europe than such attacks.

  16. The statement that has just been released reads like a very poor 6th Form essay (again).

    If I was living in a country that wasn’t at, or at least very near, the top of their shopping list, I’d be REALLY insulted.
    Indeed, I’d emigrate immediately to one that was.

  17. One thing that winds me up is the use of the word ‘radical’ to describe Islamist murderers. Equivalent fanatics on the ‘far right’ (though if terrorists like this are not themselves to the right of Genghis Khan then I’m a Dutchman) are never described as such. The late Christopher Hitchens always made a point of using the term suicide murderers rather than merely suicide bombers as, y’know, it’s really the murdering part which is of concern to the rest of us.

    Take no pleasure in saying that appeasement is very definitely over. France took the decision not to involve itself in Iraq or Afghanistan and gained many ‘progressive’ brownie points for this while Britain and the US were demonized. This may very well have had more to do with protecting its interests in the middle east rather than any pacifist principle, but even if we do assume they had the noblest intentions for not joining the US-led coalition, it’s clearly not made a blind bit of difference.

    If it’s not to do with Iraq, it’s Afghanistan, if not that then Syria, if not that then Palestine (always, always Palestine*), if not that then Bosnia, if not that then queers and brazen hussies, if not that then the Cartoons of Mass Destruction, if not that then The Crusades, and on and on…

    I’m sick of hearing about the ‘ummah’ too. As Douglas Murray wrote in September, how many Syrian refugees have the rich oil states sheltered? The truth is they couldn’t give a flying f**k for their co-religionists except as a Western guilt-tripping tool.

    Well Iran and Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and almost every other Muslim country in the Middle East have been involving themselves in the Syrian civil war for four years now. Many have sent fully-equipped armies of their own to fight intra-Islamic rivalries in the homeland of the Syrian peoples. And yet it is Europeans who are falling for the idea that because of this, it is our responsibility – not theirs – to pay for the mess they have created.

    Well it seems to me that at the very least we should ask these countries ‘Where is your “Ummah” now?’ Sure, Jordan and Lebanon are grudgingly having to cope with plenty of refugees from Syria. But not one of the Gulf States – not one – has a resettlement programme for a single Syrian refugee.

    Strong words but we live in exceptional times.

    • I disagree with your contention that right-wing extremists don’t get described as radical.

      It is the case in Europe at least. I’m pretty certain that the term was used in the cases of Anders Breivik and Pavlo Lapshyn, to name the two who spring to mind most readily.

      What I find strange is that in the USA someone like Charleston mass-murderer Dylann Roof is not described as a terrorist, though he appears to have all the attributes.

    • as regards Gulf States not taking in Syrian refugees…
      I think there has been coverage of this in the media from both ends of the political spectrum while the various dodgy practices of UAE statelets, Saudi Arabia and so on continue to be discreetly ignored, despite lefties and right-wingers calling them out…
      UK plc probably looks the other way because the UAE and Saudi Arabia rank in the country’s top 20 export markets while Qatar is at 31 (we export more goods & services to Qatar than we do to Portugal, Greece or our Commonwealth chums New Zealand) (yes I just had to look that up)…
      follow the money, as per

  18. I keep it simple. Anyone of whatever ideology that seeks dominance over others by force of arms is quite simply a c*nt.
    They are by their thoughts and actions the enemy of all humanity.

    • Nail on the head Pencilsqueezer.
      It is beyond comprehension and even after this latest outrage there is a part of me that wants to believe that one human wouldn’t do this to another. I don’t know where we are headed but I ain’t looking forward to it.

      • Can’t help thinking, for all their claims of religious piety and outrage against the “anti-muslim” West, the vast majority of European Islamist recruits to this sort of murderous thing are just common-or-garden sociopaths acting primarily out of pique and angst.
        The Islamist cause is just something to hang their impotent nasty fury at their personal failure on and give it an expression they could normally only dream of.
        They are the dregs of the dangerously twisted, and if they weren’t doing this stuff they’d be reduced to maiming farm animals or setting fire to rough sleepers for their kicks.

        • You make a very GOOD point @mike_h

          I agree with what you say. Unfortunately this `disease` at this moment has no cure.

          As I said earlier we are at war, a war not experience in our history. These atrocities will occur more often and with increasing brutality.

          I have no answers, nobody here has any answers and our great leaders have no answers.

        • 100 % agree, Mike.
          They are social & emotional inadequates, pretty much without exception. The same thing generally applies to white supremacists & old school hard left dogmatists & the poor ‘misunderstood’ types who shoot up American campuses.
          Their obvious personal failings cause them to lash out at ‘society’ – whatever the fuck that is.
          As for those raised in the west who subscribe to this filth – if they can’t make their mark here with all of its advantages & opportunities, they certainly wouldn’t thrive where things are really tough. When a ready-made ‘ideology’ is available that feeds their sense of victimhood & provides the means for ‘revenge’, it is seized with both hands.
          People with nothing to lose are the most dangerous of all, but for all of its flaws, our society arguably provides more chances than any other anywhere. Ours is an imperfect society but it Shangri La compared to anywhere these filth would seek to create by their despicable actions.

          • @mike_h and @junglejim – agreed. It’s all about gangs.

            To put it in a Glasgow context, it’s one thing to be, for example, part of the Pollok Young Team or the Hutchie Boyz, but adding a loyalist or republican element to this links it to a wider sense of identity. If that then develops into membership of the actual IRA or UVF or whatever, then all bets are off.

            Luckily, a check tends to be put on such extremes by the universal laddish enthusiasms of drinking’n’shagging’n’fitba et al, but most importantly by piss-taking. Solemn declarations of devotion to the Queen or the Pope will tend to be met with a raised eyebrow and an ‘aye right ya fanny’.

            One can only hope that such liberalising forces will blow through the muslim communities sooner rather than later…

    • So wait, these people who by their ‘thoughts’ wish to seek dominance over others are ‘cunts’ and ‘enemies of all humanity’?

      Beware false prophets.

  20. Are we in danger of surrendering ourselves and our culture with an enlightened and measured response? Or is it time to bang the rocks together again, as perhaps it sometimes must be?

  21. Thought it quite amusing that Allah was described as ‘merciful’ in their statement.

    If they agree/want to be like/have sympathy with the teachings of this guy or God (it sure ain’t a dame), Allah, isn’t it ever-so slightly two-faced to be so utterly un-‘merciful’?
    Like saying your favourite song is ‘All You Need Is Love’ and then stabbing a total stranger.

    I’m just pleased I’ve spent the day at a football ground (see Paris) and two middle-class pubs (see Paris), and I’ve now sat down to listen to that nasty, depraved, rock ‘n’ roll (see Paris).

  23. I sort of feel like the immediate and understandable reaction – let’s bomb the fuck out of large swathes of the Middle East and send the boys in to show them how Allah’s soldiers fare when stacked up against Her Madge’s – is the wrong one precisely because it might feel so immediately right. If we act to gratify our own sense of outrage (and hell yes, I’m outraged; I’m appalled and furious and you name it) we’re probably not thinking straight.

    If you put every last IS militant in a car park and handed me the button that would drop a fuck-ton of high explosive onto them, I might just press it. Which is probably why my emotions aren’t a reliable guide to what we should do.

    Who the hell knows?

    • Might it be time for some unholy (pun intended) alliances? After all, it was clear in 1941 that Uncle Joe Stalin was as nasty a bit of goods as bits of goods get, yet we reached an accommodation with him to get rid of a common enemy.

      In other words, what I think I’m saying here – and my thoughts are as cloudy and conflated as the whole miasma of the Middle East – is that, whatever we do, we’re going to have to worry about Assad later. If we temporarily have to shore him up in order to stamp ISIS out – much as Saddam Hussein was shored up for years because he was a useful co-enemy of Iran – then so be it.

      Three weeks ago François Hollande said, “Bashar al-Assad is not the solution; he is the problem.” I wonder whether he still holds that view today.

  24. I just sense this is the time to walk away from the Middle East, when did it become our problem anyway? We (I mean the West) have murdered thousands of innocent Iraqis, Syrians, Lybians etc and it has lead us here. We kill “Jihadi John” and the next day Paris happens. It’s a brave politician that turns the other cheek now but I sense history will treat him or her kindly, more so than the ones who order more murder and mayhem.

    • I would have little expectation that walking away at this time would have little effect.

      We were party to the invasion of Iraq and the history of how Al Qaeda In Iraq evolved into Islamic State is well documented. We will remain an enemy as long a IS continues to exist. AQ may be greatly diminished but still remains a threat to us too.

      • @archie-valparaiso You’re probably right with the attacks at the stadium but I imagine they’ve been ready to go just waiting for the right moment.

        @Carl It would have the effect of stealing their oxygen of notoriety. Reading some of the posts below it seems they are a rag tag bunch that could split and implode fairly quickly without constant poking. By nature I’m a “get your retaliation in first” sort of person, and eye for eye and all that but I just think right now we shouldn’t go steaming in with more indiscriminate bombing and murder of more innocents.

  25. Let’s hope the ‘we’re all Parisians now’ movement lasts a bit longer than the ‘Je Suis Charlie’ movement which morphed with alarming speed into the ‘well, maybe they had it coming to them’ movement.

    The warning signs were there nigh-on three decades ago with the farcical but potentially fatal fatwa on Salman Rushdie. Far too many people took a ‘he brought it on himself’ stance. This was regrettably not surprising in liberal circles but I even remember Mike ‘Frank from EastEnders’ Reid telling this side-splitter (to be fair, it was quite funny at the time but seems less so today):

    “Heard what Salman Rushdie’s new book’s called? ‘Buddha was a c**t'”. He followed this with his trademark world-weary ‘would you effin believe it?’ palm to forehead. A trivial example to be sure, but indicative of a wider attitude of ‘whatever you do, don’t upset them’. Trouble is, the list of ‘grievances’ gets longer and longer…

    • I was thinking exacxtly the same thing. The apologists on the left tie themselves in knots in order not to upset the Islamists and “they brought these murders on themselves with their, er, offensive cartoons” wasn’t long in coming from that side of politics.

      The support for Paris seems to be a little firmer this time however.

  26. We’ve got these vile idiots and their outrages and now we’ll get another lot of idiots with their dumb, ill-informed response, which will be exactly as hoped for and intended. Increased division and polarisation. Deeply depressing. We just have to hope the more enlightened view prevails. The fear is that that particular light gets snuffed out. Ultimately these crazies have to be taken on and defeated.

    • Although of course the IS themselves are not idiots. They are more of a kind of cult who have a very, rigid, ancient idea of what Islam is. This piece says a lot about who they are and what they want and that’s really quite specific and transparent. The Orwell quote about Hitler’s very good on their appeal. Doesn’t really anticipate such well organised and co-ordinated attacks as the Paris one though. It seems they really expect a great battle against the west presumably (Rome?) in their locality that will bring about the desired apocalypse.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

  27. That these people are c*nts goes without saying. But what is to come? IS in Iraq and Syria are very, very rich. Is it only a matter of time before they have WMDs, either gas or nuclear? And use them against Europe?

  28. The most credible takes I’ve read on it (esp. Patrick Cockburn’s) are that there’s no option but forces on the ground but, as every nutter from every corner of the globe would arrive to back ISIS – it would have to be overwhelmingly massive. Also it would have to back Assad and it would have to be a total wipe-out, returning the region to its grim-but-stable dictatorship(s). It would be the least worst of a list of bad options.

    Utterly depressing, but it feels like something has to happen. Have a beautiful dirge;

    • The article cited by Allium Sattivum (above) argues that “Without a catastrophe such as this (the re-alliance of IS with al‑Qaeda), however, or perhaps the threat of the Islamic State’s storming Erbil, a vast ground invasion would certainly make the situation worse.”

      • It’s an excellent article but, on balance, I’ve read more convincing articles which conclude that not getting involved at some stage – as in a ground invasion – will be the worst option.
        Also that leaving Islamic State to consolidate their power base/acquire more powerful weapons, is making the inevitable a tougher task.

        Obviously there’s no consensus as yet and those who know much more about it than us can’t agree, but that’s my take from what I’ve read.

  29. @archie-valparaiso and @ewenmac – I tend to agree that we could do worse than a bracing dose of realpolitik right now.

    Maybe Henry Kissinger could get involved.

    On that point, the wildly differing views of two heroes of mine on the great man make for fascinating reading…

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2002/11/the_latest_kissinger_outrage.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/kissinger-niall-ferguson-review/

    • I think if there’s ONE thing all sentient folk should be able to agree on, it’s that the very last person that needs to be added to the current depressing clusterfuck is Kissinger.
      This is after all the waste of skin that of whom Tom Lehrer said in 1973 ‘When Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, satire died’.

  30. To my mind the killing of Jihadi John was a bit of a non-event. Great in a way — as if we’d killed Lord Haw-Haw in WWII — but even so, if we have the resources to take him out then we should be using them to kill the men who gave him his orders.

  31. All of this is appalling and I am disgusted by the evil perpetrated by (so-called) IS, but I note that BBC Radio 5-Live removed its schedules yesterday (Saturday) to focus on the atrocities in Paris all day, and yet when a similar number were killed/maimed/injured the day before in Beirut – “the Paris of the Middle East” – that news got about 30 seconds on news reports.

    Is it that Paris is simply “closer to home” or, as I have heard today, those in that region are more used to it? I struggle to be able to formulate anything coherent when discussing this, so perhaps I should just state the facts, a la Pencilsqueezer, and move on?

    • I thought that, too. However, even news programmes need to be mindful of their audience. People in the UK have a good idea what France and Paris, in particular, are like. Those affected were doing things all of us can relate to; watching football, eating at restaurants or attending a rock gig. On the other hand, Beirut, seems so very far away and so bewildering.

      I don’t think it’s anything to do with people in that region being ‘used to it’.

  32. We can all “be Parisians” (just as we were all “Charlie” for a while back there) and tweet and comment and maybe march in the streets and write well-informed think-pieces and make passionate speeches, and it will have no effect on ISIS. We are not “all Parisians” just as “all Parisians” have not been slaughtered on a night out. Just as all Muslims are not all ISIS. Expressions of solidarity, as well-intentioned and feel-good as they are, will have no effect on ISIS. “Educating” them into a more enlightened position is futile. They are already “educated” to the point where they will happily die for what they believe. They recruit on their own terms. They are massively funded (particularly by Qatar, that clean-hands state so beloved of monarchies and politicians and corporations), and nothing short of actually eradicating them – killing them – will have any effect. And one day they will get the option of pressing the button that will detonate more than a suicide vest, and we can all gather round a piano holding candles and sing ‘Imagine’ together, one last time. Because they just didn’t listen. Oh, we tried our best.

  33. @hpsaucecraft – I’m sorry, that doesn’t make sense (well…none of this does).
    There will never be a time when pacifists are thanked for anything, so I’m certainly not worried about being blamed as I am kerblammoed into the air by some nutcase or other. In other words, small gestures of kindess are OK in my book.

    • Obviously (I hope) I don’t expect you to kill anyone. And equally obviously small acts of kindness are better than big acts of violent hatred. But small acts of kindness mean nothing to ISIS, unfortunately.

        • Of course they do. Not saying they don’t. Am saying that countless small acts of kindness, or large, are not going to reach the hearts and minds of ISIS.

          Something else: they are at war. We’re not. We’re dealing with something called terrorism, which is not how they see it at all. If we see their “terrorist acts” as acts of war, we see that if we do nothing but join hands in solidarity we’re already losing. (The word “we” used here in its broadest sense).

          If, say, Canada – hardly likely but bear with me – attacked a European city as violently and cruelly as ISIS did France, it would be an unambiguous act of war. Because it’s ISIS, we tend to bring in a lot of issues which really have no bearing on what they’re doing. Which is waging war. And it’s not like we don’t know “where they are” – an attack on their “capital” Raqqa would be a devastating start for the Allies to make. Let’s hope the Allies (inevitably behind the US) put their boots on the ground before Russia does.

  34. Obviously, an appalling turn of events that generated disgust, sadness and anger in equal measure.

    I do think it’s important that perspective be maintained. After 7/7 we were all told that life would never be the same again. It fairly swiftly went back pretty much to normal. Islamic fundamentalists have been trying to kill on Western European soil for at least 15 years now. How many have actually died in attacks in that time? 500? Slightly less? That’s not to minimise the loss of those whose lives have been taken, merely to point out that, for all the desire to kill, the terrorists’ ability to do so has, to this point, been fairly limited.

    Terrorist attacks are specifically designed to make us feel less safe than we actually are. Their randomness is intended to make us feel that it could happen to any of us, at any time, and their result is a wave of anxiety and emotion which largely sees critical thought suspended.

    I heard and read some truly extraordinary things this weekend. Serious arguments that we should suspend habeas corpus in the UK on a long term basis. Suggestions that we should immediately leave the EU. Perhaps most perfidious of all, the recurrent notion that we are “reaping what we have sowed”. I find the latter really objectionable. The people in the Bataclan on Friday night didn’t sew anything; they were just normal people quietly living their lives. Likewise, it’s unclear to me what the homosexual community have done to antagonise ISIS, or the women, or the kids they’ve beheaded/crucified. The people we’re dealing with here aren’t rational and they’re not looking to sit down and chat this one out. They’re a tragic little death cult who would gladly kill us all for watching MTV and educating our daughters. Our military misadventures may very well have provoked them to a genocidal rage, but frankly, given that cartoons, novels and bikinis can achieve the precise same end result, that’s not saying much You may have some very legitimate objections to Western foreign policy, but please do spare us the self-loathing, at least until the bodies are in the ground. Russia didn’t invade Iraq and Bali probably doesn’t even own a drone – they still got hit.

    Personally, I think the immediate response here has to be a big “fuck you”. Life must go on, and we cannot be afraid, because fear is a surrender. After 7/7 there were impromptu street parties in London – neighbours coming together to show they wouldn’t be cowed. I think that’s the way to go, in spirit at least. The game hasn’t changed – they want us all dead, just like they always have, our intelligence services do sterling work, which massively limits their ability to inflict casualties, and every few years an attack sneaks through. But since 2001, more Americans have died falling out of bed and more Russians have been killed by icicles than people have died in Western Europe at the hands of Islamic Extremists. That’s perspective, and we shouldn’t lose sight of it. It may be that Friday marks the start of a new wave of attacks, and they become more frequent. I’ll wait and see on that one, personally.

    I have no idea how we deal with ISIS outside our own shores, beyond a vague feeling that they clearly crave open military confrontation and that fact should probably give us pause for thought before rushing to put boots on the ground. Weighed against that, very little would make me happier than to see them wiped off the planet, and I do question the merits of having an Armed Forces at all if we can’t use it to wipe out fascist dickheads like these.

    Oh, and I think Archie is probably right about Assad, unfortunately.

    • No individual in the west needs to do anything to make themselves guilty of having sown the seeds of Armageddon; the nut jobs have already decided that we’re all guilty as charged by proxy, simply by dint of our being infidels of one stripe or another, even (perhaps especially) the muslims amongst us.

      Russia may not have invaded Iraq, but it did fight a long hard campaign against an Islamist enemy that had been armed, trained and supported by Sylvester Stallone. When the Russian boys and girls fucked off home the freedom fighters got back to their long term game of killing their fellow muslims for all kinds of numpty reasons (grew the wrong beard, cracked an off-colour joke, enjoyed a quiet whisky after work, allowed their daughter to go to school, flew a kite on a sunny day, that sort of thing).

      I fear that further delay in dealing with this poison may be more dangerous than taking very assertive action.

  36. Fair point, biggles, but people are bound to respond more to something they recognise in their own lives.
    I see that there was a drinks do in London on Friday for the Afterworders; how close in spirit/attitude that must have been to what those diners were doing in Paris but, you’re right, I certainly don’t connect nearly as much with a tragedy in the Middle-East as I would if it happened in Middlesex.

    Maybe it would help if the people of Paris (and London and Sydney and New York) went on the streets and said to Isis, ‘We hate our leaders as much as you do!’

    • I don’t think parading our internal political divisions or our lack of faith in democracy is going to persuade them to stop. It might even convince them they are winning.

      Just from reading this thread, you can see that our elected governments are being asked to wipe these murderers off the face of the Earth, without causing any reprisal attacks or radicalising new recruits. They’ve been asked to do this without any collateral casualties and without using weapons. They’ve been told they must keep us safe in our own country without closing our borders or accessing our browser histories, or making us take our shoes of at airports. They’re facing hyperventilating supposition from national and social media, where commentators have a fraction of the data, intelligence and expert advice available to government. So perhaps we have to decide between ourselves what we are facing, and what we want to do about it, before we accuse our elected governments of not delivering it.

  38. @biggles Despite what some people apparently want us to think, there’s *nothing wrong* with feeling more affected and more outraged by things like this happening to near neighbours and friends than when it happens in a more distant place.

    I’d be more affected by a murder next door than a murder in Birmingham. I’d mourn a colleague more than I’d mourn a stranger. I wouldn’t expect to be censured for weeping at my grandmother’s death than your grandmother’s.

    • It’s not much further from America to Lebanon than it is to Paris, but I didn’t see any “change your profile pic to show support for Beirut and the people of Lebanon” options available on facebook.

    • Very interesting. Seems to know what he’s on about. Everything thing you think you know is wrong, as usual. Of course so much that western governments told us about Al Queda was not true. They were far less well-organised and sophisticated than was made out but the media lapped it all up.

    • Thanks for posting KD. Seems coherent ans plausible & dare I say it, pretty encouraging in some respects, when trying to asess the Syrian situation from a distance.
      That’s not to imply that civilians on the ground are not in the most apalling peril, but that as the author says, ISIS are essentially knuckle dragging brigands at best but come unstuck almost immediately in anything other than operations where they’re ‘stealing a vacuum’.

    • Another one impressed by the article here. I worry though that as their military threat wanes they’ll be more inclined to go for showstoppers like Beirut or Paris.

  41. I can’t help thinking that the industrial/military complex needs an ever present but ever changing bogey man to retain its power and income. How difficult can it be to restrict movements from town to town in the desert? If the western powers really wanted to nip this in the bud I’m sure it could have been done by now. This is all a bit 1984 isn’t it, and the threat is used to erode our freedoms?

    It is also time to recognise that democracy is not an option in certain parts of the world. Without strong dictators to keep the peace between the different ethnic, tribal and religious divides then civil war ensures with all the instability that brings? Remember Yugoslavia after Tito was gone? Our media are very selective in their reporting, atrocities are being committed all the time, just not on our doorstep.

  42. Something that has been troubling me is the repetitive description of these attackers as “cowards”.

    Now hear me out .

    Awful thing , simply horrible and appalled by everything Daesh stands for. But these young men 20 to 25 went into these places with suicide vests on, knowing if they weren’t shot first they’d press the button – so facing certain death.This to me is acting out your belief, however warped, in the most emphatic fashion.

    Yes perhaps a more “honourable” act would be to try to blow up a military barracks but compare this to a bombing from a great height, or to take it further, a drone. Totally unmanned.

    how

  43. A big shout-out to Channel 7 News in Sydney (or was it Melbourne) for using the flag of Holland during their coverage of the Paris killings.

    In a statement a Channel 7 spokesman later said: “Er, sorry about that but hey, Europe is a bloody long way from here and all those tiny countries with their sissy little flags all look the same. We have farms bigger than bloody Holland, I mean France, in Australia, mate. And most of our viewers are morons who wouldn’t know the difference anyway. No further comment”,

    http://i.imgur.com/5POSV6e.jpg

  46. Bingo wonders why ISIL have it in for gay people and numerous other groups. Because they are, in ISILs eyes, guilty of apostasy and that carries the death penalty. Or they opponents of the Caliphate, which amounts to the same thing. Quite straightforward really

  47. I just thought everyone might be interested to know that a friend of mine got taken to task by some… I’m not going to use the C-ista word… people from the quite-a-long-way-left of the political spectrum for expressing solidarity with France on Facebook.

    Their words, verbatim, were that by doing so she was showing a worrying lack of concern for Palestine.

    People are so bloody weird sometimes.

    • Well, if and when there is an attack in the UK, perhaps we can avoid the shoot to kill scenario JC is concerned about by sending some of his supporters along to talk the gunmen out of any attack by demonstrating a shared concern for the Palestinian people. ( They might need to keep quiet about the LGBT community, Shias and the like, but that might prove difficult given their principled stance).

      • File alongside the Guardian’s weekend “Interactive Guide to the Shootings”, which nestled neatly beside their special feature on video footage of the “last moments” of the dead.

        Or maybe just take a look at the front page of the Mail website, which has a well lit photo of the faces of the attendees at the Bataclan gig, seconds before the shooting started, with the charming headline “Moments from Slaughter”.

        Nothing like respect for the dead, is there?

        • Hmmm, ok, but then again, from the same newspaper we have this wonderful article by, yep, Martin Samuel.

          Sorry, but if you devour his stuff as eagerly as I do you’ll come to realise he just is the most AW-friendly journalist around today. Lenny Law used to back me up on this – come back to the fold LL!

          The Eagles of Death Metal aren’t really that hard or heavy, at all. The name is a joke, about a band that is meant to have a manic thrash sound, but can’t quite pull it off. They’re like The Eagles of death metal. Get it?

          Josh Homme, who came up with this, called his other band Queens of the Stone Age. Its members are all male, but Homme thought Kings of the Stone Age was too macho.
          ‘The Kings of the Stone Age wear armour and have axes and wrestle,’ Homme explained. ‘The Queens of the Stone Age hang out with the Kings of the Stone Age’s girlfriends while they wrestle. Rock should be heavy enough for the boys and sweet enough for the girls. That way everyone’s happy and it’s more of a party.’

          And that’s why we win: because it’s a party. Still. We win, even in times of tragedy. We win, even when the world seems dark and we feel at our lowest ebb. We win, because our corner of the planet is a place of music and laughter and whimsical group names and dancing and kicking balls around, and on Tuesday night 80,000 people will make their way to Wembley Stadium and stand united in absolute rejection of the murderers of Paris, and we will win again then, too. Just by not being them, we win.

            • That’s why I read him though! In general I find yer Henry Winters and yer Patrick Barclays et al uninteresting – competent but dull. Samuel always offers another perspective and throws in quite a few startling references.

              How many other writers would start an article on the athletics doping scandal like this?:

              At the battle of Stalingrad in 1942, the defensive line led by General Andrey Yeremenko was under enormous strain, with many deserters. In particular, the 64th Rifle Division lost significant numbers this way. On the morning of September 1, the divisional commander assembled those that remained. At first he raged and cursed, accusing them of cowardice in letting their comrades desert. He then drew his pistol and walked along the line.

              As he walked, he counted the soldiers out loud. When he reached 10, he shot the man in front of him in the head. And then on, counting to 10 again, and another shot. And on, until his magazine was empty. This is the literal, military, meaning of decimation. To reduce by one in 10. It is a Roman word and a Roman army punishment, for mutiny or desertion. Soldiers would be separated into groups, lots drawn, and the loser beaten to death.

              At Stalingrad, conditions were so abominable that the risk of desertion was constant. The NKVD, the military wing of the Communist party, executed 13,500 Russian soldiers before the Germans surrendered in 1943; not just deserters, but those in command of deserters, or soldiers who failed to stop and kill deserters.

              • And this:

                Slowly, silently, the players knocked the ball around. Didier Deschamps and his staff looked on, almost dispassionately. On Tuesday night they will do their duty for France, but in the drizzle of a deserted Wembley, it was too soon, much too soon.
                Occasionally, there was an order, but not barked, or snapped, in the abrupt manner of professional instructors. Voices echoed. But not laughter. There were no smiles, none of the raucous levity that often accompanies training sessions.

                These are young men, playing sport for a living. This is, as jobs go, as good as it gets. Always, there is camaraderie. Yet the joy has been sucked from them, for now. France are a husk of a team, going through the motions because it is what their country demands. It is almost unfair to keep score.

  50. I have to admit that I came to reading Martin Samuel via a recommendation by Lenny Law, formerly of this parish.

    FWIIW, I think his writing is more often than not, just about the best writing about sport in general, but football in particular.

    His debate columns are good reading as well.

    • Yep. Case in point:

      Have you heard that new Adele single, for instance? There’s a notion doing the rounds that its concept is a little too close to Martha by Tom Waits. I don’t know about that. I just think this is the better song.

  52. Can we please follow Obama’s lead and call them Daesh? They are neither Islamic nor a State. They want us to think they are and the media calling them IS or ISIL only helps their cause. They use the vocabulary of the Qu’ran but wilfully ignore its teachings and they do not run a country (part of the reason they are tricky to wage war against). The disaffected youth who offer themselves up for suicide missions are not ‘radicalised’. They are brain-washed into becoming murderers. Saying they commit these crimes in the name of Allah is like saying the IRA committed their atrocities in the name of the pope. Daesh are a bunch of criminals, derived from Arab tribes, who have managed to get hold of some serious weapons. The West was foolish to pump so many weapons into the area and remains foolish in not putting a halt to those who finance them, such as Saudi Arabia.

    Jeremy Corbyn has a point. Violence could beget more violence. Retaliation has only seemed to make matters worse since ‘the war on terror’ began after 9/11. We need a better plan militarily, rather than simply remote bombing, in order to get rid of Daesh.

    We should integrate Muslims into our society more, demonstrating that their religion is not to blame and encourage mutual respect, especially with regard to women rights and homosexuality. We should isolate the hate figures. The UK has done well with regard to the hate preachers, whose profiles have faded but it also means supporting those leaders who preach the messages of peace, mercy and tolerance that is so prevalent in their religion. Otherwise, hotbeds for brainwashing, as has happened in Belgium, will continue to flourish.

    Finally, let’s keep some perspective and uphold our way of life. If those eight murderers had been any good at their job, far more than 130 people would have died last Friday.

    • I believe ISIL have a better grasp of the Koran than you have and that their aim of establishing a Caliphate will remain, whatever the media has to call them.
      How should we integrate Muslims more and why should that be our responsibilty? They have demonstrated little desire to integrate in any of the Western nations they have settled in.
      Ask the Swedes how their attempts are progressing.
      Messages of violence against apostates and infidels are much more prevalent in their religion than any hippie blatherings that you mistakenly attribute to the Koran.

      • The Bible is very similar to the Qu’ran. Everything is open to interpretation and needs to be set in context. The Bible talks about non-believers burning in hell and the Jews being the chosen people. The God of the Old Testament is a vengeful one who condemns homosexuality and subjugates women. That is, if you choose to read it that way.

        I’m sorry but members of Daesh are not reliable interpreters of the Qu’ran, just as members of the IRA are not people I’d turn to for guidance on the Bible.

        Integration promotes understanding and reduces the chance of violence. There is a lot of research to support that view. Those areas in Belgium are hotbeds because they are isolated and no-go for large proportions of the population. It is in our mutual interest to avoid separation in such a manner.

        Do you have figures to back up your claims of a ‘significant’ percentage of Muslims being terrorists and a ‘larger’ proportion being sympathetic to their cause?

        I’m sure you have sat down and talked to as many Muslims as you can. The straw poll I have taken results in me not recognising the picture you paint of their culture. Mind you, I have Irish Catholic ancestors on my mother’s side. In the seventies, I didn’t find many Irish Catholics to be the demons the media made them out to be.

        • I think you’re either massively underestimating the extent to which religion is central to the goals of ISIS (or Daesh, or whatever we’re calling them), or otherwise massively overestimating the extent to which religion was central to the goals of the IRA.

          • I’m saying religion is nothing to do with either. It’s just as ridiculous to think the IRA applied rational biblical teaching to justify their activities, as it is Daesh using the Qu’ran to justify theirs. Daesh use religious words but care not a jot for actual Islamic teaching by genuine imams.

            • Except that ISIS have explicitly and repeatedly told us that they’re doing what they do specifically because of their faith, and the IRA never directly cited their religion as a causal factor.

              Like it or not, ISIS are clearly motivated by their own interpretation of the Islamic faith. An interpretation, warped as it may be, that is clearly finding favour with a small yet material percentage of the world’s Muslims. That’s the reality we have to confront, with open eyes.

              That doesn’t mean we have to all accept that Islam = evil. But it strikes me as equally simplistic to imply that we can all just call them Daesh and pretend that the link to Islam doesn’t really exist.

              It strikes me as a bit like suggesting that we shouldn’t call the Westboro Baptist Church a “church”, or describe them as “Christian”.

              • They use religious language to attract similarly warped minds. Their ends are not religious either. For most Muslims, the callous and indiscriminate taking of human life violates Allah’s wishes. It defies the Koran’s central message and undermines the peace that Islam promises to deliver. I’m saying that we, in the West, should stop regurgitating their propaganda by calling them Islamic or a State. We should be actively breaking the link they try to make between their criminality and religion, not simply ignoring it.

                • ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi seems pretty deeply religious, with a degree, MA and PhD in Islamic studies. I get the impression that it is his strongly held (albeit clearly warped) religious convictions that lead him to rape and murder. (But on the other hand, he might just be a psycho thug for all I know.)

        • Check out polls taken in the aftermath of any of the terrorist attacks in the past decade for the numbers supporting the actions taken. Usually, unequivocally supported by around 25% to 30% of Muslims.
          Equating Christ’s injunction to love thy fellow man with Mo’s injunction to behead unbelievers is incredible.
          Sure, integration promotes understanding. Where is your evidence that they wish to do so? Why are these areas in Belgium (and Sweden and France) no-go areas. Is it because the inhabitants desire it that way and ensure themselves that they remain so?

      • I think you are using ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islamist’ interchangeably, which is not conducive to clear thinking. Are you really saying that businessmen, doctors, nurses, teachers, coders, scientists etc. (just a quick run through of roles I’ve recent personal experience of Muslims in) are, in some sense, simultaneously not integrating?

        I’m not saying that Islam is unproblematic but let’s not overstate it.

          • Thanks for posting that Sithere. Very thought-provoking, useful statistics.

            And thanks to Tigger for saying a lot of things far more articulately than I could.

            Mr Cakes’s comment takes the biscuit for me this evening.

                • Well, Prances with Whistle, I’m struggling to see the parallel. Why not introduce the Highland Clearances?
                  As for research data, check out polls which show 27%of UK Muslims supported the 7/7 attacks and over 40% wish to see Sharia law introduced into the UK.

                    • Data? – google ICM polls re 7/7. Very uncomfortable reading. Recent ICM poll shows 16% of French citizens have a positive view of ISIS; 7% of UK citizens have positive view.

                  • Bit more complicated than that:
                    ‘YouGov sought to gauge the character of the Muslim community’s response to the events of July 7. As the figures in the chart show, 88 per cent of British Muslims clearly have no intention of trying to justify the bus and Tube murders.
                    However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.
                    Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do.
                    Moreover, the proportion of YouGov’s respondents who, while not condoning the London attacks, have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried them out is considerably larger – 24 per cent.
                    A substantial majority, 56 per cent, say that, whether or not they sympathise with the bombers, they can at least understand why some people might want to behave in this way.’ D. Tel, 23.7.05
                    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1494648/One-in-four-Muslims-sympathises-with-motives-of-terrorists.html

                    • Interesting. When I was at school in central Scotland in the 70s, support for the IRA was endemic – helped of course by the fact that the Catholic bigots had their own football team as a propaganda tool. I suspect that the proportion of Catholics of Irish descent willing to pay at least lip service to support for terrorism would be far in excess of the percentages above. Which doesn’t make it good, of course- but would indicate that it isn’t an unheard-of phenomenon.

                    • re Lando Cakes:

                      Yes interesting. Thanks for your thinly veiled anti Catholic / anti Irish comment.

                      Hey, I’m curious, how is support for the UDA and UVF on the terraces at Rangers these days? Still thriving?

                      And the club’s institutionalised anti Irish / personnel policies? Still in place? Oh no you signed a “taig” last year, right?

                      Just to spell it out and, I may well be wrong here, but support for anti Catholic / Loyalist paramilitary groups is still support for terrorism. Even if it’s just, you know, ‘lip service’ of a Saturday afternoon.

                    • I’m not clear @niscum, why you imagine my comment is anti-Catholic or anti-Irish, thinly-veiled or otherwise. But imagine it you did.

                      I agree re the other footballing bigots though. How I wish David Murray had bought Celtic too.

        • Oh, it’s not just them. There’s pastors over here who blame the victims at the show for their own deaths.

          But don’t forget, in the Ian World Order, people like that aren’t the REAL Christians, but DAESH are real Muslims.

          There’s a whole lot of Christian bigotry that goes on over here – and there’s probably some Pew work on it. A sizeable – too big to be described as a lunatic fringe – portion of the population tend to meet any reasonable definition of the word fundamentalist. See those folks who tried to cure the kid of bad thoughts by beating the living (literally. He died) shit out of him.

          Oh, my bad again. Not real Christians.

          They’re all as bad as each other, and for any religious group to point at another and say they’re worse…. It’s like Rangers/Celtic to a greater scale

            • “1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12”

              Gosh, it seems like the Bible was anticipating the Quran.

              Wait, I know – the NT supercedes the OT, right? I think most rational people call that cherry picking. Except the fundies; at least they own the fact that they think bits of the OT should be applied.

              • You’re correct. The New Testament supercedes the Old – ‘love one another’, ‘love thy neighbour as yourself’, ‘turn the other cheek’.
                I’m aware that you’re miffed that your proudly professed atheism has caused your workmates to look at you askance, rather than garner right-on kudos, but don’t let that embitter you.
                Point out where the swathes of fundi Christians are swarming through the MidWest putting unbelievers and gays to the sword, all the while believing that such murderous actions are bringing them closer to Heaven.
                Where are the Christian suicide bombers attempting to kill thousands of innocents?

                • So, admittedly cherry picking then?

                  http://deadstate.org/christian-pastor-slams-paris-victims-if-you-attend-a-death-metal-concert-you-deserve-to-get-killed/

                  http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/us/new-york-church-assault-case/

                  “Of course, without God, there is no value to life. That leads to immorality, that leads to sexual abuse, and there is no hope. They live without hope, because there is nothing more” – R Cruz (his son is running for the White House)

                  http://theweek.com/speedreads/451822/oklahoma-gop-candidate-suggests-ok-stone-gay-people-death

                  How many more do you want? You make sense on a great many issues – but on this you’re a hypocrite. And since you descended to ad hominem first, I feel no shame in calling a fucking delusional hypocrite

                  • {admin mode on] Shame or not, no ad hominems please. Aside from it being against the ‘house rules’, I can’t think of a single instance where it’s done anything other than detract from the point being made. [admin mode off]

                    • Please don’t intervene. I’d hoped we’d seen the last of the schoolmarmish mods. If someone wishes to make an arse of themselves with frothing-mouthed attacks, I’m quite happy to let them do so. I don’t need protection, nor do other posters, I’d venture.

                    • Jings @ianess, I feel like someone who has made an ill-judged intervention in a drunken domestic.

                      However, in a surprise development, it’s not about *you*. It’s about protecting the community standards we all agreed to ( https://theafterword.co.uk/faq/posting-guidelines/).

                      There’s little reminding required these days but the mods are still there for the occasional tweak of the tiller, if required.

                      And after all, I’m still in my prime etc.

                  • So, you’ve scoured the papers and found 3 unrepresentative nutjobs expressing abhorrent views. Meanwhile, ISIS and other Islamist terrorist groups continue their worldwide daily slaughter of kuffars,
                    I may be many things, but hypocrite I’m not. Any ‘Christian’ who slaughtered others, by virtue of these actions, would clearly not be a true Christian. Whereas, these Muslim killers believe they are going to Paradise for murdering infidels. You shouldn’t allow your personal animus against Christians and your desperate desire to absolve Muslims to blind you to that truth.

                    • No scouring necessary. Fairly prominent over here. And one of them is the father of Ted Cruz who has cornered a segment of the GOP electorate.

                      Here’s your logic:
                      Bad people do bad thing professing Christianity. Reaction: not Christian or representative of us. Look at us ignore a significant chunk of our Holy Book, or at least cherry pick the bits we want.

                      Bad people do bad thing professing Islam: They are definitely Muslim and representative of that faith. And we must take their Holy Book in toto and literally, unlike how we view the Bible.

                      If you can’t see the hypocrisy in that, you’re willfully blind, or disingenuous, or both.

                    • as far as a “daily slaughter of kuffars” goes, I think at this point it’s fairly well documented that ISIS kill far, far more Muslims than they do infidels.

          • A muslim who has studied the Koran and who did NOT believe in violence against non-believers is by definition a heretic as he is going directly against the word of God who in the Koran openly encourages and demands violence against them.

            When you understand that this as a cornerstone of the faith then you can see why ISIS behave in the barbaric way that they do; even if atrocities are carried out by the stupid, gullible and weak-minded, they follow both the letter and the spirit of the “holy” book. I mean even HOW to kill His enemies (chopping hands and feet off, stoning etc )

            Not to mention the contempt it holds for women and the instruction to beat them into obedience.

            Islam is a brutal belief system when taken literally and in truth, there is little room for allegorical interpretation in much of it: it codifies behaviour and sets out punishments.

            As I say, any God-fearing muslim who does not support ISIS’s actions does not know their Koran.

            You can’t have it both ways.

            • But looking at the quote from Deuteronomy above, that would be true for a Christian too (including HOW to kill His enemies – stoning in this case).
              Surely the issue here is recognising the difference between fundamentalists of any stripe & reasonable people who have a faith.

              • Hey, I’m not defending Christianity. The Old Testament is a depiction of life under and malevolent and angry God. It beats me why any Christian might want do so anyway as Deuteronomy (7:6) also states that the Jews are His chosen people. So it isn’t a bible for anyone but the Jews.

                Christianity is as nutty as both the other revealed religions but it is arguably less dangerous than either. (Turn the other cheek rather than eye for an eye – a fundamentally different philosophy)

                As I say above, the problem with the Koran is that if, as any believer should, you believe the premise that it is literally the word of God (Allah) handed to Mohammed then it follows on that where there is no room for allegorical or figurative interpretation then what it demands must be acted upon because God wishes you to do so. That is exactly what ISIS are doing and to them anyone that disagrees with this is by definition in conflict with Allah’s law and therefore deserves to be punished as he instructed in the Koran.

                All twisted logic.

                But by any measure Islam as set out in the Koran is not a peaceful religion and it openly advocates violence against unbelievers and women.

                No surprise then that there’s a problem with the integration of muslims into western liberal democracies then.

                But then liberal democracies have their faults too. Not least of which is the tendency of governments to ignore cultural homogeneity and stability in favour of political expediency and mass immigration from basket case countries like Somalia and Ethiopia, and from perma war-zones like north Africa and the middle east.

                • Sorry – more speed less haste …

                  To clarify, first para should read: ‘it beats me why any Christian would want to refer to the OT as a source for their religion when Deuteronomy states etc etc …

                • Thanks for the reply niscum, I appreciate it.

                  That seems to be a pretty sound argument (if you believe that the Koran is the literal word Allah – which as a Muslim you must – then to not follow or deviate from its messages makes you an apostate). If it isn’t I certainly don’t have the knowledge to challenge it.

                  How do the (many) Islamic countries & people that don’t follow all of the Koran’s more extreme instructions square that circle while still claiming adherence to their faith?

                  That’s a genuine, ‘I’d really like to understand that’, just askin’ kind of question by the way.

                  • Briefly, as regards Deuteronomy, there is the example of Christ intervening to stop the adulterous woman being stoned, which I presume you’re aware of.

  54. I don’t think it’s necessarily sensible to keep citing the Westboro Baptist Church as the Christian equivalent of ISIS. They’re a handful of bunch of head the balls – primarily from a single family – who makes fools of themselves and protest funerals with garish signs. They’re a petty concern really, and have achieved undeserved global prominence due to Louis Theroux. ISIS are currently slaughtering people at a rate of about 200 a week.

  55. Quite, jim. I think they total a couple of dozen family members at most, run by an extremely odd patriarch.
    It’s risible how often they’re referenced as being typical Christians.

    • I don’t think anyone has or would referenced them as “typical Christians”. That would be ridiculous.
      It’s equally absurd to consider ISIS as typical muslims.

  57. It’s incredibly sad how naturally, conflating ‘ordinary Muslims’ (as my family are) and ISIS comes to some people. There isn’t anyone in my extended family who remotely supports or condones extremists and each fresh atrocity is met not only with heartbreak at the loss of life and trauma, but also with the grim realisation that we are again, expected to somehow explain, condemn and apologise for these scumbags. And this applies to just about every Muslim I have met, whilst living in the UK, UAE and now, Germany.

    But as far as some people are concerned, the generations of my family who have worked here and integrated fully into your infidel society as doctors, teachers, lawyers, dentists, journalists, artists etc etc – still must do more to atone for the acts of Da’esh. Perhaps, as one or two posters here appear to be so well acquainted with the Quran, you could advise me on what we can do?

    • The issue is clearly complex.

      I’m no Theologian, but it seems to me that the world’s major religions are rarely monolithic. Islam isn’t a “religion of peace” (to quote a comment upthread) any more than it’s a “religion of terror” – in fact, I’d assume that it means entirely different things to different people, none of which can be neatly summarised in a tabloid headline.

      There are about 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet, and I’m going to guess that they’re about as varied in terms of belief and temperament as the 2.5 billion Christians (who generally struggle to agree on much). I’ve never read the Quran, but the beliefs and actions of ISIS strike me as extraordinarily extreme, completely out of line with the thinking of every Muslim I’ve ever encountered in my life, and I’m fairly certain that if nearly a quarter of the global population shared that same ideology we’d absolutely and categorically know about it by now.

      On the other hand, I think it’s daft to simply attempt to airbrush out the link between ISIS and Islam. Sadly for us all, they ARE Muslims, they are clearly motivated by their faith, and they are recruiting from the ranks of other Muslims. We may not like those facts, and they may be inconvenient for us, but they’re what we surely need to grapple with. There is a healthy middle ground out there that needs to be found between wild (and dangerous) generalisation and sticking our collective heads in the sand.

        • @bingo-little – complete agree and yes, these people – I mean, the ‘foot soldiers’ as it were, the ones who belt up with explosives and go forth and commit mayhem – obviously do so as Muslims. But it’s interesting to see that in so many cases, especially with Da’esh recruits from the West, they are found to have been young, disaffected, bored outsiders, not particularly pious or observant, who have been fed a load of swill about 72 virgins and so on. Look at the profiles emerging today about some of the Paris bombers being weed-addled, booze-swilling losers, more than chaste, devout Muslims.

          In many cases, those who actually do these deeds were not practising Muslims but were seduced by the idea of being of significance and exacting revenge on societies they feel have spurned them by brainwashing them into believing all the claptrap about the West hating Islam, or the inevitability of a caliphate by sacred jihad or what have you. So yes, we do have a severe, pressing problem with these people and as you say, a healthy middle ground needs to be found, in order to deal with it. I do think that, unsustainable as Da’esh’s fundamental tenets are, the eventual collapse of the so called Islamic State might go some way to convincing those tempted by it, of its utter futility. I really do hope so.

          OOAA.

            • I’m keen on calling out Daesh’s link to Islam. One thing they are very good at is propaganda. How about some pro-Muslim propaganda, emphasising the positive, to counteract it?

              This is not burying head in sand. It’s seeing them as they are. Then, we can work out how to beat them. That may mean boots on the ground. It may mean an ‘unholy’ alliance. It may also mean investing money in ‘disaffected’ youth.

              It strikes me that the West is simply playing to their strengths, calling them ISIS, spreading fear in the press (latest being chemical weapons) and spending billions on bombs that also kill civilians.

              • Well, I agree with you about the press, and that this is a propaganda war as much as anything else.

                However, I don’t think that insisting on calling them “Daesh”, denying that they’re Islamic or “pro-Muslim propaganda” will play an important part in working out how to beat them. It’s just a way to comfort ourselves by making a complex problem seem a little more simple: the exact flip side of the coin to those who argue that all Muslims are terrorists.

                Are you suggesting we should never bomb ISIS? No military action against them at all?

                • What form should this ‘pro-Muslim propaganda’ take? Any suggestions?
                  Could be a bit of a tough sell, given their growing reputation for harbouring and encouraging significant terrorist elements; their views on women, gays, eradication of Israel, ‘honour’ killing, genital mutilation.

                • I don’t know what military option is best. I think just bombing is merely political, to make Westerners believe their governments are taking decisive action. So far, it only seems to make matters worse. We should ask the military experts what to do. Personally, I bet they’d need an army on the ground. I’m suggesting intelligent, thought-through military intervention.

                  My point about pro-Muslim propaganda, which Nessie thinks impossible, is to nail the lies they use to recruit disaffected youth. Cutting off their ‘foot-soldier’ supply must be part of the solution. That would also mean de-disaffecting the disaffected youth, which would involve offer them a future.

                    • Bombing might work if better directed. I reckon that would involve boots on the ground. But, then, I know nothing about military activities.

                  • ‘nailing lies’ and pro-Muslim propaganda are not one and the same thing. What would you suggest the key points of the message should be to convince the non-Muslim world to think positively of Muslims?

                    • This website is a noddy guide to Islam, with links to others. I pick out the chapter on terrorism.

                      http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-11.htm

                      I’m not a Muslim. In fact I’m not religious. I’m sure Muslims themselves can come up with salient points.

                      My main problem with religions is that they are run by men (almost always). They then become driven by power rather than holiness. The current pope seems an exception but I’m not so sure about the cardinals. He’s having a tough time making the Catholic Church more tolerant.

            • Yes, but the (regrettably all too true) story trumps satire I’m afraid:

              We are not in some sand-blown, hellhole shacked up with a halfwit former Morrisons security guard, now reinvented as a mujahidin avenger, chucking gay people off rooftops and living a subservient existence in the addled belief this is the service of God.

  58. Have an Up Slotbadger. Very articulately put.

    Sadly, ordinary people of any faith or creed, are not very newsworthy. They just get on with life. It’s the loonies and scumbags that get all the attention.

    But at a time like this, we really need to be reminded of how unrepresentative of ordinary Moslems the Da’eth are.

    Thank heavens for Reza Aslan.

    • How is the integration of the Muslim population in Sweden working out, kfd?
      We read reports of riots in Malmo, no-go areas and Sweden becoming the rape capital of Europe. Surely not true.

      • This has been happening for decades before ISIS even existed. As Salman Rushdie can attest, Islam is not a religion that accepts criticism easily and writers, cartoonists etc do so in fear of their lives.

        I’m sure Cat Stevens had absolutely no idea why he was calling for a writer’s death in 1989, he did so blindly and unthinkingly because his newly adopted religion told him to do so.

        ISIS is simply this year’s model of a toxic religion that has no place in the modern world

  59. As this is the Afterword, I’m mildly surprised that we’ve got this far without a mention of Richard Thompson, particularly given that he is a Muslim. Here’s his marvellous take on the extremists, Inside of the Outside:

    • I don’t think that anyone is arguing that Daesh are not motivated by religion. Clearly they are motivated by their own extreme take on it. The question is whether their viewpoint is so prevalent that it should colour our view of Islam as a whole. Clearly it is not.

  64. I’m not a religious person. I take a fairly dim view of religion in general. I characterise myself as an atheist. I was born in, live in, and wish to stay in, a Christian country. I am admiring, in general, of the way the Christian church in my country has matured and how it has gradually embraced, reluctantly and slowly at times, the unfolding modernity we all take for granted in the 21st century. I have relatives who are a part of various Christian churches, from Cof E through Baptist to Salvation Army, and they are all tolerant and decent people who get on with their beliefs and pass no judgement on mine, or my lack of them. They work with others of all faiths and none to make life better for whoever they can help, and do so in a profoundly modest and gentle way.

    The modern world, which these lovely people enrich with their humanity, has a strange way of responding to the humble attempts of the Christians amongst them to share their faith. Some bunch of spineless morons has decided that a brief 60 second film based upon the Lord’s Prayer might offend someone. Well let me speak for my family and friends, whose faith I do not share. Fuck that. No one has the right not to be offended. Turn away, look at your shoe-laces, put your fingers in your ears and hum to yourself, but do not, under any circumstances, tell me that you are offended. I don’t give a crap for your offendedness, and I reserve the absolute right to continue not to give a crap about your offendedness.

    https://youtu.be/vlUXh4mx4gI

    • As far as I understand they just don’t accept ads like this

      “Digital Cinema Media, which handles most cinema advertising in the UK, told Arora it has “a policy not to run advertising connected to personal beliefs, specifically those related to politics or religion. Our members have found that showing such advertisements carries the risk of upsetting, or offending, audiences.”

      And the cynical part of me suggests this is just the reaction Arora hoped for.

    • I could, I suppose, get all worked up and offended about this ad and the associated claims about the power of prayer.

      Dying of a terminal illness? Maybe you or your loved ones just didn’t quite pitch your prayer in the right way. Better luck next time old bean. This is a lovely song but some of its lyrics really don’t bear much scrutiny, to be honest…

      So I suppose, when I bother to think about it, I can become offended by well-meaning, decent Christians. But it takes an effort.

      Islamists, however, are a wee bit more direct in their methods of persuasion, and that then becomes my business.

    • I generally share your views re the general ok-ness of modern Christianity. However I don’t think that the cinema is the place for proselyting adverts for religious faith. Apart from anything else, they’ll all be at it – and I can’t be arsed sitting through Salt Lake City or Jeddah funded infomercials.

  65. I’m upset or offended by cinema ads on a regular basis, eg when people force on me their personal belief that BMWs or Gordon’s Gin will turn my life into an earthly paradise.

    I don’t have a problem with this ad, especially when you consider the gazillions spent on Christmas ads like John Lewis or Sainsbury. The GLW, on the other hand, is hopping mad that bloody religious fanatics should force their views on unsuspecting cinema goers. Go figure.

    • Christ on a bike. I’ve watched a shed load of ads for the local steak house or tandoori, “just around the corner from this cinema”, and guffawed at the best of them, winced at the worst, but I’ve never, ever, considered myself to be “offended” by any of them! If it’s an ad with the budget that Beemers r Gordon’s bring to bear, I can at least expect to see decent photography and an expensive soundtrack while I try not to scarf down too much popcorn before the main feature begins. Offence doesn’t come into it, just mild, bewildered amusement at the waste of money I’m watching over my paper bucket.

    • Your GLW has a strange view of The Lord’s Prayer, if she thinks it’s a screed of “religious fanatics”. We used to have to dirge it out once a day at school every morning. At worst it bored us, at best it triggered a mild reflection on how we should treat “those that trespass against us”. Fanaticism it is not.

      • We used to recite the LP at school unthinkingly, but to what purpose?

        It may not be fanaticism, but it’s certainly insidious.

        There’s no good reason to be religious so why bother with this cinema ad?

        • Nowhere near as insidious as all the “normal” adverts for cars, make-up, ambulance chasing insurance, dodgy retirement plans, cheap fast food, double-glazing and a million other things being marketed by shysters of one degree or another who are just trying to part you from your cash. Accepting that this torrent of mindless brainwashing garbage is “normal” is in many ways deeply troubling.

  66. According to a poll in a well-known UK newspaper today (yes, the one that every “responsible”, “decent”, “right thinking” person loves to hate. That one). “One in five British Muslims have sympathy for Jihadis”. It is a legitimate poll, by all accounts.

    The only surprise there is how unsurprising that figure is .

  67. Disappointingly, it doesn’t look as if we will be getting an answer. Speaking as someone who , as Ian would put it, does recognise that there is a problem but has no easy answers, I was hoping for a cunning plan of some sort. As is s often the case, that appears to be the difficult bit.

      • Sorry to disappoint you, lads, but when, if ever, I come up with an overarching theory of how to deal with jihadist Islam, I plan to sell it to governments worldwide for billions. Can you blame me?
        Duly humbled by your faith in me that I’d have a solution that has so far escaped the rest of the world.

Leave a Reply