Arabs, uprisings, hate and corruption

[Tyrant]

This for me, is the whole key to the ongoing saga.

 

'Regular' Muslims need to do more, or need to be seen to be doing more to out these people who are sullying their religion.  I just don't feel like they are distancing themselves enough from the extremists, or perhaps they're not being allowed to by the people Tom is pointing the finger at.

 

 

Agree with this. I know the odd Muslim here and there. I worked with one until recently. I liked the guy (even though he was a Tim) but I found myself thinking "what does he honestly make of all this?" Part of me wonders if all this "Those extremists aren't real Muslims" stuff is all an act. I don't know.

 

I blame folk being thick more than religion tbh be honest. My parents were never religious. Not particularly anyway. Not sure if they believe(d) in God but I was never sheltered from religion (which is almost definitely what I'd do with my own child I think). I was never told that certain religions were better or worse than others. I found/find religion quite fascinating in a way but so infuriating in another. I eventually decided that I didn't believe in any religion and that I was atheist. Because surely to believe all the shite that the various religions pedal you'd have to be a thick cunt or bat shit crazy. This point of view has offended many. That's not my intention. I should be more respectful of people's beliefs because I'm a firm believer in people being able to say, think and believe whatever they want as long as they're not harming anyone.

 

I was surprised to hear a modern day account of a man that moved to a new town but because he was an atheist he was shunned and unwelcome within the community. I'd probably think "bible belt America" but no. It was right here in Scotland. Admittedly the isle of Lewis is almost in America but hearing about something like this happening in this country in this day and age was surprising.

 

 

[rocket_scientist]

 

Agree with this. I know the odd Muslim here and there. I worked with one until recently. I liked the guy (even though he was a Tim) but I found myself thinking "what does he honestly make of all this?" Part of me wonders if all this "Those extremists aren't real Muslims" stuff is all an act. I don't know.

 

I blame folk being thick more than religion tbh be honest. My parents were never religious. Not particularly anyway. Not sure if they believe(d) in God but I was never sheltered from religion (which is almost definitely what I'd do with my own child I think). I was never told that certain religions were better or worse than others. I found/find religion quite fascinating in a way but so infuriating in another. I eventually decided that I didn't believe in any religion and that I was atheist. Because surely to believe all the shite that the various religions pedal you'd have to be a thick cunt or bat shit crazy. This point of view has offended many. That's not my intention. I should be more respectful of people's beliefs because I'm a firm believer in people being able to say, think and believe whatever they want as long as they're not harming anyone.

 

I was surprised to hear a modern day account of a man that moved to a new town but because he was an atheist he was shunned and unwelcome within the community. I'd probably think "bible belt America" but no. It was right here in Scotland. Admittedly the isle of Lewis is almost in America but hearing about something like this happening in this country in this day and age was surprising.

 

Seems like you put a lot of thought into it. Seems like you needed to come up with something, anything to believe in.

 

There is an argument that an atheist is stupid by his very declaration of not believing.

 

We can only come to conclusions on matters where conclusions can be had.

 

Knowing what can be known and what is unknowable is wise.

 

I reject every world religion but not everything contained therein. I am unable to say that I'm an aetheist however.

 

 

[Superstar Tradesman]

I put extremism down to boredom.

 

Like Catholic priests that aren't allowed to marry who spend their days banging altar boys.

 

The Islamic religion is oppressive, whether it's the run of the mill Muslim or full on ISIS / Sharia law.  Can't drink, can't mix with the opposite sex, can't wear certain clothes, can't eat certain foods, can't eat at all during certain times/days of the year.

 

Something's got to give, especially when you grow up in countries where you can largely please yourself.

[tom_widdows]

Do you know any practicing Muslims?

 

or Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Catholics etc

 

If not I suggest you try and meet a few of them and ask about their own personal beliefs

 

I do enjoy your suggestion that paedophile tendencies could be suppressed if you were allowed to get married.

[Superstar Tradesman]

Well Mr Worldlywise, I'm currently living in and around Muslim countries, have been for a couple years now, in fact I was in one yesterday as it happens.  The food was decent and nobody aimed a jihad in my general direction so all is well in my tiny, blinkered, secular world.

 

The current demographics of where I stay are split like this:

 

 

Whereas I believe you float about between the UK and Australia, which are respectivley split per the following:

 

 

 

Now if this were a pissing contest I'd say you'd barely have dribbled out of your shorts and straight down your inside leg.  But that's not what you were aiming for, or was it? 

 

Regardless of the Mizer-like wank-bank material above I'd say that at the very least it permits me to have an opinion of my own.

 

As I said, my 'beliefs' are that if you're denied basic human rights to eat, drink, fuck, scribble cartoons, read books, wear clothes, attend school, cut your hair, show your face or any other weird and wonderful combination of oppressive behaviour then you're going to rebel.  Be that munching on a bacon sarnie when you're studying in the UK, 10000 miles away from your devout parents, or driving a Toyota Hilux into a crowded market place loaded with cow dung and Glade Shake 'n Vac.  The more extreme the oppression, the more extreme the kick-back.  The Islamic nutjobs even state they're blowing themselves up so they can go get their hole from 72 frigid virgins.  How much more proof do you need that they're gagging to cut loose and enjoy themselves for a change? 

 

As for my catholic priest theory; don't you find it strange that Protestant priests never seem to be tarred with the same paedo brush as their Catholic counterparts? 

 

Same religion, same God, same set of values, same fairytales, same places of worship.

 

Yet one is permitted to go home and get his end away and relieve any tension with his missus whilst the other can't even crack one off at the wrist in fear of fire and brimstone.  But it's ok, the latter will get help from his religious leaders to sweep any kiddy fiddling under the parapet/carpet, because they're all in the same spunk-filled pressure cooker of oppression.

[rocket_scientist]

Congratulations. It is wholesome and hearty to see ignorance put down with clinical efficiency, in absolute terms from where there is zero prospect of any credible comeback. That it was done with a robustly functioning sense of humour, the icing on the cake.

 

In a new year where Charlie Hebdo has dominated the news and the debate about freedom of expression came to the fore, it is interesting that not one commentator spoke about taste or decency or motive or the potential effects of provocation.

 

Where one has been challenged in words on an online forum by a stupid or sick boy, then it is open season as to the nature of the retort which leaves them urinating into their shoes, to use his analogy.

 

But where there has been no previous attack - and in the events last week, let's be honest, how can a whole religion attack a bunch of cartoonist individuals - why was the publication so consistently and gratuitously offensive towards Allah? Surely any reasonable man could have foreseen that their "humour" would have generated huge offence amongst many and it was foreseeable that a radical nutjob or a thousand would have had steam coming out their ears and a sweaty angsty finger hovering over their trigger.

 

The slaughter of the staff in Paris last week was a shocking disgrace, the act of two madmen. But it wouldn't have happened in Scotland. We don't have arsehole cartoonists, weak wimpy men hiding behind their pens, poking derision at whoever they feel like just because they can, mistakenly believing that freedom of speech was their shield to protect them for all evil. That some of their cartoons were shockingly offensive bordering on sick, without good taste, well beyond any line of decency in many cases and always provoking a reaction for the sake of it, by fuck they got one.

 

 

[tom_widdows]

Well Mr Worldlywise, I'm currently living in and around Muslim countries, have been for a couple years now, in fact I was in one yesterday as it happens.  The food was decent and nobody aimed a jihad in my general direction so all is well in my tiny, blinkered, secular world.

 

The current demographics of where I stay are split like this:

 

 

Whereas I believe you float about between the UK and Australia, which are respectivley split per the following:

 

 

 

Now if this were a pissing contest I'd say you'd barely have dribbled out of your shorts and straight down your inside leg.  But that's not what you were aiming for, or was it? 

 

Regardless of the Mizer-like wank-bank material above I'd say that at the very least it permits me to have an opinion of my own.

 

As I said, my 'beliefs' are that if you're denied basic human rights to eat, drink, fuck, scribble cartoons, read books, wear clothes, attend school, cut your hair, show your face or any other weird and wonderful combination of oppressive behaviour then you're going to rebel.  Be that munching on a bacon sarnie when you're studying in the UK, 10000 miles away from your devout parents, or driving a Toyota Hilux into a crowded market place loaded with cow dung and Glade Shake 'n Vac.  The more extreme the oppression, the more extreme the kick-back.  The Islamic nutjobs even state they're blowing themselves up so they can go get their hole from 72 frigid virgins.  How much more proof do you need that they're gagging to cut loose and enjoy themselves for a change? 

 

As for my catholic priest theory; don't you find it strange that Protestant priests never seem to be tarred with the same paedo brush as their Catholic counterparts? 

 

Same religion, same God, same set of values, same fairytales, same places of worship.

 

Yet one is permitted to go home and get his end away and relieve any tension with his missus whilst the other can't even crack one off at the wrist in fear of fire and brimstone.  But it's ok, the latter will get help from his religious leaders to sweep any kiddy fiddling under the parapet/carpet, because they're all in the same spunk-filled pressure cooker of oppression.

 

That's all very nice but you didn't answer my question.

 

Do you know any practicing Muslims?

 

or Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Catholics etc?

 

 

With regards to your thoughts on the catholic church compared to the protestant i think a quick look into the child abuse history of both might open your eyes. Barnardos kids homes spring to mind

In addition non-denominational institutions responsible for the care of children & young adults also have had some hideous incidents.

 

Situations where people have 'control' over one another are always high risk for abuse particularly if they have an environment where those in charge are rarely if at all required to account for their own actions and know they will usually be believed compared the the victim.

 

If being married stopped paedophelia how do you explain the likes of Fred West or Josef Fritzl?

 

Why is the catholic church seemingly being tarred more than the protestant faith in the media? A topic for another thread perhaps? The systematic denial of any wrong doing and then admitting they covered the whole thing up but wouldnt reveal names would be a big factor I'd say.

Perhaps because there isnt a protestant equivalent of the Pope so there isnt a focal point for the world media to home in on? Who knows

 

I look forward to your thoughts followed quickly by another post congratulating yourself on them

 

 

 

[Andrew]

Congratulations. It is wholesome and hearty to see ignorance put down with clinical efficiency, in absolute terms from where there is zero prospect of any credible comeback. That it was done with a robustly functioning sense of humour, the icing on the cake.

 

In a new year where Charlie Hebdo has dominated the news and the debate about freedom of expression came to the fore, it is interesting that not one commentator spoke about taste or decency or motive or the potential effects of provocation.

 

Where one has been challenged in words on an online forum by a stupid or sick boy, then it is open season as to the nature of the retort which leaves them urinating into their shoes, to use his analogy.

 

But where there has been no previous attack - and in the events last week, let's be honest, how can a whole religion attack a bunch of cartoonist individuals - why was the publication so consistently and gratuitously offensive towards Allah? Surely any reasonable man could have foreseen that their "humour" would have generated huge offence amongst many and it was foreseeable that a radical nutjob or a thousand would have had steam coming out their ears and a sweaty angsty finger hovering over their trigger.

 

The slaughter of the staff in Paris last week was a shocking disgrace, the act of two madmen. But it wouldn't have happened in Scotland. We don't have arsehole cartoonists, weak wimpy men hiding behind their pens, poking derision at whoever they feel like just because they can, mistakenly believing that freedom of speech was their shield to protect them for all evil. That some of their cartoons were shockingly offensive bordering on sick, without good taste, well beyond any line of decency in many cases and always provoking a reaction for the sake of it, by fuck they got one.

 

In the words that Voltaire is often wrongly attributed, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Why should parochial, inward, backwards, discriminatory, sexist, homophobic beliefs be shielded from ridicule? These men weren't hiding behind there cartoons, they were open about their beliefs of freedom of speech and expression. To say otherwise is just untrue. Maybe you just envy the over the top and disproportionate response which often seems to be your method of choice on here and elsewhere.

[Superstar Tradesman]

That's all very nice but you didn't answer my question.

 

Do you know any practicing Muslims?

 

or Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Catholics etc?

 

 

With regards to your thoughts on the catholic church compared to the protestant i think a quick look into the child abuse history of both might open your eyes. Barnardos kids homes spring to mind

In addition non-denominational institutions responsible for the care of children & young adults also have had some hideous incidents.

 

Situations where people have 'control' over one another are always high risk for abuse particularly if they have an environment where those in charge are rarely if at all required to account for their own actions and know they will usually be believed compared the the victim.

 

If being married stopped paedophelia how do you explain the likes of Fred West or Josef Fritzl?

 

Why is the catholic church seemingly being tarred more than the protestant faith in the media? A topic for another thread perhaps? The systematic denial of any wrong doing and then admitting they covered the whole thing up but wouldnt reveal names would be a big factor I'd say.

Perhaps because there isnt a protestant equivalent of the Pope so there isnt a focal point for the world media to home in on? Who knows

 

I look forward to your thoughts followed quickly by another post congratulating yourself on them

 

Protestant Popes, serial killers, children's charities............. you're shooting off on so many tangents there I suggest you try focusing on the topic of the thread otherwise it's going to be like herding cats.

 

But to answer your question, I'll recap as it's plainly gone straight over your head:

 

Do you know any practicing Muslims?

 

I'm surrounded by them.  I work, rest and play with them on a daily basis.  Visit their countries on a fairly regular basis.  Eat their food.  Read their newspapers.  Take an interest in their culture.  Garner their thoughts on current issues such as this.

 

or Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Catholics etc?

 

Sikhs - nope, although I see plenty kicking about, but I can't say I know any personally.

Hindus - as per the Muslim community above.

Jews - nope, none that i'm aware of.

Catholics - my father's side are all catholic.

 

Not sure what the correlation between all that and the atrocities in Paris is though?  Let me know if you need to know my experience or lack thereof with Buddhists, Scientologists, Taoists or any other religion though, as I'm hoping you've got some sort of point you're trying to make, even if I can't fathom what that is. 

 

So.............. back on track, guns vs pencils, cartoons vs bampots.

 

Fuck it, who cares, it's just ghost stories anyway.

 

 

[rocket_scientist]

In the words that Voltaire is often wrongly attributed, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Why should parochial, inward, backwards, discriminatory, sexist, homophobic beliefs be shielded from ridicule? These men weren't hiding behind there cartoons, they were open about their beliefs of freedom of speech and expression. To say otherwise is just untrue. Maybe you just envy the over the top and disproportionate response which often seems to be your method of choice on here and elsewhere.

 

It is your opinion that a whole religion is parochial. It is your opinion that Islam is inward, backward, discriminatory etc. Whilst I find Islam and indeed all organised religions offensive in many respects, I recognise that it is just my opinion. I respect the fact that for so many millions, it's the whole code by which they live.

 

Not that it's relevant at all unlike what one confused poster above seems to think but I have dealt extensively with Arabs and been in their countries during Ramadan etc. What is relevant is that my rejection of their religion is a qualified one. I read the Bible in full, voluntarily and made a point of reading the Koran and studying (not academically) all religions before rejecting them all in establishing my own beliefs. But I would never use judgemental adjectives such as "backward". That is poor, so typically "western" and Sun headliney.

 

Whatever my opinion, qualified as I may be or not to comment on such a significant part of the existence for so many, I wouldn't draw a picture of the prophet with his arse hinging oot, far less publish the obscenity. I would also have the decency and respect for other people not to insult them by having the prophet snogging a man and repeatedly producing images designed to offend, images that in my judgement were grossly inappropriate, totally over the top and disproportionate to whatever ill-conceived objective they could possibly have.

 

If they were trying to be funny, only 60,000 readers agreed. The 5m+ windfall sympathy injection won't bring their dead back. They wouldn't be dead if they hadn't been so infantile, offensive and disrespectful of others.

[Andrew]

It is your opinion that a whole religion is parochial. It is your opinion that Islam is inward, backward, discriminatory etc. Whilst I find Islam and indeed all organised religions offensive in many respects, I recognise that it is just my opinion. I respect the fact that for so many millions, it's the whole code by which they live.

 

Not that it's relevant at all unlike what one confused poster above seems to think but I have dealt extensively with Arabs and been in their countries during Ramadan etc. What is relevant is that my rejection of their religion is a qualified one. I read the Bible in full, voluntarily and made a point of reading the Koran and studying (not academically) all religions before rejecting them all in establishing my own beliefs. But I would never use judgemental adjectives such as "backward". That is poor, so typically "western" and Sun headliney.

 

Whatever my opinion, qualified as I may be or not to comment on such a significant part of the existence for so many, I wouldn't draw a picture of the prophet with his arse hinging oot, far less publish the obscenity. I would also have the decency and respect for other people not to insult them by having the prophet snogging a man and repeatedly producing images designed to offend, images that in my judgement were grossly inappropriate, totally over the top and disproportionate to whatever ill-conceived objective they could possibly have.

 

If they were trying to be funny, only 60,000 readers agreed. The 5m+ windfall sympathy injection won't bring their dead back. They wouldn't be dead if they hadn't been so infantile, offensive and disrespectful of others.

 

Why would you study religion when it is created by man? Does it not have as much basis as Scientology, Mormonism etc.? I don't understand why one should take Christianity more seriously than any of the former, especially when Christianity has taken vast swathes of ideas from previous beliefs people held. 

 

My main arguments against believing in a deity is the arrogance that we have been created and not just formed by chance. I like the idea that life is futile and pointless and that there is no real meaning. Even if there was a creator he must be an absolute bastard for the things to happen to us. How can some people believe in a god when such terrible things happen? Even if a creator did exist I would not want to worship or even be in their presence. 

 

I also don't really understand what your point about the offensive cartoons is. What is the answer to it? Yes, they may have been grossly offensive but do you want that to be illegal or a different alternative? I don't know enough about the cartoons or muslim life to make a judgement about how offensive they may or may not be but I do know that one should be allowed to publish anything they want. The problem when you start arguing against freedom of expression is what is the answer? A fine? Prison? The argument about if something is offensive and if something should be illegal are two vastly separate questions that a lot of people seem to forget.

 

I often find your opinions a bit of an enigma. I am never really sure where you will stand on certain issues but am interested in your thought process non the less.

 

[rocket_scientist]

Why would you study religion when it is created by man? Does it not have as much basis as Scientology, Mormonism etc.? I don't understand why one should take Christianity more seriously than any of the former, especially when Christianity has taken vast swathes of ideas from previous beliefs people held. 

 

My main arguments against believing in a deity is the arrogance that we have been created and not just formed by chance. I like the idea that life is futile and pointless and that there is no real meaning. Even if there was a creator he must be an absolute bastard for the things to happen to us. How can some people believe in a god when such terrible things happen? Even if a creator did exist I would not want to worship or even be in their presence. 

 

I also don't really understand what your point about the offensive cartoons is. What is the answer to it? Yes, they may have been grossly offensive but do you want that to be illegal or a different alternative? I don't know enough about the cartoons or muslim life to make a judgement about how offensive they may or may not be but I do know that one should be allowed to publish anything they want. The problem when you start arguing against freedom of expression is what is the answer? A fine? Prison? The argument about if something is offensive and if something should be illegal are two vastly separate questions that a lot of people seem to forget.

 

I often find your opinions a bit of an enigma. I am never really sure where you will stand on certain issues but am interested in your thought process non the less.

 

When I say I "studied" religion, it was more an examination. Nothing formal. No teacher. I just wanted to read the book that governed our state before rejecting the religion called Christianity, which I had already instinctively done. It was a good read in parts. Some decent shit in amongst the dogma and formulaic presentation. I got the most from Buddhism and some of the philosophy from the east, again just personal reading, exploring stuff for myself without specific direction.

 

You obviously didn't see Question Time tonight. The point I make about the balance between freedom of speech and gratuitous offence was the view agreed on by the panel. There are laws of blasphemy on the subject. It's not rocket science. It's a very simple argument. I can't express my words any more clearer than I did.

 

Edit: The Pope also said it very clearly. With Celtic being anxious just now, his holiness has been viewing on here, saw my post and regurgitated it verbatim. Plagiarising papal papstick.

[manc_don]

This guy (and CAGE incidentally) is completely moronic.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afdeFuJbK3E&t=6m10s

 

 

[Mentorred]

Do you know any practicing Muslims?

 

or Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Catholics etc

 

If not I suggest you try and meet a few of them and ask about their own personal beliefs

 

I do enjoy your suggestion that paedophile tendencies could be suppressed if you were allowed to get married.

 

I am a catholic and I am not a pedophile and neither is my 12 year old catholic girlfriend 

[Tyrant]

I am a catholic and I am not a pedophile and neither is my 12 year old catholic girlboyfriend 

 

 

Fixed for true Catholics.

[rocket_scientist]

When I hear of an Israeli rocket killing a Palestinian mother and her two year old child, as today, I feel disgust.

 

The same disgust I feel every time I hear of the Israelis killing arabs.

 

And yet, these days, when I hear of arabs killing jews, such as the indiscriminate knife attack by the Palestinian law student, I feel less disgust. I'm not exactly celebrating the murder of the jews but an Israeli life feels less than a Palestinian life to me right now, which I know is not correct.

 

How has it come to this, I ask myself?

 

Maybe my instinct has sided with justice? Not that there appears to be ANY justice happening anywhere in that stolen land.

[RicoS321]

When I hear of an Israeli rocket killing a Palestinian mother and her two year old child, as today, I feel disgust.

 

The same disgust I feel every time I hear of the Israelis killing arabs.

 

And yet, these days, when I hear of arabs killing jews, such as the indiscriminate knife attack by the Palestinian law student, I feel less disgust. I'm not exactly celebrating the murder of the jews but an Israeli life feels less than a Palestinian life to me right now, which I know is not correct.

 

How has it come to this, I ask myself?

 

Maybe my instinct has sided with justice? Not that there appears to be ANY justice happening anywhere in that stolen land.

 

It's the murder equivalent of East Stirling beating Kilmarnock. You don't support East Stirling as such, but like to back the underdog. Especially when they're up against an odious puppet side, led by an utter fucking cunt. But then they've got some nice people; Josh Magennis. For that reason you don't completely hate them, because most of them just want to get on with their lives and have no association with the atrocities being carried out in their name - like deliberately bombing a hospital, or abstaining on the vote on whether or not to allow sevco into the premier league.

[rocket_scientist]

That didn't work.

 

Imitation is flattery etc. but you should try and find your own voice.

 

Or maybe go back to Aberdeen Mad and tell everyone what a cunt I am.

 

Like you did before.

[RicoS321]

That didn't work.

 

Imitation is flattery etc. but you should try and find your own voice.

 

Or maybe go back to Aberdeen Mad and tell everyone what a cunt I am.

 

Like you did before.

 

You can't say cunt on Aberdeen Mad.

 

Anyway, here's the link to the only thread I've ever mentioned you in on Aberdeen Mad for those interested. No mention of cunts from me.

 

http://boards.footymad.net/aberdeen-mad/2109884551?pg=2#dkQG5oIiZV4zS9AI.97

 

But my analogy did need work like.

[rocket_scientist]

How many more Palestinians need to die?

 

The recent spontaneous outburst by individuals, many of whom are highly functional intelligent individuals is tragic.

 

Injustice is injustice. The constitution, the expansion, the enforcement and the inhumanity of Israel can't go on.

 

Innocent people have been dying for fifty years. It's happening this week. Innocent Jews are dying too.

 

Does nobody ever ask why?

[manc_don]

The only reason why I can see why this is allowed to continue is because of the US and Israeli governments being tied at multiple levels along with post war guilt. However, this guilt is causing deaths on both sides and it has long disgusted me that the west do nothing about it. Israel clearly want to carry out genocide, the illegal settlers (whom I wish nothing but ill health and sadness for) are used as a sort of militia. One country that will never receive my money. If Palestine had some form of natural resource, you could guarantee that this wouldn't be happening. Such is the sadness and predictability of governments today.

 

[rocket_scientist]

These paki Taliban fuckers eh?

 

They shoot the lassie in the head, her crime being that she attended school, the one that got a peace prize later and yet again they target a university, racking up a kill count of 19 so far.

 

There's a common theme here. Those men folk HATE education.

 

If their people are allowed access to education, they might learn that these barbaric bastards are cunts. These perpetrators of violence are weak men, thick, uneducated men who subjugate women and suppress anything and wipe out anybody that might threaten their domination of the local culture.

 

Unfortunately there is one lesson they and their ancestors learned, the hard way. The British Empire fucked their region and created divisions that required the creation of a brand new state. It's no wonder they reject "our values" given the history, both back then and in recent years, by the coalition in their country. What a fucking mess. Again.

[Tyrant]

Two explosions at an airport in Brussels. 11 dead so far apparently.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35869254

 

[manc_don]

Also one at a metro station. Not sure if that's been reported in the UK press yet though. Not good.

[rocket_scientist]

Here's a radical idea.

 

Say sorry. Cameron, on behalf of NATO apologises for the crimes against humanity committed in numerous countries that has fuelled IS. His apology should be directed to the whole region, to the displaced, to the citizens, to the governments. He can say that we will not tolerate terrorist acts like Brussels and will promise that we won't commit terrorist acts of our own, the particularly insidious and cowardly drone operations being utterly appalling.

 

Call a truce call-me-Dave. Lead the way. The Europeans you say you love so much are dying at your hand, these dead being as innocent as the Arabs that your operatives call "collateral damage". What a fucking mess.