Paris

[JK]

New to me is info about a drug called Captogan which has been found in the bodies of the attackers in Paris.

Seems to be big production in Syria and helping fund the effort.

This drug is a type of amphetamine causing a felling of empowerment and invincibility is propelling attackers during raids and attacks.

http://thestonedsociety.com/2015/02/08/drugs-isis-captagon

https://fr.yahoo.com/    

The biggest thing there since oil, they say. Thanks for the link. It's new to me too.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Please point me to the post of yours where you have answered the question.

I have said several times that the West should leave the Middle East alone.

You have said that but on the basis that we can't do anything to fix it, which isn't really answering my question because the response presupposes something opposite to what the question is asking.

[filledeplage]

Please point me to the post of yours where you have answered the question.

I have said several times that the West should leave the Middle East alone.

You have said that but on the basis that we can't do anything to fix it, which isn't really answering my question because the response presupposes something opposite to what the question is asking.

Yes we can fix  this. Public opinion drives public policy. Transparency is a beautiful thing. 

[Emily]

It is true that to do the Carlton is my primary objective in life. Peace on Earth is second.

 Carlton dancing is strangely hypnotizing.  So is the idea of Peace.  I get it.  Progressives have a long history of wanting to achieve lofty goals.  Purity.  Something always gets in the way.  Religion.  People.  Liberty.

Listen, I don't want to draw this out... so may I suggest that radical Muslims are not the biggest threat to the Progressive agenda?

I can't speak for Progressives as a whole (I know there are a few issues upon which most people termed "progressive" and I differ) but for me, yeah, radical Muslims are not the biggest threat to my political agenda.
This is not the first time I've looked for a shaking hands/we're at peace emoticon. But it's not there, so picture it in your head.

[Bean Bag]

It is true that to do the Carlton is my primary objective in life. Peace on Earth is second.

 Carlton dancing is strangely hypnotizing.  So is the idea of Peace.  I get it.  Progressives have a long history of wanting to achieve lofty goals.  Purity.  Something always gets in the way.  Religion.  People.  Liberty.

Listen, I don't want to draw this out... so may I suggest that radical Muslims are not the biggest threat to the Progressive agenda?

I can't speak for Progressives as a whole (I know there are a few issues upon which most people termed "progressive" and I differ) but for me, yeah, radical Muslims are not the biggest threat to my political agenda.
This is not the first time I've looked for a shaking hands/we're at peace emoticon. But it's not there, so picture it in your head.

I hear ya Em -- we need more emoticons!

You're right.  The Progressive agenda is not threatened by radical Islam.  Unless an attack takes "the agenda" off the front page (as BLACK LIVES MATTER stated).  The biggest threat to "the agenda" is actually dopes like me.  More to point -- the Conservative movement, the US Constitution, American traditions, core values, individualism, liberty... I could go on and on.

Knowing that Progressives view crisis as opportunity (Rahm Emanual -- "never let a crisis go to waste") this discussion is just about ready to get interesting?*





*Unless the Chocolate Sheik needs an article stating 4 out of 5 dentists agree that the discussion is about to get interesting.   

[Emily]

It is true that to do the Carlton is my primary objective in life. Peace on Earth is second.

 Carlton dancing is strangely hypnotizing.  So is the idea of Peace.  I get it.  Progressives have a long history of wanting to achieve lofty goals.  Purity.  Something always gets in the way.  Religion.  People.  Liberty.

Listen, I don't want to draw this out... so may I suggest that radical Muslims are not the biggest threat to the Progressive agenda?

I can't speak for Progressives as a whole (I know there are a few issues upon which most people termed "progressive" and I differ) but for me, yeah, radical Muslims are not the biggest threat to my political agenda.
This is not the first time I've looked for a shaking hands/we're at peace emoticon. But it's not there, so picture it in your head.

I hear ya Em -- we need more emoticons!

You're right.  The Progressive agenda is not threatened by radical Islam.  Unless an attack takes "the agenda" off the front page (as BLACK LIVES MATTER stated).  The biggest threat to "the agenda" is actually dopes people against it like me.  More to point -- the Conservative movement, the US Constitution as interpreted by conservatives, many American traditions, core conservative values, individualism taken to the degree that we disregard significant suffering in the community, liberty... I could go on and on.

Knowing that Progressives political professionals view crisis as opportunity (Rahm Emanual -- "never let a crisis go to waste") this discussion is just about ready to get interesting?*


*Unless the Chocolate Sheik needs an article stating 4 out of 5 dentists agree that the discussion is about to get interesting.  

just some adjustments to your post, so we can agree.
Regarding liberty, I can think of some things that most conservatives think we should not be free to do that most progressives think we should, and vice versa. I think the difference is more liberty regarding what?
And, I've never understood that 5th dentist. What is up with him? He would prefer that his patients who chew gum chew sugarfull gum? I mean, I guess it's better for his pocketbook.

[the captain]

The crisis thing is an old line, not an Emanuel original. I think Churchill said it first. to put that on any party or faction while absolving others is ridiculous. It's part of the calculating reality of politics.

[Bean Bag]

Good posts guys.  Fun stuff, on an absolutely sh-ty topic, but it's good to have fun when exercising our brain muscles.  Otherwise, it's just useless work.

You know, glad the Paris "mastermind" is toast.  But, what a wasted life.  I'm seeing these dudes as real f-cked up kids -- in our lingo.  We in the civilized world, got used to pickin' up a pack of smokes and buying some cool music to check out.  These weirdos, living in a sh-ty desert, get to pick up their version of the bible -- I think it's called the Cooran?  Anyway... and they get all weird on that.

it's gonna kill'em.  But our parents said the same thing about cigarettes.  Only, this sh-t is a fcking nightmare for everyone else.

Let's be thankful over the holidays and never forget the kids who were at that rock concert, trying to cut loose and have fun.  Love your family, kids, parents and all the rest -- give them lots of love while we're all still together.

We're doing it right.  And we'll get through this sh-t together.

[Emily]

Good posts guys.  Fun stuff, on an absolutely sh-ty topic, but it's good to have fun when exercising our brain muscles.  Otherwise, it's just useless work.

You know, glad the Paris "mastermind" is toast.  But, what a wasted life.  I'm seeing these dudes as real f-cked up kids -- in our lingo.  We in the civilized world, got used to pickin' up a pack of smokes and buying some cool music to check out.  These weirdos, living in a sh-ty desert, get to pick up their version of the bible -- I think it's called the Cooran?  Anyway... and they get all weird on that.

it's gonna kill'em.  But our parents said the same thing about cigarettes.  Only, this sh-t is a fcking nightmare for everyone else.

Let's be thankful over the holidays and never forget the kids who were at that rock concert, trying to cut loose and have fun.  Love your family, kids, parents and all the rest -- give them lots of love while we're all still together.

We're doing it right.  And we'll get through this sh-t together.

Well, it certainly was sh*tty, BB. And your empathy for the victims is palpable; and empathy is the best part of being human.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

This thread is currently being looked at. For those who were offended by the bigoted comments in this thread, I am extremely sorry I didn't read my PMs earlier.

[Mike's Beard]

It's a political thread about a massacre, nobody should have walked into this thread expecting a teddy bears picnic.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

There's a difference between politics and bigotry.

[Mike's Beard]

So being against terrorists is now bigotry? Guess I better only condemn those murderers that have the same skin colour or beliefs as I do from here on out, huh?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

So being against terrorists is now bigotry? Guess I better only condemn those murderers that have the same skin colour or beliefs as I do from here on out, huh?

You've pretty much stated in this thread that you view all Muslims as terrorists. That's what I have an issue with.

[Mike's Beard]

So being against terrorists is now bigotry? Guess I better only condemn those murderers that have the same skin colour or beliefs as I do from here on out, huh?

You've pretty much stated in this thread that you view all Muslims as terrorists. That's what I have an issue with.

And round and round it goes. I did no such thing. I work in a hospital in England. Do you honestly think I'd be going to work there everyday if I thought I was surrounded by terrorists?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

1st page of this thread. 'Let anyone of this faith in your country at your peril '. THAT I find extremely offensive. But hey,  that's a GREAT attitude to have. I mean, there was this guy with similar views, different ethnic group, though, but beliefs that lead to deaths of millions of people,  including some relatives of mine.

[Mike's Beard]

1st page of this thread. 'Let anyone of this faith in your country at your peril '. THAT I find extremely offensive. But hey,  that's a GREAT attitude to have. I mean, there was this guy with similar views, different ethnic group, though, but beliefs that lead to deaths of millions of people,  including some relatives of mine.

"Godwin's Law" invoked - thread is officially pointless. 

[Douchepool]

I don't recall European Jews hating or trying to subvert Western civilization at any point in history. I mean hey, Western civilization is about the only fair deal the Jews will ever have in this world because the progressive folks in parts of Europe and Asia just won't have anything to do with them.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

As someone of Jewish ancestry,  I have no idea how to respond to that.

[Douchepool]

I'm not making an antisemitic remark. Jews have it better in Western civilization than anywhere else. They're much better off here; they've done great things for Western civilization and culture. People outside of Western civilization would sooner kill them than ever value their contributions to society.

Those people, by the way, are part of that "refugee crisis."

[Mike's Beard]

I have, repeatedly Many Questions Man. And still you ask it. I've ran out of ways to answer you, it's mentally exhausting trying to think of different ways to get my reply through your head.
Like I said before, this isn't a conversation or debate, it's a one sided question fest.
Good day to you.

I would be happy to debate you or have a conversation if I understood your position. I suppose that when you note above that you "clarified" your original statement, you are saying that you don't actually believe that we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" and then outlaw it as a terror organization. However, if you were specifically referring to Islamic terrorism, then I'm still puzzled since obviously that's already outlawed, as it should be. If you mean that all fundamentalists should be thrown in jail, I would disagree. I would say that fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous but so is throwing people in jail on the basis of their beliefs. As has already been noted, most terrorism in the United States is carried out by reactionaries who hold anti-government views, which are themselves a kind of fundamentalism. In fact, the similarities are quite striking between those who hold anti-government points of view and those who hold fundamentalist religious points of view. Nevertheless, while slavish anti-government figures can present a threat and it is quite possible that someone in a group of anti-government fundamentalists could indeed be violently destructive, I nevertheless would not support throwing into prison anybody who holds those views, unless they were actively pursuing or encouraging illegal activity.

Phewf. An entire thread with not a single question. That was difficult for Many Questions Man. 

I've moved your quote back to this thread as we were taking over the PP thread. 

It may be different in the States but in the UK, public support (and I mean very public, as in street rallys and such) for an exteme Islamic state rule in western countries and support for groups such as ISIS goes completely unchallenged. Such hate speech is tolorated under our Human Rights and Freedom of Speech Laws.
Not long ago there was footage being floated over here of a guy with a small child on his shoulders and the child was waving the ISIS flag, as he walked down a street in London.
I've seen photos of such protest rallys where you can read signs such as
"Death to all non-believers"
"There is only one LAW - Allah"
"Convert to Islam or die!"
"All your women shall be ours".

There is/was a video floating around on youtube of a women interviewing a radical march in her hometown of Luton. They were protesting that a Muslim man had been arrested by the police for his invlovement in killing a (I believe) women. They chants were that the police were all doomed to hell because they had no right to impose their law on a Muslim.
When she attempted to interview members of the mob,the lady (who was moderately dressed) was called a whore, spat at and told to go home and cover up.

Again, all this crap is protected here by the very thing that they are attempting to tear down - western values. This things go far beyond that of just a religion, it needs to be recognised as such and not be protected under freedom of religion laws.
If they find our values and way of life so repungent, they need to f*** OFF over to a country more in line with their mindset.

More later, I've got to get ready for work. And just to pre empt the inevitable - I AM NOT SAYING EVERY MUSLIM PERSON THINKS THIS WAY.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I've moved your quote back to this thread as we were taking over the PP thread.  

Good idea!  

It may be different in the States but in the UK, public support (and I mean very public, as in street rallys and such) for an exteme Islamic state rule in western countries and support for groups such as ISIS goes completely unchallenged. Such hate speech is tolorated under our Human Rights and Freedom of Speech Laws.
Not long ago there was footage being floated over here of a guy with a small child on his shoulders and the child was waving the ISIS flag, as he walked down a street in London.
I've seen photos of such protest rallys where you can read signs such as
"Death to all non-believers"
"There is only one LAW - Allah"
"Convert to Islam or die!"
"All your women shall be ours".

There is an American equivalent to this which is the Westboro Baptist Church which is permitted to say all sorts of vile things, picket people's funerals, and so forth. And to be honest, I have no problem with that. As Chomsky puts it, if you believe in the freedom of speech, you specifically believe in the freedom of the speech that you hate. Otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech, because even the most tyrannical dictator in the world is in favour of freedom of speech for the views that he or she finds acceptable.

Again, what I said was true -- in England there are laws which state that you cannot encourage nor incite terrorism and the country's Human Rights and Freedom of Speech Laws do not allow for those actions. You may not like how the law is being applied but to say that "support for groups such as ISIS goes completely unchallenged" because of the Human Rights laws in the country is simply not true.

Again, Islamic fundamentalism, like all fundamentalism, poses a danger. But we have to be honest about where this particular strain of fundamentalism comes from. You have to remember that by 2002, most serious analysts concluded that "radical Islam" was in decline. Here's a very good article from Jason Burke illustrating this point of view in 2002:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/30/pakistan.islam

By the following year, this position was impossible to articulate. The attack on Iraq sparked a renewed interest in radical Islam. After the attacks in London, the Royal Institute of International Affairs concluded that the attack on Iraq gave a "'boost to the al-Qaida network' in 'propaganda, recruitment and fundraising'" --> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/18/uk.july7

I have noted this before but it bears repeating Glenn Greenwald's point that in “2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force” – a committee appointed by the Pentagon – “to review the impact which the administration’s policies – specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce.”

The question becomes, how to deal with the consequences of these actions. I don't believe the response is, as you say, to crack down further on the rights of these groups. As was pointed out in the article that I linked to yesterday, "IS has repeatedly stated that it wants Muslims in Western countries to face increased persecution, because they believe this will catalyze a hijra (migration) to their lands. Official IS statements are unequivocal on this point – attacks like those in Paris are designed to incite violence against local Muslim communities in order to facilitate recruitment and force migration." You may see this as a positive outcome, since you note that, "If they find our values and way of life so repungent, they need to f*** OFF over to a country more in line with their mindset." Let's not forget, as Jason Burke has pointed out, the goal of "Islamic militants" is not to oppose Western values or their way of life, but rather "to beat back what they perceive as an aggressive West that is supposedly trying to complete the project begun during the Crusades and colonial periods of denigrating, dividing, and humiliating Islam." This too has been long understood by the very people carrying out these actions as the position of these militants were made clear in above mentioned report by the Defense Science Board Task Force, as well as conclusions reached by the U.S. National Security Council as far back as the late 1950s. The notion of wanting these people to "f*** OFF over to a country more in line with their mindset" is essentially begging for the conditions that created ISIS in the first place and increased the threat of their terror.

[KDS]

I've moved your quote back to this thread as we were taking over the PP thread.  

Good idea!  

It may be different in the States but in the UK, public support (and I mean very public, as in street rallys and such) for an exteme Islamic state rule in western countries and support for groups such as ISIS goes completely unchallenged. Such hate speech is tolorated under our Human Rights and Freedom of Speech Laws.
Not long ago there was footage being floated over here of a guy with a small child on his shoulders and the child was waving the ISIS flag, as he walked down a street in London.
I've seen photos of such protest rallys where you can read signs such as
"Death to all non-believers"
"There is only one LAW - Allah"
"Convert to Islam or die!"
"All your women shall be ours".

There is an American equivalent to this which is the Westboro Baptist Church which is permitted to say all sorts of vile things, picket people's funerals, and so forth. And to be honest, I have no problem with that. As Chomsky puts it, if you believe in the freedom of speech, you specifically believe in the freedom of the speech that you hate. Otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech, because even the most tyrannical dictator in the world is in favour of freedom of speech for the views that he or she finds acceptable.

CSM,

So, you're saying you have no problem with people picketing funerals of fallen soldiers, carrying signs full of hate speech? 

Freedom of speech is one thing, but what about the right to mourn peacefully? 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

CSM,

So, you're saying you have no problem with people picketing funerals of fallen soldiers, carrying signs full of hate speech? 

Freedom of speech is one thing, but what about the right to mourn peacefully? 

It's not that I have "no problem" with them doing it. Rather, I have "no problem" with their right to be protected to do it, even though I find these actions to be vile, repulsive, and distasteful.

[Mike's Beard]

Again, what I said was true -- in England there are laws which state that you cannot encourage nor incite terrorism and the country's Human Rights and Freedom of Speech Laws do not allow for those actions. You may not like how the law is being applied but to say that "support for groups such as ISIS goes completely unchallenged" because of the Human Rights laws in the country is simply not true.

I live here, believe me it is.