ATTACK ON PARIS

[psalms 91]

I just hope they weed out all these radicals

 

[Ruth]

I just hope they weed out all these radicals

They sure are trying from what I've seen on CNN. I've been glued to the tv on CNN.

 

[psalms 91]

Sadly, it will not stop till we can take the fight to them and not even then perhaps. God is the only answer

 

[Ruth]

God works through people.

 

[psalms 91]

Many will fight and die I am sure but it will be God that can changes the hearts and minds of men

 

[Krissy Cakes]

Praying for Paris. ray:

 

[Ruth]

Many will fight and die I am sure but it will be God that can changes the hearts and minds of men

Hopefully the spirit will catch on somehow.

 

[psalms 91]

May God help us all as this will affect everyone in one way or another

 

[tango]

May God help us all as this will affect everyone in one way or another

That depends. When the Provisional IRA was bombing the UK mainland regularly back in the 70s (and to a lesser extent in the 80s and 90s) it became the sort of thing people got used to. Every once in a while a shopping mall would be closed or some such. The brutal reality is that the presence of those who would harm us is the price we have to pay if we want to live in a free society. Frankly I'd rather take my chances against the terrorists than live in the kind of society where the secret police lurk among us and may demand to see our papers at any time, especially since even that would only go so far to weed out the ones who want to harm us and are quite happy to die in the process.

I must admit the best solution I saw was when the Russians stormed the theater and killed a load of Islamic terrorists (sadly they also killed most of the innocent theater goers in the process), and then buried the terrorists in pig skins. From what I recall it caused something of an outcry but I figure if the would-be terrorists know they will be utterly defiled after the martyrdom they crave maybe they'll think twice.

 

[psalms 91]

That depends. When the Provisional IRA was bombing the UK mainland regularly back in the 70s (and to a lesser extent in the 80s and 90s) it became the sort of thing people got used to. Every once in a while a shopping mall would be closed or some such. The brutal reality is that the presence of those who would harm us is the price we have to pay if we want to live in a free society. Frankly I'd rather take my chances against the terrorists than live in the kind of society where the secret police lurk among us and may demand to see our papers at any time, especially since even that would only go so far to weed out the ones who want to harm us and are quite happy to die in the process.

I must admit the best solution I saw was when the Russians stormed the theater and killed a load of Islamic terrorists (sadly they also killed most of the innocent theater goers in the process), and then buried the terrorists in pig skins. From what I recall it caused something of an outcry but I figure if the would-be terrorists know they will be utterly defiled after the martyrdom they crave maybe they'll think twice.

I agree but we will still be affeected by all this and if we are not careful it will definitely come here

 

[tango]

I agree but we will still be affeected by all this and if we are not careful it will definitely come here

Don't get carried away with the "if we're not careful" lark. It will come here. It's pretty much a given. The question is whether you want to live in an open and free society and accept that carries risks as well as freedoms, or live in a locked-down society where the police can demand your papers without reason and hope that offers you a little extra security.

I'm not sure if Benjamin Franklin actually said the words often attributed to him but it is true to say that people who give up freedom for security will end up losing both. If a government is big enough to give the security people crave it's big enough to turn that dream into everyone's worst nightmare. Today it might be the Syrians or the Muslims the government is going after, but what happens tomorrow when a new government uses those same powers to go after Christians?

ETA: Having grown up under the threat of the Provisional IRA, it's interesting to see how perspectives change when it's a different group blowing up different targets. In fairness the Provisional IRA seemed more interested in causing disruption rather than actual loss of life but some of their bombings in larger cities (particularly in London) were more serious. But now the Bad Guys have shifted from white men to young men with brown skin and beards suddenly it's a different matter entirely.

 

[psalms 91]

Don't get carried away with the "if we're not careful" lark. It will come here. It's pretty much a given. The question is whether you want to live in an open and free society and accept that carries risks as well as freedoms, or live in a locked-down society where the police can demand your papers without reason and hope that offers you a little extra security.

I'm not sure if Benjamin Franklin actually said the words often attributed to him but it is true to say that people who give up freedom for security will end up losing both. If a government is big enough to give the security people crave it's big enough to turn that dream into everyone's worst nightmare. Today it might be the Syrians or the Muslims the government is going after, but what happens tomorrow when a new government uses those same powers to go after Christians?

ETA: Having grown up under the threat of the Provisional IRA, it's interesting to see how perspectives change when it's a different group blowing up different targets. In fairness the Provisional IRA seemed more interested in causing disruption rather than actual loss of life but some of their bombings in larger cities (particularly in London) were more serious. But now the Bad Guys have shifted from white men to young men with brown skin and beards suddenly it's a different matter entirely.

I agree that we must keep our freedom and take certain risks because of that, I am no fan of the government running rampant. Yes, it has chaged since they want to hurt this country and the people in it. The IRA was more concerned with Briton and the protestants/

 

[tango]

I agree that we must keep our freedom and take certain risks because of that, I am no fan of the government running rampant. Yes, it has chaged since they want to hurt this country and the people in it. The IRA was more concerned with Briton and the protestants/

The IRA attacked the UK mainland in general. In England we don't have the big Protestant/Catholic divide that they have in some parts of Ireland.

The problem constantly comes back to the question of who is being attacked. Back when the IRA was bombing the UK mainland there were folks in the US who regarded them as "freedom fighters". Now the target of the bombs is closer to home there's little talk of the "freedom fighters" (of course the fact the IRA is now all but inactive on the UK mainland helps too) and more and more activities are considered suspicious or worse.

It's the kind of situation that often highlights people struggling to reconcile conflicting desires. People want to be free (understandable) and they want to feel safe (also understandably). Where the two collide causes people to stop and consider which is more important. Freedom doesn't come with any guarantees of safety, but what most people don't stop and think about is that if Nanny State could somehow guarantee safety from terrorists that same Nanny State would end up looking more like an evil stepmother than a loving nanny.

For good measure the relentless agenda-driven drivel from most sections of the media just muddies the water further. You're vastly more likely to be killed on the road than by a terrorist, but as soon as terrorists kill a few dozen people the howling for government to Do Something starts. Yet the same number of people die on the roads every few days and nobody bats an eyelid.

 

[Ruth]

Don't get carried away with the "if we're not careful" lark. It will come here. It's pretty much a given. The question is whether you want to live in an open and free society and accept that carries risks as well as freedoms, or live in a locked-down society where the police can demand your papers without reason and hope that offers you a little extra security.

I'm not sure if Benjamin Franklin actually said the words often attributed to him but it is true to say that people who give up freedom for security will end up losing both. If a government is big enough to give the security people crave it's big enough to turn that dream into everyone's worst nightmare. Today it might be the Syrians or the Muslims the government is going after, but what happens tomorrow when a new government uses those same powers to go after Christians?

ETA: Having grown up under the threat of the Provisional IRA, it's interesting to see how perspectives change when it's a different group blowing up different targets. In fairness the Provisional IRA seemed more interested in causing disruption rather than actual loss of life but some of their bombings in larger cities (particularly in London) were more serious. But now the Bad Guys have shifted from white men to young men with brown skin and beards suddenly it's a different matter entirely.

We already live in a society where the police can stop us at any time for no real reason. I've been stopped for no real reason, the ones given were lies.

 

[tango]

We already live in a society where the police can stop us at any time for no real reason. I've been stopped for no real reason, the ones given were lies.

Do you want that to get any worse? At present at least the police will give you a reason. Do you want to have the police demanding your papers at any time they want, knowing that if you don't have your papers with you then you get taken away? And I'm not talking about needing to carry a drivers license when driving, I'm talking about being stopped for your papers when walking down the street, boarding a train, any time and any place. Wouldn't you rather roll back police powers a little so you can just go about your lawful business as freely as possible?

 

[psalms 91]

I think police should be monitored closely and yes the powers they have should be rolled back

 

[tango]

I think police should be monitored closely and yes the powers they have should be rolled back

... even if that means they are less able to deal with people you may find disconcerting?

It's an interesting balance - a lot of people want the police to respond to people they find disconcerting or whose presence troubles them, but at the same time don't want the police to interfere with them even if someone else finds their presence disconcerting. Of course the person they find disconcerting is quite likely doing nothing more than going about their lawful business.

It reminds me of a friend from the US who was visiting me in London. On 21 July 2005, the day Jean Charles de Menezes was shot on the London Underground by armed police, he and I were trying to get home using the London Underground only to find everything was closing down. We were the last two people to walk across the Jubilee Bridge over the Thames before that was closed as a security precaution. Later that evening we were on a bus and a young man with brown skin and a beard got on, and my friend got more and more agitated at the presence of the young man on the bus. Thankfully he didn't say anything out loud about it, but when he said to me that if "that guy" didn't get off the bus at the next stop he would I realised just how little understanding he had of other cultures. The young man with the beard was also wearing a turban. He wasn't a Muslim, he was a Sikh (we had a fair few Sikhs in the area, as well as Muslims, Hindus, Christians, and most other major faiths). My friend would probably have been quite happy if the police had come and escorted this young Sikh off the bus, but would almost certainly have been horrified if he had been escorted off the bus because someone else found his presence troubled them.