Attacks in Paris

I should have added, that my proposal included the concept that voting was mandatory as per in Australia (I believe)

So DrMark would have to vote, even if it was for "None of the above"

Dear Don,

I completely agree that with the chance to reject the whole selection of candidates standing, then voting should become mandatory.

I had never considered the two ideas rolled together like that. Each complements the other perfectly, and if the half that presently often don’t vote would all rejected the candidates by voting “None of the above” then the political parties would have to learn how to appeal to the majority of the whole electorate! Excellent!

As for the disaffected in society, it is impossible beyond a certain point as the basics are already properly covered in old Europe at least, but if you want to get on in life this requires effort, and some people seem to lack the wish to get on with effort ...

ATB from George

Well George, I agree with this, but DrMark probably doesn't and it appears neither do some terrorists. So my invitation to DrMark is to set out what it is that he considers society should be obliged to do to alleviate his disaffection.

Exactly, spot on George.

Tonight's football match between Germany and the Netherlands has been cancelled because of a suspected bomb and "concrete evidence of a bomb threat". Merkel may regret admitting all those "refugees" into the country with the most meagre screening.

My guess is that it is a false call, (including the one on a nearby concert hall) albeit credible and possibly by the same terrorist organisation.

I anticipate say 10 false calls to every actual incident. And I anticipate one or two other disgruntled groups joining in on the act.

George - I could cast that vote.  I remember Obomber speaking about a year ago on the topic of mandatory voting.  Depending on the penalty for not voting, I might either deal with that, or go in and write "f*** you" as my write in on the ballot.  Your option would preclude that choice...

Don, I am in no way qualified to make a determination on the candidates in British politics.  I try in general to not speak too badly about any of them because they are not "my" politicians and I do not pay taxes to them.  Maybe your politicians are as bad as the ones I see here, but I do not know enough to make that determination.  (I do make somewhat of an exception as noted above for Tony Blair, and there are a few other from sundry counties that I detest rather strongly based on what I know but again they do not represent me and I do not follow them closely.)  In fact I read the posts on the forum on British politics as a means of learning a little about it, but I don't think I have ever commented for the reasons cited above.  Were I to move to the UK I would certainly begin to follow it at some level even as a non citizen.

I do not see how seeing people for what they are makes me irresponsible.  Nor do I see it as having any connection in any way with the mindset of these terrorist animals, which you seem to intinate.  They aren't disaffected, they are bloodthirsty psychopathic maniacs.  They don't want America to improve in any real sense of the word, they want it to become part of a 6th century cesspool that only ever existed in their minds.

As for what "society" should do - I can only speak to American society.  I want us to stop trying to control the damn world, and as a result of that, I want us to stop killing innocent people by the thousands.  (Pause for the "whataboutism" arguments.)  We are heading inexorably for a collision with destiny if we don't.  That doesn't mean being as isolationist, and it doesn't mean being a patsy.  Jesus Christ, look at our military spending:

 That is just WRONG on so many levels it isn't even funny.  It's damn shame, and a national disgrace.  And these a-holes are carping for more, and recently 400 military contractor lobbyists descended on Capitol Hill to push for removing the defense budget limitations that are currently in place resulting from the bogus attempt to pretend they are reigning in spending.

And domestically, quit kissing TBTF banker behind.  This whole faux "recovery" has benefited the top 1%, and the Obama Justice Department has done essentially NOTHING to address those who threw the entire planet into recession in 2008...unless you count making Jacob Lew Treasury Secretary as "doing something about it."   This whole thing has been the greatest wealth transfer to the top 1% in the history of mankind.

And to boot, the US is insolvent.  People act like you just cussed out the Virgin Mary when you point that out, but it is true.  We are over $60 TRILLION underwater, if you count the regular debt and the other off budget programs like SS, Medicare, etc.  These are the government's own numbers.  This cannot go on.

Failing empires consistently do 2 things; they debase their currency and they wage war without terminus.  Those who make these bad decisions (the people I refuse to vote for) will be safely in their nuclear proof bunkers, while we the people get to endure the wrath of their bad choices.  I am tired of having to worry because I am an American - that is why when I travel abroad I always take my Italian passport as well, and use it unless policy dictates I must use my US passport.  These SOBs have put a bulls-eye on every one of our backs.

Oh wait, I forget...the genius Dubya said "They hate us because we're free..."

Mark,

I do not see how seeing people for what they are makes me irresponsible.  Nor do I see it as having any connection in any way with the mindset of these terrorist animals, which you seem to intinate.  They aren't disaffected, they are bloodthirsty psychopathic maniacs.  They don't want America to improve in any real sense of the word, they want it to become part of a 6th century cesspool that only ever existed in their minds.

On this we are agreed. It was others who suggested these terrorists are the result of disaffection and that we should deal with this perceived disaffection as a means of ending their psychopathic activity. I consider the current crop to be beyond help, but we might be able to prevent others joining their cause if we understood what makes them “tick” You do appear to be a disaffected member of the US society and the wider Western society, and it crossed my mind that what makes you disaffected and how you consider society should change, might shed some light on the magnitude and feasibility of preventing others joining their cause.

As for what "society" should do - I can only speak to American society.  I want us to stop trying to control the damn world,  and as a result of that, I want us to stop killing innocent people by the thousands.  (Pause for the "whataboutism" arguments.)  We are heading inexorably for a collision with destiny if we don't.  That doesn't mean being as isolationist, and it doesn't mean being a patsy.  Jesus Christ, look at our military spending:

 I live in Europe but spend about 3 months a year in Canada. I have lived and worked 5 years full time in the Emirates and Oman and on-and-off 20 years in so many countries I can hardly count them. I have never felt as if the USA wanted to rule the world. Rest easy on that score. Sure, many of your fellow citizens want more than their fair share of wealth, but that is true in Europe, Russia, the Middle East and all over the world.

Also, with a few  exceptions due to specific individuals, I don’t know of any USA or Western action that has deliberately targeted innocent civilians. Collateral damage, yes. However, 9/11, Spain, London 7/7, Tunisia, Russian airliner, Paris………….none of these was collateral damage.

I for one, would prefer to see the USA spending $$bn on defence rather than China or Russia. BTW, I was pleased to note that the SIPRI chart referred to “Defence Spending” rather than “Military Expenditure”

as for the bankers and the global economy, that's another subject.

"I have never felt as if the USA wanted to rule the world. Rest easy on that score."

Sorry Don, I think we will have to agree to disagree on that - and maybe "rule" is not quite the word, but control is perhaps better.  And destroying Russia is job #1, China is job #2.  I haven't the time at present to go into all the reasons and resources why I believe this to be the case, but I would bet my last devaluing Federal Reserve Note on the overall concept.

And yes it is "collateral damage", but it is also careless, irresponsible, and illegal.  And they will not let it disturb their sleep, not let it get in the way of their hegemonic/economic mission.  Every civilian death in the Iraq war should be considered a war crime, because the war was perpetrated knowingly under a lie.  But almost no one cares.  And look at the recent destruction of the Doctors Without Borders hospital - Obama gets up to a podium & says, "Whoops, our bad", our complicit press sweeps it off the front page, and that's it...even though it has been reported that DWB had given the US military the coordinates of the hospital to ensure such an event would not take place.

You have asked me for a solution - well here is part of one: how about the US government gets held to the exact same standard that they apply so freely to everyone else?  The "golden rule" on a foreign affairs level.  These megalomaniacs truly believe they are above reproach.  And there are 2 sets of rules in play right now.

As you said, the bankers, et al, is another story - but no less damning for the Beltway crowd.  "Legitimized" corruption & criminal activity.

A peaceful solution for Syria would be to force the waring sides to read in full all the postings by DrMark and Don Atkinson. The guys won't have any time left for fighting.

Interesting observation

DrMark,  you appear to be disaffected with your country (USA) but don't appear to have become a terrorist.

Clearly there is more to people becoming one of these murderous swine (with an apology for the insult to pigs) than mere disaffection.

The despicable ringleader and organiser of the Paris attack, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, has been confirmed dead following yesterday's siege. Halle-bloody-luja! Some good news at last.

When you see a picture of the ring-leader you are confronted with an image of a Levantine genial character in modern youth-wear. How could one possibly recognise a terrorist if one saw one?

ATB from George

You can't. That is why we need intelligence.

Ah, Military Intelligence; the old oxymoron!

Did anyone see/hear/read Andrew Neil's introduction to last nights  BBC-1 late night politics program "This Week"

Welcome to This Week. The week in which a bunch of loser jihadists slaughtered 132 innocents in Paris to prove the future belongs to them rather than a civilisation like France.

Well I can't say I fancy their chances. France, the country of Descartes, Boulet, Monet, Sartre, Rousseau, Camus, Renoir, Berlioz, Cézanne, Gauguin, Hugo, Voltaire, Matisse, Debussy, Ravel, Sanson, Bizet, Satie, Pasteur, Molière, Frank, Zola, Balzac, Blanc. Cutting edge science, world class medicine, fearsome security forces, nuclear power, Coco Chanel, Chateau Lafite, Coq Au Vin, Daft Punk, Zizou Zidane, Juliette Binoche, liberté, égalité, fraternité, and crème brûlée.

Versus what? Beheadings, crucifixions, amputations, slavery, mass murder, medieval squalor, a death cult barbarity that would shame the Middle Ages.

Well IS or Daesh or ISIS or ISIL or whatever name you're going by - I'm sticking with IS, as in Islamist scumbags - I think the outcome is pretty clear to everybody but you.

Whatever atrocities you're currently capable of committing, you will lose.

In 1,000 years' time Paris, that glorious city of lights, will still be shining bright, as will every other city like it. While you will be as dust, along with the ragbag of Fascists, Nazis and Stalinists who have previously dared to challenge democracy and failed.

Superb & 100% spot on - why can't our politicians make such simple, no holds barred, straight to the point statements. 

The IS (Daesh) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has said he wants to destroy the unbelievers in a holy Armageddon:  Great bring it on,  but lets make sure its in their back yard, not ours. 

Mike, Andrew Neil is one of the few hacks who seems to be willing to call a spade a spade. He was great after the Charlie Hebdo attacks and refused to cower under accusations of "Islamophobia" from various equivocators, hand-wringers, apologists and fellow-travellers.

Contrast this with the apalling comments from the audience and most of the panel on Question Time, the programme that preceded Neill's.

I notice the panel included the revolting Mehdi Hasan, a man whose views on "kuffars" or "unbelievers" are a matter of record (he regards non-Muslims as little better than "cattle" - link here for those with a strong stomach: http://blogs.new.spectator.co....s-views-on-infidels/)

Agreed Kevin,  I thought last nights QT was disgraceful & sorry to say follows a trend that I have seen for some time in that David Dimbleby seems to be loosing control.  Not that the chair should control panel & audience inputs,  they are what they are, good bad or whatever, However last night it was particularly offensive & frankly something I would hope BBC need to be concerned about. But re DD;  he is ever more failing to control the program so it's broadcast in a coherent structured manner for the TV audience.   This means balance, allowing a person to make & to finish making their point (within reason) stopping people talking over & talking at the same time & above all stopping audience members making prepared political "flame" statements. 

Hi Mike,

Yes, I watched both QT and Andrew Neil.

QT has been deteriorating for some time now, mainly due to DD's lack of control and personal intervention, but last night some of the panel (which had far too many members) were disappointingly dismissive, disruptive and as you say, offensive. The audience likewise.

The contrast with Andrew Neil's introduction to his follow-on programme could not have been more stark or more relevant.

I'm please you have posted the transcription. And I agree with the concept  "in their back yard"

I think John Pilger has an interesting take on this. Google "From Pol Pot to ISIS: The blood never dried"

I have the utmost respect for Pilger as an investigative journalist, especially his work in the 1970s and 80s, but that piece (although it makes some fair points) is largely irrelevant to the current ISIS situation. And it still ignores the elephant in the room, which is of course the Religion of Peace (©David Cameron & The Guardian).

Oh dear, the Yanks never learn, do they?

Just when they should be putting pressure on KOSA to cut off funding for ISIS and stop exporting Wahhabism, they sell 'em more weapons...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34838937

Now you wouldn't be trying to wind up DrMark now, would you Kevin?

I would actually agree with the good Dr on this Mike. Why we have anything to do with such a disgusting regime as KOSA (apart from the fact that they have loadsamoney)  is completely baffling.