Post deleted

Could the above be removed?

I'm from northern ireland and really this isn't the place to sort our problems out.

Agree.

So it's OK to decry the efforts of the SF personnel who died in NI, but not to stand up for them . OK post deleted but please don't anyone ever do so again. I wadn't going to respond to BBs comments, but in the end couldn't let it go. 

I've really had to think on this, & I would just ignore things that have been said. I've always regarded the forum as pretty much fair minded although you will always have the odd difference of opinion, I accept that. I have friends in NI & bringing N Ireland to the table in respect to whats happened to Paris is to say the least very naive.

It was used as an example of force not working in the context of fighting terrorism by another poster. It does, but it has to be unfettered, and that won't sit well with most of the general population. Although look at the glee when King Hussain of Jordan responded to the burning of his pilot, and the current embracing of Putins actions, even though he's supporting the "wrong side" in Syria (wrong being decided by the US/UK).

The mood is changing, and many won't like where we end up. And decent Moslems are likely to suffer, which is the whole point of the ISIS attack.

So when you deride what I and my colleagues have done, it's naive to think you won't get a response. Even if that offends the sensibilities of those we protected, even if they didn't appreciate our efforts.

Perhaps I find myself at a different place RK. Possibly, we probably agree that things in the world are not right. It's only too easy to vent off & bring all sorts to the table. Bringing NI into the equation was a tad off limits in my thinking of the bigger picture.
I live in a lovely place in the Highlands, possibly far from the throbbing nuisances from life, that said I'm certainly not a sad old git when it comes to mass killings & how this affects people.

Jim, my point is I didn't bring it to the table. Look back through the posts, I wasn't even the 3rd person to mention NI. I responded to a comment which was factually incorrect, and purported to prove the theory force doesn't work when fighting terrorism. It can do if Government has the will to use it. It rarely has, and not in this country.

No matter, I should have stuck to my first decision and not commented. I really think it may be time for me to move on.

I'm interested to understand how 'force' would be used to good effect to defeat ISIS.

Stating the obvious, we are all alarmed by whats unfolding in Paris. I find it, again & again that when it comes to peoples thoughts on here, it tends to go round a bit. Perhaps I'm guilty as well, but in all honesty what is the answer.

One point which occurs to me, and (while I am sure it has occurred to those whose job it is to consider such things) I have never heard discussed in the media: what is the supply chain for ISIS?

One hears that they are making money selling oil and such antiquities as they can refrain from demolishing, as well as extorting money from those unwillingly or otherwise remaining in areas controlled by them - but where are they buying arms and ammunition in such quantities? *Somebody* must be supplying them... who, and why? What are the routes and where are the stockpiles?

There is a saying that amateurs consider tactics, while professionals consider logistics... surely the airstrikes on the whole are aimed at disrupting the supply chains of ISIS, yet oddly we hear nothing of it.

My comment with regard the IRA was made in an effort to show that dealing with terrorists is nothing like fighting a War. Whilst that situation is far from resolved it has to be accepted that talking significantly reduced the killing. This is not to suggest anything is resolved, far from it, but the situation is far better than it was.

I suspect our media is significant in the supply chain. Do we really need to see mass coverage of "Shocking" images on our TV. And should we name the killers? Next we'll be giving them nicknames, as we did the other recent scumbag. Do we really need our news to be "LIVE" from Paris? WHY???

Sadly it seems our media are willing feeders of the ISIS propaganda machine.

Never a truer word spoke.

Well, like it or not, we live in a democracy and in a democracy people need to be informed (and, yes, I understand it is distorted but these days there are many many sources to cross-reference). Without being informed, we would not understand what actions need to be taken and why. I don't think you can just gloss over it - unless, of course, you're just willing to accept it.

Well if we dont they people would wonder why this news was been kept from us . You have an on and off button . People watch/listen /read the news some take it in some dont . Give people more credit than that

I don't think it has anything to do with giving people credit. You simply can't unwatch the news and thus you have a preconceived idea based on third hand information.

I think Bob has hit it on the head; why is there a need to further sensationalise an already terrible atrocity by reporting speculation?

I think that people have a difference in their thoughts of "sensationalise" - give the global outpouring of both shock and support (as is shown by the lighting up of buildings in the tricolour, black armbands, silences etc) I think it's hard to say that the public aren't interested. It's too much for me but I recognise the response of others. I think showing solidarity is important in winning the battle though. And, let's face it, the terrorists rarely ultimately win out - there have been plenty that have tried and failed.

No one forces you to watch the news . If you do watch the news you have a choice of a left or right stance and can make of that what you will . You make it sound like we all watch TASS russian news agency . Who or what news agency is reporting "speculation " .

ISIS are getting money from the banks, there is a lot of money to be made by lending to them and let's face it they have no scruples at all (banks or the terrorists) . Let's not forget the oil they produce too, which eventually ends up in our fuel tanks

Oh yes and funding from Qatar, lovely country, and we are playing the World Cup there, world's biggest money laundering operation.

I feel there is a significant difference between reporting news (The Facts) and sensationalising news (For morbid fascination) but maybe I'm wrong. And, for the record, I don't suggest for one minute that anything should be suppressed or hidden.

I do however feel that streaming live from the scene and including reports with a "disturbing scenes follow" caveat is unacceptable on National TV. If someone informs me that a plane has crashed does seeing body parts and personal effects of the dead, on prime time national news, really keep me better informed?

Respect for the dead and affected should surely carry a decency clause.

No I totally agree was watching the extended report on the BBC last night. So many reporters standing outside anywhere they can for reports which add no news facts. Completely unnecessary. And best not mention the awful montage at the end.

Bald facts are bald facts. Many people want to understand the "human interest" side of things - what was it actually like to be caught up on it? - how has it affected the mindset of the locals? I think that this is probably legitimate. After all, what's the point in reporting incidents if you don't understand their impact because, if you don't understand the impact, how can you judge the resulting actions? I agree that it crosses a line from time-to-time but that "line" isn't the same for everyone.

Last Thursday, MrsC and I attended the funeral of her friend and colleague, Jacky Sutton. Jacky was an extraordinary woman, who worked fearlessly in some of the most dangerous places in the world. The job to which she was returning when she seemingly took her own life, involved helping people in Erbil and throughout Iraq to get their voices heard to try and bring about change in their circumstances.
For those interested, she worked for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting .
Apart from being desperately sad, as Jacky's siblings spoke raw and tearful words about their sister, it was also an occasion for her friends from many walks of life touched by conflict to get together and talk - with IS (or Daesh as many prefer to call it - a pejorative Arabic term, removing the much resented association with Islam) being a prominent topic.

Interestingly, I overheard a discussion between a senior (non-English) journalist working in Afghanistan and a British expert on development in Pakistan saying that, against all their beliefs, knowledge and experience, they felt that "bombing the f_ck out of them" was possibly the only way to deal with Daesh, since their only aim is destruction; unlike other terrorist groups, they have no terms that can be met, even if one was willing.
Unfortunately, as both went on to acknowledge, the problem is not solved in this way, just postponed, mutated and increased by the inevitable side-effects of mass killing.

All this, of course, was before Paris suffered the attacks on Friday. I have a close affiliation with France and the French, my kids and many close friends live there, and I understand the upwelling of horror, fear and anger both in France and worldwide. My daughters have both changed their Facebook profiles - like so many others - to the tricolore and I don't have anything against it, although I agree that the hashtag #prayforparis is somewhat ironic and unhelpful. But the attacks in France - if they are ever to have any positive meaning - MUST be seen in the context of the other bloody massacres taking place throughout the Middle East and beyond.

One statistic of many that I found particularly dismal is that the number of people killed in the Syrian conflict equates to a Paris attack every day for the last 4 years.

It's not a competition for who can suffer most and it's not to belittle Paris' experience, but the people of Beirut, Syria, Iraq and too many other places equally deserve our thoughts and determination to prevent such disgusting crimes.

I've seen this same sentiment echoed across Facebook for the few days, Jim. "What about the 60 people in Lebanon on Thursday", etc. And they're right, we should care just as much.

But I don't think it's unnatural to be more reactive to this kind of attack in Paris than in, say, Syria.

Most of us have never been to Syria and probably never will. Many of us in Britain will have been to France. We can all name French sportspeople, actors, authors and musicians. We've all had Moules Frites and sipped a nice Bordeaux with some Brie.

I'd struggle to list three famous Syrians. A lot of people in this country would struggle to name its capital.

We also relate in other ways; I had tickets to see EoDM a couple of weeks ago in Southampton but my brother in law went in my place. Had the massacre happened at one of their London gigs I would certainly have known a dozen people in attendance.

And, dare I say it, we also relate more because of who's being killed. We don't have a full list of victims yet but when we do they will be overwhelming white and from Western countries.

Of course it's not right that we are more shocked and outraged, but it's understandable.

Ali, as I say, I DO understand and I don't want to see a situation where people are tastelessly outdoing each other for sympathising with more obscure conflict zones.
My point is that if the killings in France are to have any chance of not being in vain, then there is no alternative BUT to associate them with others in places that are more foreign to us.

As has been pointed out, the Syrian refugees coming to Europe are fleeing the exact same killers that struck in Paris. That, more than anything, should unite us, not divide.

And - to pre-empt anyone mentioning it - yes, one of the murderers did cross into Greece with other migrants, but to try to extrapolate a significant correlation between terrorists and refugees is, at best, simplistic.

I know you do, Jim, and I think we agree on most of this.

I'm now reading things saying that media didn't ignore the Lebanon bombings the day before Paris, the readers did. However, whilst it may have been given some airtime which we all ignored, it clearly wasn't given anywhere near the same kind of coverage as Paris.

For anyone interested who has a spare hour or two, this is a very informative piece (it is several months old, FYI)

What ISIS really wants

What I'm bored of hearing is comments related to football.

I couldn't give a toss what Roy or Wayne think or if the friendly goes ahead or not. Why oh why does the media insist on repeatedly telling me about a shitty game of football?
The BBC are now starting to address the important issue of the European championships. Who cares?? There's a big difference between what's important and football!!!

<end rant>

I waded through that Atlantic piece, but was left with the very strong impression of an agenda being pushed. Our own AndrewR came up with another, equally-informative and - to my mind - rather less slanted piece: The Nation article

Fair point about coverage of Lebanon being invisible until Paris shone a spotlight on it...

as someone once said " its only a game " . To think i've learnt the French national anthem for tonights game too. . Wayne has a problem singing the English one , so he's got naff all chance with the French one.