Paris shootings

[Chosen]

The guy who went in first by himself with the shield...balls too big.

Agreed! Running into a building by yourself knowing that there is a trained terrorist with ak47 not willing to surrender without a fight, requires HUGE MASSIVE mother f****** balls!

From what I have heard is that he ran in to make sure he got controll of the hostages.

 

[Tom]

All said and done Islam is as popular as a turd in a swimming pool in the west at the moment and if there was a button to get rid of them all we would press it like yesterday.

I'd rather we had a button to get rid of the ignorant.

 

[Scouse]

I'd rather we had a button to get rid of the ignorant.

Same thing tbfh.

 

[Bodhi]

Sadly it appears both sides of the political spectrum are determined to make themselves look like arses in the aftermath - we've got the right wing loonies asking for Islam to be banned/sent home /etc, not understanding that this is just a lunatic fringe of Islam, which have been causing chaos for years, starting in the Middle East and working outwards, and we have the leftist hand-wringers either blaming it all on us (which is nonsense), not quite understanding French society and CH's position in it comparing Charlie Hebdo to the KKK, or using the solidarity rallies yesterday as an excuse to make some political point.

When will the idiots on both sides realise that their extreme views aren't really helping the situation, and the answer lies in the middle somewhere.

 

[Scouse]

Spoken like a true consumer of tabloid information there Bodhs...

 

[Bodhi]

Spoken like a true consumer of tabloid information there Bodhs...

Well as you are our resident apologist hand-wringer, I can't say this surprises me.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Spoken like a true consumer of tabloid information there Bodhs...

I can see you read this a lot before posting in this thread Scouse:

Spoiler

 

[Scouse]

Well as you are our resident apologist hand-wringer, I can't say this surprises me.

As I said before - you're a fucking idiot if you think I'm an apologist in any way. You continuing to call me an apologist is just more evidence of that.

It's quite clear you even know what an apologist is. Where have I ever said I supported them? Twat.


Anyway - interesting video (including about the religious underpinnings) of IS from a german writer who spent ten days on the ground with them:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFNVU2TyJF0

 

[Bodhi]

As I said before - you're a fucking idiot if you think I'm an apologist in any way. You continuing to call me an apologist is just more evidence of that.

It's quite clear you even know what an apologist is. Where have I ever said I supported them? Twat.



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFNVU2TyJF0

I'll just refer you back to your initial post on this subject before the blood had even dried on Charlie Hebdo's floor. Which going by the very definition you have provided, makes you an apologist.

Twat.

 

[Scouse]

Which going by the very definition you have provided, makes you an apologist.

apologist
noun
› a person who supports a particular belief or political system, especially an unpopular one, and speaks or writes in defence of it

My original post was critical of the west's actions, not supportive of islamic terrorism or murder.

I don't support their actions and I haven't written in support of them - and I actively write in direct contradiction of their beliefs.


It seems you can't read worth a damn. Even when it's provided in handy easy-to-click links.

I see your twat, and raise you a "retarded cunt".

 

[caLLous]

Cover up, @Bodhi, ffs, he's looking at your twat.

 

[Scouse]

Cover up, @Bodhi, ffs, he's looking at your twat.

Seriously tho @caLLous - he's saying I support islamic terrorists and that I support their belief systems. i.e. that I'm happy they killed those cartoonists and that they were right to do so - and that I'm defending them.

Am I suppose to just shut up about that or point out that he's being a cunt?

 

[Jupitus]

Hey guys - I know this is a hot topic and also quite emotive for many, but can we at least try to keep a lid on all the personal jibes please?

 

[Scouse]

Hey guys - I know this is a hot topic and also quite emotive for many, but can we at least try to keep a lid on all the personal jibes please?

Don't see why I should @Jupitus - when someone says I support killing people and that I defend their actions I find it much more offensive than the word cunt or twat.

 

[Jupitus]

Don't see why I should @Jupitus - when someone says I support killing people and that I defend their actions I find it much more offensive than the word cunt or twat.

It's not a request aimed at any 1 individual... it's to the collective to consider their tone....

 

[Scouse]

It's not a request aimed at any 1 individual... it's to the collective to consider their tone....

I getcha m8. But I deliberately called him a twat - after I considered whether it was appropriate. And I figured "yep". I was wondering whether it was too early to lob a FOAD at him. Was saving it for down the line tho when he continued on his "you love terrorists and murder" line

 

[Jupitus]

I getcha m8. But I deliberately called him a twat - after I considered whether it was appropriate. And I figured "yep". I was wondering whether it was too early to lob a FOAD at him. Was saving it for down the line tho when he continued on the "you love terrorists" line

I'm just saying I have witnessed a general decline in people's attitudes towards fellow Freddys, not only in this thread but others as well, which I hope we can put the brakes on a bit but it is up to each of us to consider what we are saying here, not any individual alone.

 

[Raven]

I agree with @Jupitus, shut up you knobbers.

 

[Tom]

When will the idiots on both sides realise that their extreme views aren't really helping the situation, and the answer lies in the middle somewhere.

So buy a mid-engined car then.

 

[Bodhi]

So buy a mid-engined car then.

I'd love one, but need 4 seats for work. Not that you can really get grown ups in the back of a 1-Series Coupe, but I'm ok on a technicality

 

[Job]

Right wing and liberal views are both correct, what I'm saying is everyone is being pushed to right wing and once far enough , facts and common sense go out the window..we are perilously close to internment in Europe..the right wing parties hold unheard of support..just read the political views across the block..shouting down the messenger because you don't like the consequences is really gonna help.

 

[Bodhi]

I think both viewpoints have an element of truth, but to say they are both correct is bollocks imo. Whilst blaming all of Islam for what happened clearly doesn't help anyone at all, it's clear that that was used as the excuse in this case, but you need to combat the nutters, not your everyday moderate Muslim who were just as appalled at what happened as we were. That just gives the far right more ammo.

To be honest I find some of the rhetoric coming out of the far left more abhorrent, accusing CH of being Frances answer to the KKK, whilst completely misunderstanding the French attitude to free speech - which mostly involves mocking the ridiculous. Islam was far from Charlie's only target, everyone was fair game - especially France's far right.

 

[Bodhi]

Agreed! Running into a building by yourself knowing that there is a trained terrorist with ak47 not willing to surrender without a fight, requires HUGE MASSIVE mother f****** balls!

From what I have heard is that he ran in to make sure he got controll of the hostages.

Take it I was the only one thinking that was the Gendarme equivalent of Leroy Jenkins then?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't know anymore, people are agreeing with others, then disagreeing with others who say the same thing, while arguing with a third party who is agreeing with the first who agree with the third.

At the core we're almost all saying the same thing and at the very least everyone here(i'd hope) thinks this was horrible and pointless. So much arguing by the "same side" and we're hoping to achieve peace between the opposite sides?

 

[Wij]

Runaway nuclear fission - that can lead to a nuclear explosion or useful nuclear reactions in a regulated power plant - occurs only when the conditions are right.

However, the underlying condition in all cases of runaway nuclear fission is the occurance of radioactive decay.

Nuclear fission in a power plant is not runaway.

The necessary conditions are fissile material in the right quantities and proximity. Not radioactive decay.

A chain reaction relies on particles from one fission event triggering another, not random decay events triggering them.

 

[Scouse]

Nuclear fission in a power plant is not runaway.

I understand the physics and the engineering. Nuclear fission in a power plant would be runaway if it wasn't for the control rods that are inserted between the fissile materials to slow the reactions.

As for "the necessary conditions are fissile materials in the right quantities and proximity" - I agree.

But fissile materials are made from radioisotopes. And what does a radioisotope feature?

Radioactive decay.

Either way - I wasn't trying to explain nuclear physics to toht. I was trying to say given the right environs... including religion (which is necessary for religious killing) - so it's a bit harsh to try to hold me to a solid definition when I was using an analogy to talk about a social issue...

 

[old.Tohtori]

If your vague analogy doesn't hold water, neither does your intended argument.

You've given me enough sh*t about my analogies for you to know better.

 

[Wij]

I understand the physics and the engineering. Nuclear fission in a power plant would be runaway if it wasn't for the control rods that are inserted between the fissile materials to slow the reactions.

As for "the necessary conditions are fissile materials in the right quantities and proximity" - I agree.

But fissile materials are made from radioisotopes. And what does a radioisotope feature?

Radioactive decay.

Either way - I wasn't trying to explain nuclear physics to toht. I was trying to say given the right environs... including religion (which is necessary for religious killing) - so it's a bit harsh to try to hold me to a solid definition when I was using an analogy to talk about a social issue...

A nuclear chain reaction require fissile isotopes. This is a different thing to radioisotopes. Radioisotopes are just those that have a half life of less than millions of years (IE. Not stable) Only very few can actually sustain a chain reaction. Uranium 238 is fissionable, it can be split by neutrons, but not fissile as the neutrons it releases don't have enough energy to cause another fission event in another atom. Many radioisotopes are actually very light and not at all suitable for fission.

 

[Scouse]

A nuclear chain reaction require fissile isotopes. This is a different thing to radioisotopes. Radioisotopes are just those that have a half life of less than millions of years (IE. Not stable) Only very few can actually sustain a chain reaction. Uranium 238 is fissionable, it can be split by neutrons, but not fissile as the neutrons it releases don't have enough energy to cause another fission event in another atom. Many radioisotopes are actually very light and not at all suitable for fission.

This I also know.

Hence my comment about not trying to make an accurate analogy with nuclear physics but if you're talking fissile isotopes you still mean radioisotopes...

 

[Wij]

The fact that they are also radioisotopes is irrelevant though. 99% of radioisotopes are not fissile.