Politics & Stuff

[Weckerz 3,781]

Yeah, but the "famous people" leading march have hijacked it along with the rights of the 3.5 million and the rest of the world to take a genuine stand for free speech. Basically obliterated any chance for the march to actually any change and devoid it from any meaning. It turned into a march for state power and blind patriotism. You think the people in the front will you this to enhance freedom of speech? Most likely the opposite: It will be used to increase racism, spy on ALL citizens, increase restriction on people and media freedom, and justify foreign policies and military actions just like 9/11 did in the US.

Very smart tactic, actually. I remember a couple of years ago we had some marches here against the sectarian regime. More people were increasingly getting involved until some of the sectarian leaders joined the march! Completed destroyed the whole thing and no one showed up for the next one. That was a political lesson hard learned

Not dismissing your points, some of them have no right to be there..

My point is it was an impressive moment of cohesiveness and solidarity amongst the people, I couldn't care less about the suits.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Not dismissing your points, some of them have no right to be there..

My point is it was an impressive moment of cohesiveness and solidarity amongst the people, I couldn't care less about the suits.

I think that is what it was meant to be or at least what most that participated wanted to say, but unfortunately that is not the message that came out or what the "political momentum" of the march will be used for.

[Fulham Broadway 17,305]

UK Govt already using the Paris atrocities to railroad in more snooping legislation of texts, phone calls, websites visited etc

[CHOULO19 24,332]

UK Govt already using the Paris atrocities to railroad in more snooping legislation of texts, phone calls, websites visited etc

Ha! Inevitable. Bet the NATO are already discussing over what oil rich country they will be using this to justify invading very soon. I'm putting money on Yemen

[Fulham Broadway 17,305]

Ha! Inevitable. Bet the NATO are already discussing over what oil rich country they will be using this to justify invading very soon. I'm putting money on Yemen

Yup and Israel choosing the moment to say they have resonded to Terrrrrrrrrar rocket attacks any day now

[cosmicway 1,333]

If Charlie Hebdo had been published in the UK

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/what-if-icharlie-hebdo-i-had-been-published-in-britain/16443

Ha !

There was a similar one in Greece who was convicted last week, for publishing silly jokes about the monks of mount Atho.

We certainly did n't use a Kalasnikoff gun against him though !

[DCS1984 28]

Thank you again for your excellent well written reply.

The entire point of the whole secrecy thing, for me, is to minimize losses. The plan worked, miraculously, in that they only realized they were being attacked too late. And thus, were forced to surrender or die with no preparation at all. The lack of bloodshed in the city really points toward the fact that this was one of the reasons. This way it ended quickly and decisively.

I pointed out the secrecy actually failed as the leader of the Meccans Abu Sufyan found out about the attack from literally the date trail of Muhammad's allies. Again, I stress Muhammad, Umar (not surprisingly) and Abu Bakr (who later had more problems with Abu Sufyan) did not even try diplomacy for the events with the two tribes. He even get kicked out of his daughters house for trying to sit on her rug!

If I was to venture further, the fact they had 10,000 men (who probably weren't all Muslims but were after plunder as shown by the later Ridda wars) means a great deal of time and organizing had to be done. 10,000 men for Arabia was a lot of men in late antiquity and a mammoth army for Arabia. Remember the Quraysh only attacked Mecca with 1000/2000 men in the previous battles. Usually countries can spare 1/10th to 2/10ths at most of their population for War so Mecca would have a population of about 10,000 at the time (My maths!) so Muhammad is attacking Mecca with a battle hardened army, the same size as their entire population! No wonder, Abu Sufyan who was not normally known for his humility understood that the game was up and surrendered. The Quraysh from the Muslim sources (none of theirs exist, actually nothing of them exists in outside sources) seem to pretty poor fighters anyway. Ali was about 10-0 (if you include Shi'a hadiths, he was probably more) against them in single combat! It was hardly a glorious victory. I remember my Indian friend telling me about the glorious (re)conquest of Goa in 1961 on the same terms until I showed him the numbers and he compared it to an elephant and a fly

The fact that he gave up on using that name that God gave him should only point towards his unwillingness to fight. Many say all that he (saw) wanted was to get kingship and power, or to cause trouble. But I see lots of pros and cons here. By not putting that name on the piece of paper, he would be able to get the Quraysh to agree to a treaty, be able to come for hujj in a while, be able to continue his invitation to Islam (the letters to the other kingdoms were sent out after this treaty, after all), get a political leverage over his opponents, and save many lives that may have been lost in the battle. Really, with all due respect, I don't see why the name on the contract even matters if he's going so far to actually act as the messenger is supposed to act? In our day and age titles matter a lot, and so did it then. But then even if they were to put 'Messenger of God' on the paper, what point would it serve? They sure wouldn't be any close to belief than they were before, and he didn't really give up his title at all. Just refused to put it in paper. The Quran is quite clear about his prophethood, and he has tens of thousands of people already believing in his status. To me this is just a pitiful Qureysh demand, which is essence really has no meaning at all. Whether you put down whatever name in there it's still quite clear you know what he's claiming to be, what people believe him to be and what his mission is. Did the prophet (saw) turn around and say "I was fooling you all" or "This is too much for me, I'm Prophet no more"? Of course not. It was a mere formality that he was willing to indulge in for the greater good, while it had absolutely no effect on his prophethood. His message, his title and his (or at least, his claim to) Messengership is clear to us till this day. This is very, very different from the cases you mentioned. In those cases giving up that title equates to them giving up on the mission that they were sent for itself, while in this case it was a mere unnecessary formality that had no real impact on theology, nor the religion. It was a political treaty to stop war, not a denunciation of belief.

Now we're going a little deeper, I hope you don't mind. I believe it is incredibly important that he renounced his title even for a second. He is the last apostle, the exemplar of conduct, the light to all nations, even to put with God in the Shahadah. If his conduct fails to live up to those titles then the Qu'ran may not be an accurate revelation from God through Jibril. I believe that would be acceptable to you?

I can't believe that someone who is held up to the greatest man who lived could give up what gave him "for a mere formality" for even a second. As I compared to Umar and Moses they would never have done this. Moses could have easily done something similar as I made up in a scenario. Remember when he went to Mecca at this point, he didn't have an army with him, he only had his companions with him ( In the Sirat, he has 700 men, 10 for each Camel, also they were in grave danger of being caught in a pincer movement if you believe that to be true as the Quraysh cavalry was behind him, in antiquity you definitely didn't want that) . He was vastly outnumbered and the Quraysh could have easily killed him. As much as Umar and Ali ( and perhaps Khalid was there too but he's not referenced) were great fighters, they couldn't stand against all the Quraysh outside Mecca. Why do you think he made the treaty that was so weighted against him, he (the historical Muhammad) had little choice, there weren't going to let him in to do the pilgrimage. He was miles from home, without supplies and without an army that could realistically beat the Quraysh without extremely heavy losses unlike the next time, he came back in overwhelming force. He had to make this treaty while he could as the Quraysh would have been afraid of the possibility of Medinan assistance and the blood ties that still ran strong despite their superior position.

I know as you say he doesn't say "Ha I fooled you silly mushrikūn!" but he lies (taqiyya) to God about the position given him for simply put a human affair. He should have done the pilgrimage or died trying, he wouldn't have done it if he wasn't commanded too but he fails to. He fails all those he has told that they will go to Mecca and perform it, in essence, he has committed a false prophecy to at least Abu Bakr, Ali, Uthman and Umar. He told them they would perform it and well they didn't, so it's no wonder they're so disappointed. I'd struggle to accept that any prophet of God, especially one as important to humankind as to be the example to all would do this. If it was a tribal leader, then fair enough, they haven't been chosen to be an example and can conduct themselves accordingly to the flows of human lives at this time but can he? If God asked him "did you erase your prophetic calling that I gave you and only you to the people of the entire world at any time for even a second?" what would he have to say "well it worked out well in the end" again only my opinion but that isn't the conduct of the example for humanity. Again, he should have never erased that, it weakens his position as a prophet by lowering himself to the demands of this world. Just me though

Sigh...if you look into it enough, I'm pretty sure you'll find every single Arab tribe having something against another. These were a people who had fought for more than a decade over a thing like a horse race. The treaty mentioned nothing about what happened in the past, because if such a condition existed then there would be no treaty at all. Almost every single tribe had it for each other because of some issue, which is why they were so disunited throughout history. The grudges were intense, and very much real. Hence it doesn't matter what that guy must've done to my family years ago, the fact of the matter is that if any fighting takes place, the one who raised his hand will be responsible. That's how treaties are enforced, to ensure come stoppage of fighting. Otherwise there'd be no point. And as to why they would be allowed to join them, why not? Everyone was allowed to have a clean slate after all. That doesn't make them innocent, but they should still be given a chance nonetheless, regardless. If it were like that I'd never be a muslim, because of the sins I know I've already committed. That's the spirit of Islam, at the end of the day.

Yeah, the Arabs of Jahiliyyah were prone to this but then again isn't the Sunni - Shi'a split at the heart a massive blood feud over the succession? Probably not for us to discuss for the moment. I'd recommend Lesley Hazelton's "After the Prophet - The story of the Sunni-Shi'a split" to read if you want.

However surely by your correct logic of "the one who raised his hand be responsible" shouldn't the Banu Khu'uzah raise their hands for the original incident? The one that leads with the women not being returned to the conquest of Mecca above, both of these incidents are not originally from the Quraysh to begin with, the second one is open to interpretation at least but is it cause for war never-mind a sneaky surprise attack?

Mhm, that's why I find it weird to answer questions regarding these kind of verses, nothing actually happened. It wasn't a big deal at all, or at least, not as much as the people who attack Islam say it did.

Remember the verses 6:29 were revealed before the expedition not after according to Ibn Kathir. Muhammad was wanting battle with the Romans (The Byzantines still called themselves Romans up to 1453) as he believed there was an invasion of an enormous army of 40,000 to 100,000 soldiers. Sadly the chain of transmission was faulty (sorry couldn't resist) and the army didn't exist. The idea that the Byzantines could get an army of 100,000 soldiers in 630 is sadly hilarious if you know a) the numbers involved in the previous war of life and death with the Sassaninid Persians were a lot less and The Byzantines were barely functional in the middle east after the 14yr Persian occupation of their lands in the Levant and Egypt so at this point so to raise any army from here would have been a miracle of epic proportions. For Arabic accounts of numbers of battle, it's always best to take a 0 off both sides

So while nothing happened, the instruction from God hasn't changed unless the Qu'ran isn't eternal and only context specific? If it is context specific, it really should say as it is "fully explained" 6:114 and "free from imperfection and expounded in detail" 11:1 This was the last one to be revealed after all, the law of Abrogation says you should always refer to the most recent revelation.

Just had a revelation (of sorts) Jibril is revealing in 6:29 how to fight the Christian Byzantine/Ghassanid soldiers that don't even exist! Surely God could have told Muhammad, this whole expedition you are preparing for and sent up to Tabouk.... well it's not there.

Considering this is Umar, probably the harshest companion of the time, and also one of the most knowledgeable. If you were to judge it by Quranic verses you could make a case that what he was doing is technically not allowed, because Jizyah is clearly mentioned. It really tells me that we've missed the point of the Sharia'h, and people who point fingers are only pointing fingers at their own ignorance, which is understandable at the end of the day.

It's funny if I offered something without chain of transmission outside of Bukahiri, Muslim and Abu Doud that was negative to Islam they wouldn't accept it so I won't either

Only kidding, I am surprised someone as educated in the world as Umar couldn't tell the difference between a Jew and a Christian in 634-44 even if they were a beggar. If he did do this for this man and other beggars then good on Umar, he gets a lot of bad press if you compare him to modern day society. The execution (stoning) of the adulteress is very unflattering to him and Muhammad if you compare it to Jesus' teaching on the subject. Just an observation but there is no time, date (I guessed 634-44 as he would have had the power to do so but Umar was an intimating man so could have been earlier) or written at the time record of this (it was written in sometime in the mid 750s) so there is no way to prove this happened academically.

I'm sorry, but I really don't have any sources for you about that. I've heard my teacher say that even though the Jews of our times don't say this, the arab ones did. So basically 1-3 i can't answer, because I don't know their history.

Thank you, the reason I use the Ezra is because there is no evidence that they did. It's important for me as God is going after the completely the wrong people, I have to imagine God wants everyone to be on the right path, so he should have gone after the majority and given the best possible evidence that they (the Jews) were wrong but instead God for some reason makes a very strange statement for the best possible argument. I see the hand of man (Muhammad) here, not the hand of God.

Exactly, it says the 'Al' in the starting. What is the difference between saying "Bring A chair" and "Bring me The chair"? In the first case you could bring me any chair and fulfill my condition and it also implies very clearly that all of them are the same to me, while in the second case you know that it is a particular chair that I'm talking about and that it stands out because of a particular distinction. The word that the translation has derived "verses" from is "Ayaat", which also means signs. In the Quran Allah Azzawajal mentions that he's placed signs throughout the world the world for people to come to belief. So an amateur and basic understanding of the verse would be that these were a people who stuck to what their belief of God was, and they didn't let sacrifice this knowledge for something that they knew was wrong for a small price (through peer-pressure, for example. what you're doing there is selling off your own god-given intuition for acceptance, which is as stupid as it sounds). I have a big problem with some of the translations out there, so don't take it as it is. There is a reason why the translations are not called Quran in our tradition, but a 'Tafsir' of the Quran. If you want an example of a believer from another faith, you can read about the story of the King of Abyssinia, and how there was a 'janazah' (funeral prayer) for him.

Just to reinforce my argument, that Allah in 6:30 mean THE Jews. Here is Muhammad's declaration to the Jews for why they have turned God's anger on them on the day of Judgement.

“Then it will be said to the Jews, "What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?' “ Bukhari 6:60:105

You said above you don't know their history which I accept, once you read some of the Bible you'll understand how crazy this accusation is. I can see the Jews of the world looking something like this

There is no historical evidence that the King Sahama (Al-Najashi) existed in the time of Islam never mind that he converted. Islamic sources even have "Hercules" not Heraclius converting to Islam but being forced by popular opinion to change back etc. Take it with a pinch of salt some of these claims.

There's nothing about him being in it forever, from what I know. Just because you call your self a muslim doesn't spare you from hellfire. I might still end up there, after all. Hopefully not permanently(!). Some of us will be no doubt punished for what we did. I'm hoping that I (and him) will be of those who end up ultimately in paradise, despite our rough start in the afterlife. We can't really put a limit on God's mercy, after all. He saves whomever He wills from wherever He wants, even if it be from the middle of Hellfire.

I hope he isn't there permanently too but remember unless you commit Shahid then YOU are going to hell too hopefully you will be delivered

"Then, surely it is We who are most knowing of those most worthy of burning therein.
No one of you there is, but he shall go down to it (hell); That for thy Lord is a thing decreed, determined. Then We shall deliver those that were god-fearing; and the evildoers We shall leave there, hobbling on their knees."
-- Sura 19:71-72

"Verily the creation of each one of you is brought together in his mother's womb for forty days in the form of a seed, then he is a clot of blood for a like period, then a morsel of flesh for a like period, then there is sent to him the angel who blows the breath of life into him and who is commanded about four matters: to write down his mean of livelihood, his life span, his actions and whether happy or unhappy" Bukhari and Muslim.

I won't go into it in more detail of course as it's not my belief in Qadr or Predestination in anyway. I may be wrong on the matter but I haven't met anyone who has disagreed on the principle - Shi'a is different though.

Though perhaps this was the true Shahada to save us all from the from the fire?

The Prophet said, "If anyone testifies that None has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His Slave and His Apostle, and that Jesus is Allah's Slave and His Apostle and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit from Him, and that Paradise is true, and Hell is true, Allah will admit him into Paradise with the deeds which he had done even if those deeds were few." (Junada, the sub-narrator said, " 'Ubada added, 'Such a person can enter Paradise through any of its eight gates he likes.") Bukahri - 4:55.644

Sorry it posted my above for some reason, probably was bored with all my typing

Cheeky reference to the "right hands possession" matter btw. We can talk about that too if you want, but I think this is much as it is. [ ]

Sorry couldn't resist but the Quraysh had the right to do what he liked with Bihal whether he was a Muslim or not by their (immoral IMO) law as he was his slave/property.

"I wish you luck on your book. You can even read up Surah Ar-Rum, for it does touch upon that kingdom as well, if you want. The Muslims used to cheer for the Romans, while the polytheists used to cheer for the persians, because of their likeness in terms of religion. There's even a tradition of Abu bakr betting on the Romans to come out as winners because of the Surah, back when betting wasn't made forbidden yet."

Many thanks for the kind words about the book, it's kind of hiatus as I am struggling with how to put the Elephant in the room into context.

I know the Surah Ar-Rum it was one of the first I turned to. It seems to be from 619 from the end (628 was the end of the war) but doesn't make much sense in dating at all, it should be from 612 as that was when the Byzantines were trounced at the battle of Antioch and subsequently the middle east and Egypt fell. It's a very strange prediction if I'm honest. 3 to 9 years is weird in the context of the Sassanid/Byzantine war which must have affected the Arabs greatly in trade. Why would God send down such a imprecise revelation? If you are pushing literalism, was the Byzantine/Sassanid war always destined to happen from the beginnings of time? It's hard to find this chapter in history to be truthful.
Oh boy, you've spent so much time on reasearching this religion and have never done the listening-to-the-recitation-while-reading-the-subtitles thing? Reading the translation now feels kinda like eating a wet sandwich, to me. The benefit is there, but the feel is just so...not as good as it should be. I present to you one of the favorite surahs of Muslims from the Quran, I hope you take out some time to have a look at is, at least the start (I love it, personally). I recommend headphones.

I've heard some of the Surah's being recited but I have honestly never gone out of my way to hear them.

This is a bit of fun - I was watching/listening to this and I was "I remember this Surah" and then it dawned on me, I'm going to see the Houri's!! Wooo!


"In them will be fair (Maidens), good, beautiful
Maidens restrained (as to their glances), in (goodly) pavilions;-
Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched "

But they weren't there, story of my life!

Loved the video, lack of Houri's aside there was some brilliant photography, shooting of the video was excellent. Really makes you wonder about the world. Have to admit I wasn't overly moved by the words (orally or on the page), though I did reflect on them. I'll give you that this one is one of the better ones.

I like Surah 90 "Al Balad" myself, if I could change the last two lines to something a bit more hopeful of redemption then it would be a fine piece of advice.



Lol, and another failure in length. [] There's nothing to thank me for. I'm kinda obligated to respond to you in a better way (Quran 16:125). And in your case, responding to you in a better manner than yours is not easy, since you're quite well-mannered as it is, if not more. So thanks for making this more difficult for me. []

Disaster for me in length too lol! Ah so you are doing Dawah to me....

I'm no fan of Islam as you can gather but there is a lot more to be gained by discussing these things rationally than shouting the loudest. I remember the first time, with my friend Khalid when I felt comfortable he wouldn't attack me lol! I was scattergun "don't you know about Aisha, Safiya, Zaynab, "right hands" then Kaybar, Ezra, the trinity, the dating of the Qu'ran, the non complete Qu'rans before the 13th century the first Qiblas don't face Mecca etc " he was getting machine gunned fired what was completely new to him. He is an educated man (degree in French law) and was quite taken aback as his former footy buddy had turned into Robert Spensor like Dr.Jeckel lol! Fortunately we actually chatted a bit about it and had some interesting discussions, he helped me a lot with interpretation, pronunciation and to try and keep me on track as I hope we have and hopefully this will continued to be well mannered and in the spirit of communication between two people of opposite ideas.

Many thanks
David

[Fulham Broadway 17,305]

Mohammed says "Je suis Charlie".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30790409

New Charlie Hebdo has the prophet on the cover

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Mohammed says "Je suis Charlie".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30790409

New Charlie Hebdo has the prophet on the cover

Sadly turned more about publicity for the magazine than rights with them vowing to print a million copy this week instead of the usual 20 odd thousand...for our sake!

[DCS1984 28]

I cut down on your quote in interest of the site and it's members. I think I'm being paranoid here, tbh, but better safe than sorry.

I really hope you don't take this in the wrong way, though. So please forgive me if I offended you. You seem like an awesome person and I can only imagine the hours we could burn in our discussion (over pizza, in an ideal situation. ).

Regards, from Toronto,

Sal.

As with you I have cut down all the quotes out in the interests of the members here as we maybe overtaking this thread.

If anyone has offended it is myself with my almost snide references to "faulty lines of transmission" , "right hands possess", the "Houri's" joke on one of your favourite Surah's (I will say that the video is still incorrect) and the Hell comments as they really shouldn't have been made by myself despite the accompanying hadiths as evidence, it was in poor taste. So I would ask also for your forgiveness for those words if I have offended.

Yeah we'd have a great deal to discuss and debate as we are very far apart in many aspects in what we have written and more importantly our interpretation. I feel it is of great credit to you that you took what I wrote and put your own interpretation on what I had wrote instead of going to Ibn Kathir et al. The manner of writing and patience to take the time to research your answers is again a great credit to yourself at only 19 years old. This could quite easily turned into you refuting my arguments with a and a mocking reply and visa versa. The passion that you have shouldn't trouble you, it's fantastic. I present to you a debate between an ex Muslim (though he was an Ahmadi Muslim, which is lets say not mainstream) in Dr Nabeel Qureshi and Mufti Sulaiman Hashim which is done in the greatest of respect between the two men. They help each other find passages and are far removed from the debates with say Sam Shamoun and Nadir Ahmed ( who's style does him no credit )

You are right I do value the historical record greatly, it is one of Islam's greatest weaknesses for me as the oral tradition maybe one of it's greatest strengths for you. I won't go further in this post.

While it might not surprise you that I don't agree in some of what you have written, I am more than happy to end this debate on your request It may surprise you to find out you haven't been speaking to a member of the Ahl al-Kitāb perhaps I should have revealed that over Pizza! though my investigation into religion(s) is pointing me in that direction due to it's message/historical strength and the character of it's final prophet (I use that term loosely)

Finally if you ever wish to discuss something about Christianity/Judaism and not very well on my own knowledge Zoroastrianism then feel free to PM me at anytime.

It would be my pleasure

Best wishes

David

P.s the best football club in the world is Tottenha......

[Fulham Broadway 17,305]

Sadly turned more about publicity for the magazine than rights with them vowing to print a million copy this week instead of the usual 20 odd thousand...for our sake!

Yeah 3 million print run instead of the usual 60 000.

Not many being sold in the UK despite all the editors of publications and news distributors saying they should be shown. Apparently the censorship here has more to do with the billions of pounds invested and sponsored from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

One shopowner has stocked 100 copies, think shes hindu

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Yeah 3 million print run instead of the usual 60 000.

Not many being sold in the UK despite all the editors of publications and news distributors saying they should be shown. Apparently the censorship here has more to do with the billions of pounds invested and sponsored from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

One shopowner has stocked 100 copies, think shes hindu

Haha Saudi Arabia, who's ambassador joined the march in Paris, in an official statement "encouraged" it's citizens to NOT discuss the events of the Charlie Hebdo magazine! I kid you not

How unaware must the people be of basic rights and democracy that the government actually gets away with something like that?!

Regarding the censorship, I would have thought that would be more so the case in France. Half the country is now owned by Qatar!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Yeah 3 million print run instead of the usual 60 000.

Not many being sold in the UK despite all the editors of publications and news distributors saying they should be shown. Apparently the censorship here has more to do with the billions of pounds invested and sponsored from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

One shopowner has stocked 100 copies, think shes hindu

Btw, you should go buy a bunch and sell them to France. They're selling for over 700 Euros per copy on ebay! How stupid can people get??!

Of course, the shops not selling the magazine does not effect how the government plans on using the public outrage at the tragedy. I read Cameron is already proposing a new internet spying law. I am certain that politicians just have laws like these lined up waiting for something like this to happen...

[Fulham Broadway 17,305]

Btw, you should go buy a bunch and sell them to France. They're selling for over 700 Euros per copy on ebay! How stupid can people get??!

Of course, the shops not selling the magazine does not effect how the government plans on using the public outrage at the tragedy. I read Cameron is already proposing a new internet spying law. I am certain that politicians just have laws like these lined up waiting for something like this to happen...

Yes and many know all too well that 'blowback' from their foreign exploits give them the perfect excuse. All those fictionlal books you used to read like Orwells 1984, and non-fictional writings of Chomsky slowly become reality. Even Voehoevens Total recall

'Terror' as the excuse for more and more State control and snooping. This is paralleled with less and less having any faith in mainstream political parties

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Yes and many know all too well that 'blowback' from their foreign exploits give them the perfect excuse. All those fictionlal books you used to read like Orwells 1984, and non-fictional writings of Chomsky slowly become reality. Even Voehoevens Total recall

'Terror' as the excuse for more and more State control and snooping. This is paralleled with less and less having any faith in mainstream political parties

Right on cue: 54 people arrested in France for expressing their opinions about the march that is supposed to be about the freedom of speech!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-aftermath-french-police-arrest-54-people-for-defending-or-glorifying-terrorism-9977434.html