There is no question to which the answer is to wander round killing people. It takes a few words or keystrokes for any right thinking person to condemn the killings in Paris today. But that really doesn’t take us very far.
It is impossible to stop evil from happening. Simple low tech attacks by individuals, a kind of DIY terrorism, cannot always be pre-empted. If you try to do so universally, you will end up even further down the line we have gone down in the UK, where people are continually arrested and harassed who have no connection to terrorism at all, often for bragging on websites. These non-existent foiled terrorist plots are a risible feature of British politics nowadays. Every now and then one hits the headlines, like the arrests just before Remembrance Day. Their defining characteristic is that none of those arrested have any means of terrorism – 99% of those arrested for terrorism in the UK in the last decade – possessed no weapon and no viable explosive device.
In fact the only terrorist in the last year convicted in the UK, who possessed an actual bomb – a very viable explosive device indeed, was not charged with terrorism. He was a fascist named Ryan McGee who had a swastika on his wall and hated Muslims. Hundreds of Muslims with no weapons are locked up for terrorism. A fanatical anti-Muslim with a bomb is by definition not a terrorist.
I am assuming that the narrative that Charlie Hebdo was attacked by Islamists is correct, though that remains to be proved. For argument, let us assume the official narrative is true and the killings were by Muslims outraged at the magazine’s depictions of the Prophet Mohammed.
It is essential to free speech that it includes the freedom to offend. That must include the freedom to offend religious belief. Without such freedoms, the values of societies would freeze. Much social progress has caused real anguish and offence to some people. To have stopped Charlie Hebdo by law would have been wrong. To stop them by bullets is beyond any mitigation.
But that doesn’t make the unfortunate deceased heroes, and President Hollande was wrong to characterise them as such. Being murdered does not make you a hero. And being offensive is not necessarily noble. People who are persistently and vociferously offensive are often neither noble nor well-motivated. Much of Charlie Hebdo‘s taunting of Muslims was really unpleasant. That they also had Christian and other targets did not make this any better. It is not Private Eye – it is a magazine with a much nastier edge. I defend the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish whatever it wants. But once the shock dies off, I do hope a more realistic assessment of whether Charlie Hebdo was entirely admirable or not may be possible. This in no way excuses the dreadful murders.
The ability to say things that offend is an important attribute of a free society. Richard Dawkins may offend believers. Peter Tatchell may offend homophobes. Pussy Riot offended Putin and the Orthodox Church. This must not be stopped.
But that must cut both ways. Abu Qatada broke no British laws in his lengthy stay in the UK, but was demonised for things he said (or even things newspapers invented he had said). Most of the French who are today in solidarity for freedom of expression, are against people being able to express themselves freely in what they wear. The security industry who are all over TV today want to respond to this attack on freedom of expression by more controls on the internet!
I condemn, you condemn, we all condemn, and so we should. But the amount of nuanced thought in the mainstream media is almost non-existent. What will now happen is that conservative commentators will rip individual phrases from this article and tweet them to show I support terrorism. The lack of nuanced thought is a reflection of a general atmosphere of anti-intellectualism which has poisoned public life in modern western society.
Roderick Russell, nobody should be guillotined and we should all fight against this supposed means of execution that the US has in store for citizens who don’t toe the line. Nevertheless what you say is true regarding Anders Breivik, the Norwegian Freemason and Knights Templar who took the lives of 69 people mostly who were holidaying on an island.
There are still apologists for Breivik. One of them is Wikipedia and the internet in general. They always, as far as I can see, refer to his victims as teenagers. That is wrong. They were by and large children, the ages of the majority being 18 or under. In fact 33 of the fatalities were 17 or under, 17 more were 18 which means of the 69 dead 50 were 18 or under. But for some inexplicable reason under its chart Wikipedia has a kind of apology that the average age of those killed was 20. I have always disliked Wikipedia because, although some of its content is fine, much of it relies on editors, and because it is always first on a search you are only ever going to get the MSM viewpoint. Underneath the chart of fatalities it says average age 20. It disgusts me. It may be right because the older people, all 14 of them had ages ranging from 20 to 51. There is a paedophiliac aspect to these murders. Breivik was out hunting children, and I have heard too much of that regarding the Royals of Holland.
While Breivik was an exception, who talked about all the other ‘mystical’ shall we call them cells, there is clear evidence that there is a white-supremacist tint to the protection of somebody who wears the regalia, but is clearly obsessed.
Does this square up to what we are hearing about two brothers who allegedly shot journalists, and all writers should be appalled at that, shouting slogans akin to ‘the prophet has been avenged’ and leaving their personal IDs in the getaway car. I am not convinced that what we learn on the internet is anywhere near the truth any more than MSM.
We must fight this shit.
“Err, he is censoring free speech on his Blog, but saying that he belives in free speech anywhere else !!”
Saying “err” and putting exclamation marks at the end of a sentence makes it no less false. This is what he said:
“I don’t see that as a contradiction. I do not think opinions should be banned. People who want to have holocaust denial websites should be permitted to do so. But I don’t have to have them on my personal blog. Just as I think Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to do what they do, but I would not want much of their material on my blog. As for Pussy Riot I find them extremely decorative and think there should be more of them everywhere.”
There is no contradiction at all between a person having the freedom to express an opinion but another person having the right to ban that opinion on ones own blog site. It’s a concept that’s not difficult to grasp but you appear to be having some difficulty with it.
Dreoilin 8 Jan, 2015 – 11:23 pm
Thank you for that additional information about Pussy Riot. I never liked them, Satanistic, but as to whether their sentence was too long I have to reserve judgement because I am short on facts.
Regarding the Live Leak video, it would seem remarkable that someone would be at home and able to video at EXACTLY opposite the spot where the policeman is shot and killed. Has the filmmaker been interviewed by the media or given police protection as the location of the apartment would be very easy to find and consequently their name too. They would be taking a very great risk making that video standing so close to a window at near street level with people armed with assault weapons firing at will. Why would you take that kind of risk of having your head blown off ?
Has any CCTV video been released of the main shooting at the magazine’s office. Given it was a known target, there would be very likely many surveilance cameras observing who was coming and going. I am sure there would be a system of panic alarms fitted.
Why did it take so long for the police to arrive in a major capital city and for the shooters to escape so easliy and without panic but then leave their ID behind?
This video prompts more questions than answers.
Daniel; “There is no contradiction at all between a person having the freedom to express an opinion but another person having the right to ban that opinion on ones own blog site. It’s a concept that’s not difficult to grasp but you appear to be having some difficulty with it”
The difficulty rather appears to be that you cannot grasp that this is not an issue about different people, it’s the about the consistency between what one particular individual (Craig) professes to believe in, yet does not allow to happen on his own Blog.
I’m finding it surreal that you can’t see this !
Can anyone explain why on Earth these criminals keep leaving their ID cards after their massacre on crime scene?. and what’s the point of hiding themselves after that? Or is someone trying to point to specific group of people in order to stir anger against them?
I remember there was a guy from police who told journalists next day after 9/11 that they found the book of Koran under the ashes of two airplanes that hit the twin towers. The whole buildings collapsed and burned, including the planes, but the Koran did not burn. They really think people are stupid.
Macky,
The issue is about the differentiation between societal and individual conceptions. The banning of something by society on the one hand, and the decision of an individual to make the editorial decision to censor something on the other, are not concomitant notions.
Mackie : “That appears rather like a case of an acute case of cognitive dissonance; you think that people should have the right to Free Speech, but just not on your Blog ?!!”
OK,let’s put it this way: I believe in the right of consenting adults to practice scatological sex, but I’m not letting them do it in my living room.
@Canspeccy: “One thing that I would like to see, though, if I were investigating the crime, is some blood. Let’s see the crime scene pictures showing the blood spattered pavement where the poor fellow is supposed to have had his brains blown out.”
If you were investigating the crime, you would doubtless have seen as much blood as you desired. But as members of the public, you and I do not get to see graphic pictures of people with their brains blown out. These Charlie Hebdo victims are no exception.
We hear this sort of thing in cases where people want to believe it’s a “false flag” : There are no graphic pictures! They’re not showing us autopsy photographs in fine detail! Why haven’t we seen the blood-soaked crime scene in high resolution!?!
Unless one is prepared to believe no such crimes are ever committed, it is rather a stretch to presume “false-flag!” is the reason for the lack of such publicly available crime-shots. Anyone see graphic pictures of Michael Brown’s torn apart head, or doubt that that actually happened?
Personally, as in the Sandy Hook school massacre, I think we _should_ be shown the pictures that depicted children, in the words of an attending Sheriff, “shot to pieces’. And invite gun-nuts to a public viewing. Just to shut these idiots up, who insult the victims with BS about “a hoax!” and “false flag!”, as if it never actually happened.
*
About this entire “false-flag” charge. One would have to believe that:
a) All the murdered Charlie Hebdo staff and police were killed by the state;
b) The state-run assassins were prepared to kill any members of public/ police who stood in their way, to protect this state secret operation, and were never in danger of being caught;
c) The orchestrators of the crime – and everyone along the chain of command – will keep entirely silent for life, or be held to account for treason, nobody will ever “drop a dime” out of disgust/outrage;
d) A patsy must be found who will not emerge alive (despite being identified beforehand – are they already dead, their bodies waiting to be “discovered” after a shoot-out?)
e) There is sufficient benefit in this action;
f) Total assurity they will never be discovered;
g) A lucky shot by a cop will never, ever find these assassins – once their mask is removed – to really be a Secret Agent
This is just basic. The policeman was not really shot, we hear. So where is he? Was he an actor, did he never exist? Did the service roster of that supposed officer just appear, and nobody in his unit noticed?
We also have heard doubts that the staff weren’t actually killed – “We want to see the blood!” – so WTH are they? Bought off? Did they never really exist either?
Come on. There are plenty of legitimate doubts worth expressing about official government stories, but to declare every event a “false flag” as a knee-jerk response is just paranoid.
Herbie
Dershowitz
A male Melanie Phillips, morally lobotomised, Zio-madman of which the media is full.
Glenn UK
There are plenty of legitimate doubts worth expressing about official government stories, but to declare every event an act of Muslim extremism as a knee-jerk response is just paranoid.
Give me 5
“OK,let’s put it this way: I believe in the right of consenting adults to practice scatological sex, but I’m not letting them do it in my living room.”
Indeed. That’s it in a nutshell.
Pepe Escobar:
For simpletons/trolls/hordes exhibiting an IQ worthy of sub-zoology, when in doubt, demonize Islam. It’s so convenient to forget that untold millions from Pakistan’s tribal areas to street markets across Iraq continue to feel pain devastating their hearts and lives as they are expendable victims of the jihadi mindset – or “Kalashnikov culture”, as it is known in Pakistan – profiting the “West”, directly or indirectly, for decades now. Think ritual droning of Pakistani, Yemeni, Syrian, Iraqi or Libyan civilians. Think Sadr City witnessing carnages over 10 times worse than Paris.
What French President Francois Hollande defined as “an act of exceptional barbarism” – and it is – does not apply when the “West”, France in the front line, from King Sarko to General Hollande himself, weaponizes, trains and remote-controls assorted mercenaries/beheaders from Libya to Syria. Oh yeah; killing civilians in Tripoli or Aleppo is perfectly all right. But don’t do that in Paris.
Hey folks:
Glenn_UK has just adjudicated. It was the real thing. Anyone asking to see the evidence is just a conspiracy nut.
Good God, asking for evidence for Chrissake. What idiots.
And here, just for Glenn: My name’s Robbie Parker. My kid’s just been killed. LOL.
“And here, just for Glenn: My name’s Robbie Parker. My kid’s just been killed. LOL.”
So are you saying that the massacre didn’t happen, or that the child is still alive?
@Canspeccy:
Didn’t Technicolour ask just the other day, that if a point is worth making, make it – don’t hit me up with a YouTube video – please.
If we want to get into some long discussion, and dispute some relevant fact, fine – but you cannot expect everyone to sit through some video that apparently makes your point, and expect me to argue against a third party.
*
Did I suggest asking for evidence is ludicrous? No. Straw man.
Did I point out that explicit evidence is very rarely available to the public, even for everyday murders? Yes – I did.
Did I point out your expectation of extraordinarily explicit evidence should be immediately publicly available for specific crimes you’d rather not believe actually happened, and shrieking “false flag!” otherwise, is kind of silly? If I wasn’t clear, please accept the clarification.
Daniel,
Re: “So are you saying that the [Sandy Hook] massacre didn’t happen, or that the child is still alive?”
Well, if the massacre didn’t happen then presumably the child is still alive. One hopes so.
But regardless of the fate of the child (and some of the children appear to have been fabricated personalities illustrated with photographs of unrelated real children lifted off the Web), there is good reason to doubt the media account of what happened. For one thing, the local newspaper, the Newtown Bee, reported the event the day before it happened (see: The Bing Cache of December 13, 2012, With the text of the Newtown Bee’s before-it-happened story on the Sandy Hook Massacre ).
What’s particularly bizarre about the story in the Newton Bee, which was published on line on December 13, 2012 (as confirmed by the date of the bing.com cached page) — the day before the alleged Sandy Hook massacre — is that it consisted chiefly in an interview with Dawn Hochsprung, the Sandy Hook school principal, who according to the subsequent official narrative, was the first person to be killed and who could not, therefore, have given an interview about the “massacre” to anyone.
There are many other anomalies, but this one seems to be conclusive.
@Canspeccy: You might have caught me off-guard here. Can I get this straight, please.
Was it a bunch of blood-thirsty Jihadists, bent on revenge and unable to fit into society, who did this terrible murder? Or are the Muslims actually innocent, and not only was it the State, but it didn’t actually happen at all?
Help me out here – I’m getting confused – False flags? Innocent Muslims? Disappearing or fake victims? Military special forces, or actors? Bought off medical staff, police, witnesses, where does it end? Of course – the News Corps. Maybe all of it was faked?
@ Glenn:
Didn’t Technicolour ask just the other day, that if a point is worth making, make it – don’t hit me up with a YouTube video – please.
I dunno. But what if he did?
And incidentally, I’m still waiting for Technicolor to apologize for calling me a liar when I stated correctly and with a link to an academic thesis that the ethnic population of my father’s home town of Leicester is now the majority.
Techie apparently believes whatever serves his interest, the validity of the evidence being irrelevant.
The assumption that a video is somehow less valid than a link to say, a newspaper article, or some rigmarole that you may present seems daft to me. Of course all evidence is open to question. If you want to say that a particular video, photograph or witness testimony is false, fine, but give us a reason.
@ Glenn_UK
Was it a bunch of blood-thirsty Jihadists, bent on revenge and unable to fit into society, who did this terrible murder?‘
How the bejabers do you expect me to know.
I’ve stated no conclusion whatever. But unlike yours, my mind does not operate solely in binary mode: black or white, yes or no. I am open to a hypothesis, which means I am open to evaluating the evidence — not just what’s available here, right now, but what comes available in due course.
Canspeccy,
Ok, so you think the massacre never happened…..LOL
Macky
And who changed the cartoon from its original – and also removed it from its original context?
If that isn’t forgery with the intention of incitement what is?
what is amazing is how easily the official narratives take hold. the alleged suspects in the Charlie Hebdo attack are allegedly on the run in a 32,000 acre forest. a third named suspect has an iron-clad alibi & has not been charged, but that isn’t enough to make people wonder if the Kouachi brothers might be innocent too. it’s hard to imagine the Kouachis will emerge alive from the forest, or anywhere else.
what about the naked Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who we all saw with our own eyes, as clear as can be, and who was recognised by his aunt and his parents, etc., but who was just a naked bystander! just one of the thousands of anomalies in the Boston Marathon bombing story. and now the gagged Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is about to go on trial finally, just as we have the Paris attack being compared to the Boston attack.
2013 – Reuters – Exclusive: Boston bomb suspects’ parents retreat to village, cancel U.S. trip
He (the father) and other members of the family believe a man shown on television being led naked into a police car the night of the shootout was Tamerlan, and that the blurry footage, still widely available on YouTube, proves Tamerlan was captured alive. Boston police say Tamerlan was killed in a shootout, and the man seen being led into the car was a bystander who was briefly detained.
Anzor Tsarnaev said he raised the issue with U.S. officials who visited him earlier in the week in his home in Dagestan.
“I asked them: ‘I saw my child alive, he was being put into a police vehicle alive and healthy. How come media said he was killed?’ They were shocked themselves,” the father said…
The father said he had no hope that Tamerlan’s body would be released by the U.S. authorities to be buried in his homeland.
“They won’t give us his body,” he said, his voice breaking with emotion. “We wont be able to bury him in our land.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/28/us-usa-explosions-russia-tsarnaev-idUSBRE93R08O20130428
Tamerlan was buried in a secret grave in Virginia.
speaking of secret burials….
what about the amazing story told by Obama’s “body” man, Reggie Love, about what really went on at the White House during the Abbottabad raid that allegedly killed alleged 9/11 mastermind, Osama Bin Laden, while the public was shown the serious, intent faces of Obama & co sitting with laptops not even turned on in the Situation Room at the time. the video has been removed a number of times, but watch from around 6 mins in:
Reggie Love On Barack Obama Playing Cards During Osama Bin Laden Raid – FULL INTERVIEW
Reggie Love says he and President Obama played cards during the Osama bin Laden raid, and that the president told him, “I can’t watch this entire thing.” “Most people were like down in the Situation Room and [President Obama] was like, ‘I’m not going to be down there, I can’t watch this entire thing,’ We must have played 15 games of spades,” said Love at a public event.
Love was Obama’s “body man,” and spent much time with his boss while he worked for Obama at the White House.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMH8FvZSAic
never mind. the official narratives win out…thanks to the complicit corporate media.
@Glenn_uk 9 Jan, 2015 – 1:39 am
Well you do make reasonable points, and it’s great on Craig’s unmissable blog to be able to examine, without hysteria, some of the events.
About this entire “false-flag” charge. One would have to believe that:
a) All the murdered Charlie Hebdo staff and police were killed by the state;
b) The state-run assassins were prepared to kill any members of public/ police who stood in their way, to protect this state secret operation, and were never in danger of being caught;
c) The orchestrators of the crime – and everyone along the chain of command – will keep entirely silent for life, or be held to account for treason, nobody will ever “drop a dime” out of disgust/outrage;
d) A patsy must be found who will not emerge alive (despite being identified beforehand – are they already dead, their bodies waiting to be “discovered” after a shoot-out?)
e) There is sufficient benefit in this action;
f) Total assurity they will never be discovered;
g) A lucky shot by a cop will never, ever find these assassins – once their mask is removed – to really be a Secret Agent
Answering some of the points,
A) & B) GLADIO, the structure of information, response & safeguard established in ALL NATO states since the 1950’s killed hundreds, injured thousands and included the murder of at least one Prime Minister in Europe
C) all GLADIO operatives have kept silent since the 50’s, GLADIO mostly ignored by MSM
D) Operation “Mincemeat” 1943 SIS “the man who never was”
E) have you seen the French election predictions for Hollande & Partie Socialiste 12% approval rates!
F) I refer you to answer C)
G) yes, spook ‘playing’ does have risks, see the wall/book of CIA honor with 111 entries, only 80 of which are named.
I’m not saying Charlie was an F.F., but it’s a possibility, especially as the French politicians in their memorial March this Sunday have uninvited the likely next president of France and her party. It’s therefore a very political thing!
Further background reading can be made , e.g. “The Lone GLADIO: a novel” eBook on Amazon written by Sibel D Edmonds as a fictitious account of how a half-Turkish FBI agent uncovers that the Beslan tragedy was a CIA deep-state operation. Sibel D Edmonds is of course an half-Turkish ex-FBI agent.
I’ll just leave you with this poser, WHY in suburban Manchester in 2015 should an ‘retired’ ex-para have a secure basement stuffed with assorted heavy assault weaponry, munition, comms? WHAT department in the UK allows a small armoury to exist in an otherwise normal city centre? I know Putin is dangerous but is he really going to invade Lancashire, soon?
:@Daniel & Node
LOL !!! I guess all dictionaries should be destroyed, as apparently words no longer have any meanings !
Take the word Hypocrite, the dictionary on my shelf defines it as follows;
“a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs”
Or, as commonly defined, not practicing what you are preaching; so Craig’s action in not allowing Free Speech on his Blog, whilst stating that he believes in Free Speech, is acting in a manner that cancels out his stated belief in the Free Speech, and so makes a nonsense of his claim, and in fact makes it hard for anybody to take anything else that he may say seriously.
The scatological example is a red herring fallacy, (although perhaps amusingly ironic given his appreciation for Pussy Riot), as a true example would be somebody who preaches racial equality, but only lets White Anglo-Saxons into his house.
It’s illuminating that others are refraining from commenting on such an obvious state of denial, as it’s probably due to a mix of not wanting to criticise our Host, and because of the resulting implications this holds for that forbidden subject for debate, namely the Holocaust. I guess expecting such an honest admission is as likely as expecting Resident Dissident to apologise for his excited but mistaken accusation of yesterday !
YouKnowMyName
Good points. Also it doesn’t automatically follow if this were a false flag (I’m not saying it is) the perps would be the French State. It could, for example, be MOSSAD.
As to your parting question, here’s another one.
Who exactly is Martin ‘Abdullah’ McDaid? This shadowy figure was glancingly mentioned during the July 7 inquest, he worked in the same book shop as the 7/7 bombers, allegedly ‘radicalised’ them, and also arranged the Outward Bound ‘terror training’ trips to North Wales, where they were conveniently all caught on camera. According to the inquest he was a ‘former’ SBS counter-terrorism operative who left the army and converted to Islam. Given the well documented record of SAS and SBS personnel going undercover and rising to very positions in the IRA – ‘Stakeknife’ being one – what is one to conclude?
1. That he was an agent provocateur working deep undercover – something for which there are numerous precedents.
2. He really was a white Christian SBS officer who converted to Islam?
I find number 2 highly implausible.
It’s OK to insult Mohammed and the Muslim religion but say anything critical of Jews and CH rolled over. Sine (Maurice Sinet aged 80) was sacked and then found himself in court on a charge of anti Semitism.
French cartoonist Sine on trial on charges of anti-Semitism over Sarkozy jibe
A Left-wing cartoonist is to go on trial on Tuesday on charges of anti-Semitism for suggesting Jean Sarkozy, the son of the French president, was converting to Judaism for financial reasons. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html
Harper Canada ‘stands in solidarity’ with CH and Obama, the master of extra judicial killing by drone, visited the French Embassy in Washington to sign a book of condolences. YCNMIU.
Charlie Hebdo Paris shooting: Harper, Mulcair condemn attack
Canada’s PM, Opposition leader express horror, call shootings ‘terrorism’
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/charlie-hebdo-paris-shooting-harper-mulcair-condemn-attack-1.2892560
Obama, Visiting French Embassy, Extolls ‘Allies Across the Centuries’
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-visiting-french-embassy-extolls-allies-across-the-centuries-1420762119
It doesn’t take long for all of them to chime together.
Six key points from MI5′s Andrew Parker speech on the terror threat in Britain
9 January 2015
1. The terror threat is heating up. ‘Terrorist-related arrests are up 35 per cent compared with four years ago. Since 2010, more than 140 individuals have been convicted for terrorist-related offences’.
2. Three Islamist plots have been intercepted ‘in recent months’. Since 7/7, police say the spooks have intercepted a major Islamist plot a year. Foster says things are speeding up: ‘working with our partners, we have stopped three UK terrorist plots in recent months alone. Deaths would certainly have resulted otherwise’.
3. MI5’s broken wire. ‘My sharpest concern as director-general of MI5 is the growing gap between the increasingly challenging threat and the growing availability of capabilities to address it.’ So intercept targets are deciding to vary their communication methods (or ‘change up’ as they say on The Wire – he doesn’t quote it, sadly). MI5 needs ‘the right tools, legal powers and assistance of companies which hold relevant data. Currently this picture is patchy.’ Translation: MI5 can do with more co-operation from tech giants and proper powers from Parliament to keep a wire on the bad guys.
4. UK plots are being hatched in Syria. Isis is ‘trying to direct terrorist attacks in the UK and elsewhere from Syria, using violent extremists here as their instruments…and seeking through propaganda to provoke individuals in the UK to carry out violent attacks here.’
5. ISIL has ‘directed or provoked’ 20 terror plots already — including four killed in Brussels, the Australian hostages, a Canadian soldier killed in a hit-and-run and another shot dead outside its parliament. No word, yet, on Paris.
6. A UK terror attack is now ‘highly likely’. ‘Although we and our partners try our utmost we know that we cannot hope to stop everything’. The rise in lone-wolf attacks is taking place in addition to the normal al-Qaeda complex attacks and Syria adds a whole new level to it. So the attack level is now set at ‘severe’. ‘’Severe’ is an evidence-based judgement meaning that an attack on the UK is highly likely.’ Overall, it is a ‘worsened and more complex picture’.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/six-key-points-from-mi5s-andrew-parker-speech-on-terrorism-in-britain/
Tripe and onions.