Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod
View Post
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Westminster / Manchester / London Bridge / Parsons Green attacks
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View PostFormer home secretary on isis and corbyn.
I haven’t taken Jeremy Corbyn’s advice on security matters for some decades now - former Home Secretary Charles Clarke tells Newsnight https://t.co/5OaEaX8WVU
Comment
-
Originally posted by James1979 View PostISIS themselves say that their hatred for us is more than just because of our foreign policy.
Let's face it though, the guys than run ISIS (who are mainly Western passport holders) are sadistic lunatics. What our governments have done is give them a cause.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tarbie View PostYeah, they point towards 20 or 30 verses in the Quran that talk about rising against non-believers etc. They also talk about having the whole world live under the black flag and Shar'ia law and other madness like that.
Let's face it though, the guys than run ISIS (who are mainly Western passport holders) are sadistic lunatics. What our governments have done is give them a cause.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hubble View Post......I hope that answers your question mate.
Originally posted by Hubble View PostWhy has the Islamic fundamentalist agenda and Sharia law been allowed to flourish here? Reason number 1 is part of it. I hate to say it, but governments and their overlords like it when populations are divided against each other. It suits their agenda. Another reason is that they have no interest in the ordinary people. They want huge immigration to ensure they keep the economy growing. Therefore they have to suppress anything that might upset this plan.
1) Uncontrolled immigration will lead to over-population, resulting in an unbearable strain on the country's infrastructure i.e. schools, GP's, hospitals, roads, public transport, housing etc. You can't expand onto green belt because of the environmental damage, and brown-belt space is very limited, given the size of country. There probably is more brown-belt land outside of the South-East but that would require £billions in new infrastructure investment, and even with that you still have the next two unresolved issues:
2) To compound the problem further, you then have the issue of so-called 'multi-culturalism' (a Blairite term brought about by his mass-immigration policy) which, whilst a wonderful idea on paper, has on the whole has proven to have been an abject failure, because in reality all it's resulted in is ghettoisation and crucially a lack of assimilation and integration into mainstream society and what we commonly refer to as British values. Heightened inter-community racial tensions always follow that. Bradford, Oldham, Leicester, Rotherham, Luton, Desbury, Longsight, Bethnal Green, Tower Hamlets etc - all examples of this. Again, all of which has v damaging effects on the economy.
3) The rise in home-grown terrorism, as we have seen ever since 2005. Again, creating further damage to the economy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by James1979 View PostThey use inaction too to justify their cause. Have a read of this book by a Islamist who was turned due to inaction in Bosnia. You can't win with these people. You got to kill this cancer not send them a letter.
To end this problem, first we need to stop making more widows, orphans and homeless in the Middle East. Every bomb that goes off spores hundreds of potential new recruits for ISIS.
And if you want to stop an organisation like ISIS, the answer isn't to fight them, it's to cut off their supply of money and arms. A good place to start would be for Trump and May to visit Riyadh and talk to the Saudis about stopping funding terrorism, rather than going over the sell them weapons (a huge percentage of which will end up in the wrong hands anyway). In fact, if they could stop selling weapons to anyone in the Middle East region that would be great.....not that they will, cos that would lose their economies billions of dollars!Last edited by Tarbie; 26-05-2017, 03:40 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by James1979 View PostISIS themselves say that their hatred for us is more than just because of our foreign policy.
To give you another example: in Westernised, relatively liberal Afghanistan, the USA sponsored, armed and trained the Mujahideen to overthrow the Russians. Another example of foreign policy reaping the whirlwind. The Mujahideen went on to form Al Qaeda - a database of operatives, as Foreign Secretary Robin Cook so aptly described them. The Russkies were kicked out, the Mujahideen went on to form the Taliban, and Afghanistan rapidly went back about 10 centuries.
Another example: The US backed dictator Saddam Hussein with huge sums of money and weapons in order to fight Iran. Because that's what the Saudi's wanted. Look how that turned out.
Another example: Iran had a secular, democratically elected government in the late 50s. They had women's rights, no hijab wearing and it was forward looking and modern. Except they decided to nationalise their own oil resources. The US and UK armed and funded a coup to overthrow that democratically elected government and installed the Shah as a puppet dictator instead, in order to keep the oil supplies for themselves. Look how that turned out.
In the 70s Assad senior was about to arrange a peace accord between all Arab nations. Kissinger flew in and turned one nation against the other to deliberately prevent this from happening.
Again and again across the Middle East, look at the root of the conflict. US foreign policy is nearly always at the bottom of it.
Know your history, understand the roots. Treating the symptoms does not address the deeper issues.
Comment
-
Good article on this by Simon Jenkins:
"Jeremy Corbyn is perfectly right to relate this week’s Manchester terrorist atrocity to British foreign policy in the Middle East. Whenever Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron struggled to explain why British blood and finance had to go on toppling regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, they were explicit: it was “to prevent terrorism in the streets of Britain”. The reason was given over and over again: to suppress militant Islam.
When that policy clearly leads to an increase in Islamist terrorism, we are entitled to agree with Corbyn that it has “simply failed”. Regimes were indeed toppled. Tens of thousands died, many of them civilians every bit as innocent as Manchester’s victims. Terrorism has not stopped."
"Where Corbyn spoils his pitch is in relating terrorism not just to foreign policy but to domestic austerity. He stoops to Theresa May’s level in seeking to make electoral capital from a tragedy. Were he not grandstanding himself, he could accuse her of peddling the politics of fear by flooding the streets of the capital with soldiers. He could plead with the Muslim community to do more to combat and expose terrorist “grooming”. But there is no evidence that the security services are impeded in their work by staff shortages. It is the one aspect of policing that has been showered with money."
Comment
-
Originally posted by James1979 View Post
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tarbie View PostThe problem is, there is a huge conveyor belt of more confused, impressionable, Muslim youth there to be radicalised and take the places of the guys you kill.
To end this problem, first we need to stop making more widows, orphans and homeless in the Middle East. Every bomb that goes off spores hundreds of potential new recruits for ISIS.
And if you want to stop an organisation like ISIS, the answer isn't to fight them, it's to cut off their supply of money and arms. A good place to start would be for Trump and May to visit Riyadh and talk to the Saudis about stopping funding terrorism, rather than going over the sell them weapons (a huge percentage of which will end up in the wrong hands anyway). In fact, if they could stop selling weapons to anyone in the Middle East region that would be great.....not that they will, cos that would lose their economies billions of dollars!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hubble View PostGood article on this by Simon Jenkins:
"Jeremy Corbyn is perfectly right to relate this week’s Manchester terrorist atrocity to British foreign policy in the Middle East. Whenever Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron struggled to explain why British blood and finance had to go on toppling regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, they were explicit: it was “to prevent terrorism in the streets of Britain”. The reason was given over and over again: to suppress militant Islam.
When that policy clearly leads to an increase in Islamist terrorism, we are entitled to agree with Corbyn that it has “simply failed”. Regimes were indeed toppled. Tens of thousands died, many of them civilians every bit as innocent as Manchester’s victims. Terrorism has not stopped."
"Where Corbyn spoils his pitch is in relating terrorism not just to foreign policy but to domestic austerity. He stoops to Theresa May’s level in seeking to make electoral capital from a tragedy. Were he not grandstanding himself, he could accuse her of peddling the politics of fear by flooding the streets of the capital with soldiers. He could plead with the Muslim community to do more to combat and expose terrorist “grooming”. But there is no evidence that the security services are impeded in their work by staff shortages. It is the one aspect of policing that has been showered with money."
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...foreign-policy
Comment
Comment