This new victim was apparently well versed in Islamic culture and loved the culture.
These extremists are tearing the soul out of Islam. They are tarring it with a very bloody and inaccurate brush.
Please just remember an Islamic extremist is seen by most Muslims as not Islamic at all.
So why aren't other Muslims forming a coalition to destroy them?
Where do you think the intelligence agencies get much of their information from?
Hasn't helped lately it seems.
I must've missed the bombs going off on every street corner in London and the rise of Shariah law being enforced by packs of armed thugs roaming the streets...
Jokes aside, I think our intelligence agencies do a great job. Unfortunately, due to the nature of their work, going under-appreciated is perhaps the most recognition they will ever get for a job well done.
I think the security forces have been working tirelessly to foil plots to attack the UK. You must have also forgotten 7/7 when multiple bombs did explode on our streets, or the barbaric killing of Lee Rigby on the streets of Woolwich.
People seem to be laughing off the risk. I remember growing up as a kid when the IRA was bombing London and multiple other bomb scares, never pleasant knowing your dad is working up town & if he is safe or not (no mobiles back then!).
I was working in town on 7/7, I started a new job a week later on Tavistock Square, the tubes eerily quiet still. I'd never want us to go back to those days like that, where there is a palpable risk daily of some extremist managing to pull off a terrorist act. Everyone from all communities needs to do more to challenge extremism and stop it manifesting itself as violently as we're seeing on our tv's daily.
Of course, although the thrust of what I was trying to say was as usual why ISIS over other terror fuelled organisations around the world? Why is it we only seem to want to get involved with those threatening oil rich or strategically positoned states? Why do we sell billions of arms to the Saudi's and Qatar etc while they perform such barbaric acts on a frequent basis as part of their own every day culture and fund ISIS and terrorist cells across the region? We can't pick and choose what is barbaric. The whole stance of the governments in the West is hypocrisy itself and fuelled by capitalist interests.
ISIS pose almost zero threat to us in the UK or US. The disenfranchised youth who are heading out there are disillusioned with the actions of the West over the years and their current living circumstances, so much so that they have then searched for a purpose in life, which unfortunately for some has resulted in them wanting to travel overseas and fight for something they can believe in (however f'd up that is!!) They're not religious fanatics who are going there because of some holy awakening. Our governments and foreign policies are behind their disenfranchisement and extremist views as much as anything. Our governments are as big a threat to us as the terrorists in their misjudged and endlessly changing foreign policies.
The bigger issue is surely more nuanced than whether they have beheaded another journalist - it's an ongoing series of atrocities one after the other and I feel no more or less angry and disgusted by what they're doing after seeing this news. I was taking issue with your inference that now they've beheaded another US citizen that's the straw that's broken the camel's back and now we need to get rid of them through any means possible. Whether that's right or not surely one more beheading doesn't make the rest of the rational argument and debate of how to deal with them irrelevant?
But yes, they need to be dealt with I completely agree. However I don't believe that we should be getting involved with "wiping them off the face of the earth". Every time we get involved in the middle east we make things worse. Offering logistical support to a unified coalition of governments in the region would be a good move, but not selling arms, bombing or sending troops (Obama is already putting boots on the ground "to protect US interests"... a trojan horse if ever I saw one). Genuine humanitarian aid though, absolutely we should help if we can.
ISIS are despicable and need to be removed from existence I agree, just to be clear. I don't buy into the idea that the West should pile in again gung-ho and get involved yet again in something else that will come back and bite us. And let's be honest, in a couple of years we'll be treating ISIS as allies against the next bad guy over there.
far too much sense & broad-mindedness for wednesday lunchtime
This new victim was apparently well versed in Islamic culture and loved the culture.
These extremists are tearing the soul out of Islam. They are tarring it with a very bloody and inaccurate brush.
Please just remember an Islamic extremist is seen by most Muslims as not Islamic at all.
So why aren't other Muslims forming a coalition to destroy them?
Or openly condemning them and organising protests such as the ones they did in the city, when some newspaper drew a couple of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed???
If they feel completely disassociated from what ISIS are doing, why would they protest? Are people seriously trying to insinuate that other Muslims in the UK are comfortable with the goings on in Iraq and Syria? Looking at the media every day does create that image because all we see is the brutality and horror but I can't be having that notion at all. I don't pretend to know the Koran but, as with all religions, interpretation varies from one following to another and a minority of Muslims have decided to follow the extremist path. When Muslim groups do voice their disgust (as is often the case), it is normally mentioned in the last couple of lines of a report and not highlighted.
"SOME of Britain’s most influential imams have condemned British Muslims fighting alongside Isis extremists in Iraq and Syria.
They have issued a fatwa, or religious decree, describing them as “heretics”.
The fatwa ”religiously prohibits” would-be British jihadists from joining “oppressive and tyrannical” Isis, also known as Islamic State. The imams order all Muslims to oppose Isis’s “poisonous ideology” , especially when it is promoted within Britain.
The fatwa, the first of its kind issued by British Muslim scholars, follows the elevation of Britain’s terror threat from substantial to severe, meaning an attack is “highly likely”.
Senior officials revealed last night that the prime minister would announce plans tomorrow for laws to prevent British jihadists fighting in Iraq and Syria from re-entering Britain. Passports of UK citizens suspected of terrorist activity will be cancelled."
Of course, although the thrust of what I was trying to say was as usual why ISIS over other terror fuelled organisations around the world? Why is it we only seem to want to get involved with those threatening oil rich or strategically positoned states? Why do we sell billions of arms to the Saudi's and Qatar etc while they perform such barbaric acts on a frequent basis as part of their own every day culture and fund ISIS and terrorist cells across the region? We can't pick and choose what is barbaric. The whole stance of the governments in the West is hypocrisy itself and fuelled by capitalist interests.
ISIS pose almost zero threat to us in the UK or US. The disenfranchised youth who are heading out there are disillusioned with the actions of the West over the years and their current living circumstances, so much so that they have then searched for a purpose in life, which unfortunately for some has resulted in them wanting to travel overseas and fight for something they can believe in (however f'd up that is!!) They're not religious fanatics who are going there because of some holy awakening. Our governments and foreign policies are behind their disenfranchisement and extremist views as much as anything. Our governments are as big a threat to us as the terrorists in their misjudged and endlessly changing foreign policies.
The bigger issue is surely more nuanced than whether they have beheaded another journalist - it's an ongoing series of atrocities one after the other and I feel no more or less angry and disgusted by what they're doing after seeing this news. I was taking issue with your inference that now they've beheaded another US citizen that's the straw that's broken the camel's back and now we need to get rid of them through any means possible. Whether that's right or not surely one more beheading doesn't make the rest of the rational argument and debate of how to deal with them irrelevant?
But yes, they need to be dealt with I completely agree. However I don't believe that we should be getting involved with "wiping them off the face of the earth". Every time we get involved in the middle east we make things worse. Offering logistical support to a unified coalition of governments in the region would be a good move, but not selling arms, bombing or sending troops (Obama is already putting boots on the ground "to protect US interests"... a trojan horse if ever I saw one). Genuine humanitarian aid though, absolutely we should help if we can.
ISIS are despicable and need to be removed from existence I agree, just to be clear. I don't buy into the idea that the West should pile in again gung-ho and get involved yet again in something else that will come back and bite us. And let's be honest, in a couple of years we'll be treating ISIS as allies against the next bad guy over there.
Hang on, unless I've missed something ISIS have actively threatened the UK and the US, have beheaded two US citizens ON FILM and threatened to do the same to a UK citizen. Not only that, but there are hundreds of people who have been brainwashed by ISIS into hating the West who are now back in this country and have the ability to carry out barbaric attacks.
Now don't get me wrong, some of the stuff the Saudi Arabians have done is similarly shocking, but correct me if im wrong they havnt actively threatened us have they in barbaric films?
The government themselves have said there is no specific identified threat.
I would suggest that military involvement right now would, in the long term, increase the security threats to this country as opposed to trying to assist localised force against them in a more diplomatic and behind-the-scenes capacity.
This new victim was apparently well versed in Islamic culture and loved the culture.
These extremists are tearing the soul out of Islam. They are tarring it with a very bloody and inaccurate brush.
Please just remember an Islamic extremist is seen by most Muslims as not Islamic at all.
So why aren't other Muslims forming a coalition to destroy them?
Would you collect up a group of your friends and family to 'destroy' terrorists who say they share the same religion as you but it is clearly not the truth of what you were taught to believe?
It's simple these are wolves in sheep's clothing that are killing people then broadcasting it to the world.
Don't insult the non extremists by calling them the 'other' Muslims.
They are the true Muslims and the extremists are killers using an incorrect interpretation of Islam to mask their faces and their actions.
If you take the extremist view on the bible you can be equally cruel.
I have plenty of Muslim friends and they are becoming more and more afraid to admit their religion.
They have been targeted with racism more and more since their teens, not in their opinion because of their skin colour but their religion...
Facinatiing thread. My question here is what does ISIL really want. What are their true intentions. Is it to form an Islamic state on the current territory of Iraq and Syria or somewhere in between and if so what then. Is that where it ends or is that a consolidation period before marching on to other sovereign countries with a view of uniting all Muslim States under one fundamentalist banner ?
Pakistan is the real worry for me. Could the people in that country be turned and persuaded to overthrow the current fragile democracy ? Pakistan is a nuclear power and should ISIL ever reach the point where Pakistan were to be in danger then I fear we would be staring at World War III.
Big decisions need to be made and fairly quickly. Whatever is decided will for some be unacceptable but regardless a united strategy needs to be set out.
I suspect we need military intervention soon or run the risk of serious military action being required some years down the line.
Of course, although the thrust of what I was trying to say was as usual why ISIS over other terror fuelled organisations around the world? Why is it we only seem to want to get involved with those threatening oil rich or strategically positoned states? Why do we sell billions of arms to the Saudi's and Qatar etc while they perform such barbaric acts on a frequent basis as part of their own every day culture and fund ISIS and terrorist cells across the region? We can't pick and choose what is barbaric. The whole stance of the governments in the West is hypocrisy itself and fuelled by capitalist interests.
ISIS pose almost zero threat to us in the UK or US. The disenfranchised youth who are heading out there are disillusioned with the actions of the West over the years and their current living circumstances, so much so that they have then searched for a purpose in life, which unfortunately for some has resulted in them wanting to travel overseas and fight for something they can believe in (however f'd up that is!!) They're not religious fanatics who are going there because of some holy awakening. Our governments and foreign policies are behind their disenfranchisement and extremist views as much as anything. Our governments are as big a threat to us as the terrorists in their misjudged and endlessly changing foreign policies.
The bigger issue is surely more nuanced than whether they have beheaded another journalist - it's an ongoing series of atrocities one after the other and I feel no more or less angry and disgusted by what they're doing after seeing this news. I was taking issue with your inference that now they've beheaded another US citizen that's the straw that's broken the camel's back and now we need to get rid of them through any means possible. Whether that's right or not surely one more beheading doesn't make the rest of the rational argument and debate of how to deal with them irrelevant?
But yes, they need to be dealt with I completely agree. However I don't believe that we should be getting involved with "wiping them off the face of the earth". Every time we get involved in the middle east we make things worse. Offering logistical support to a unified coalition of governments in the region would be a good move, but not selling arms, bombing or sending troops (Obama is already putting boots on the ground "to protect US interests"... a trojan horse if ever I saw one). Genuine humanitarian aid though, absolutely we should help if we can.
ISIS are despicable and need to be removed from existence I agree, just to be clear. I don't buy into the idea that the West should pile in again gung-ho and get involved yet again in something else that will come back and bite us. And let's be honest, in a couple of years we'll be treating ISIS as allies against the next bad guy over there.
Hang on, unless I've missed something ISIS have actively threatened the UK and the US, have beheaded two US citizens ON FILM and threatened to do the same to a UK citizen. Not only that, but there are hundreds of people who have been brainwashed by ISIS into hating the West who are now back in this country and have the ability to carry out barbaric attacks.
Now don't get me wrong, some of the stuff the Saudi Arabians have done is similarly shocking, but correct me if im wrong they havnt actively threatened us have they in barbaric films?
The government themselves have said there is no specific identified threat.
I would suggest that military involvement right now would, in the long term, increase the security threats to this country as opposed to trying to assist localised force against them in a more diplomatic and behind-the-scenes capacity.
The thesis in summary is that this is not entirely a 'Muslim' issue and that accommodation with Russia is key to a lasting solution from the Syrian perspective anyway.
Facinatiing thread. My question here is what does ISIL really want. What are their true intentions. Is it to form an Islamic state on the current territory of Iraq and Syria or somewhere in between and if so what then. Is that where it ends or is that a consolidation period before marching on to other sovereign countries with a view of uniting all Muslim States under one fundamentalist banner ?
Pakistan is the real worry for me. Could the people in that country be turned and persuaded to overthrow the current fragile democracy ? Pakistan is a nuclear power and should ISIL ever reach the point where Pakistan were to be in danger then I fear we would be staring at World War III.
Big decisions need to be made and fairly quickly. Whatever is decided will for some be unacceptable but regardless a united strategy needs to be set out.
I suspect we need military intervention soon or run the risk of serious military action being required some years down the line.
It's going to be a rough ride.
There was a very interesting article in the Sunday Times by Henry Kissenger about the concept of Westphalian sovereignty established in Europe and then spread across the world being challenged by ISIL.
While we are familiar with the concept of nation states who have control over their own affairs ISIL reject that and seek one rule (the caliphate) based on Islam and only Islam. Other distinctions such as race, national boundaries etc would no longer matter.
It is Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who have the most to fear from ISIL as while they are muslim they are very much states in the Westphalian sense. So is the Syria of Assad.
My take on it was that the US and its allies will have to back or at least not oppose the likes of Assad in Syria, the current regimes in Saudi and Pakistan, unpalatable though that is to try and suppress ISIL. They will do this because they will want to keep the status quo of Westphalian states as do the Pakistanis, Saudis and Assad.
There maybe some good guys such as the Kurds in the Iraqi region of Kurdistan but there is the risk that other Kurds in Syria, Turkey and Iran will then wish to join them in setting up a new Kurdish state and so upsetting a Nato country in Turkey and well as Iran.
If only there was a simple answer but there really isn't.
Any action will have consequences some predictable and others not.
This new victim was apparently well versed in Islamic culture and loved the culture.
These extremists are tearing the soul out of Islam. They are tarring it with a very bloody and inaccurate brush.
Please just remember an Islamic extremist is seen by most Muslims as not Islamic at all.
So why aren't other Muslims forming a coalition to destroy them?
Where do you think the intelligence agencies get much of their information from?
Hasn't helped lately it seems.
I must've missed the bombs going off on every street corner in London and the rise of Shariah law being enforced by packs of armed thugs roaming the streets...
Jokes aside, I think our intelligence agencies do a great job. Unfortunately, due to the nature of their work, going under-appreciated is perhaps the most recognition they will ever get for a job well done.
I think the security forces have been working tirelessly to foil plots to attack the UK. You must have also forgotten 7/7 when multiple bombs did explode on our streets, or the barbaric killing of Lee Rigby on the streets of Woolwich.
People seem to be laughing off the risk. I remember growing up as a kid when the IRA was bombing London and multiple other bomb scares, never pleasant knowing your dad is working up town & if he is safe or not (no mobiles back then!).
I was working in town on 7/7, I started a new job a week later on Tavistock Square, the tubes eerily quiet still. I'd never want us to go back to those days like that, where there is a palpable risk daily of some extremist managing to pull off a terrorist act. Everyone from all communities needs to do more to challenge extremism and stop it manifesting itself as violently as we're seeing on our tv's daily.
Or just ban religion.
I think we're agreeing!
My sarcasm was directed at the sentiment that the security services weren't doing a great job; they are. The mere fact we can only point to 7/7 and the horrific murder of Lee Rigby is, strangely, a possible testament as to how very little makes it's way on to our streets.
My point being is that it's wrong to dig out those working to stop acts of terror - because simply put, if they're quite and not often in the news then that's surely an incredibly good sign. After all, we only really learn about what they're doing when something has slipped through net.
Facinatiing thread. My question here is what does ISIL really want. What are their true intentions. Is it to form an Islamic state on the current territory of Iraq and Syria or somewhere in between and if so what then. Is that where it ends or is that a consolidation period before marching on to other sovereign countries with a view of uniting all Muslim States under one fundamentalist banner ?
Pakistan is the real worry for me. Could the people in that country be turned and persuaded to overthrow the current fragile democracy ? Pakistan is a nuclear power and should ISIL ever reach the point where Pakistan were to be in danger then I fear we would be staring at World War III.
Big decisions need to be made and fairly quickly. Whatever is decided will for some be unacceptable but regardless a united strategy needs to be set out.
I suspect we need military intervention soon or run the risk of serious military action being required some years down the line.
It's going to be a rough ride.
Unfortunately their plans involve more than they have so far; this is supposedly their 5 year plan:
Whilst they now refer to themselves as Islamic State, as they're already referring to themselves as an independent caliphate, this doesn't mean they're not going to fight for more land and try and expand.
They wish to be the rulers of the Islamic world, to my mind, that suggests more than a state.
You've got to admire their optimism! The map, in fact, is apparently inaccurate as per Islamic History; with incorrect names and incorrect geography.
I find them quite intriguing to be honest, but their flag (which looks like a 4 year old child drew it during playtime) combined with that map does give them quite a comedic angle.
I also find it quite amusing that they will undoubtedly have a brutal "traditional" stance on women , yet the abbreviation they initially clung too (Isis) was a female goddess to the Ancient Egyptians. (Who, if you want to take it even further, gave birth to Horus - who I think was the protector of Egypt.. just one of the countries on their list to invade.)
This new victim was apparently well versed in Islamic culture and loved the culture.
These extremists are tearing the soul out of Islam. They are tarring it with a very bloody and inaccurate brush.
Please just remember an Islamic extremist is seen by most Muslims as not Islamic at all.
So why aren't other Muslims forming a coalition to destroy them?
Where do you think the intelligence agencies get much of their information from?
Hasn't helped lately it seems.
I must've missed the bombs going off on every street corner in London and the rise of Shariah law being enforced by packs of armed thugs roaming the streets...
Jokes aside, I think our intelligence agencies do a great job. Unfortunately, due to the nature of their work, going under-appreciated is perhaps the most recognition they will ever get for a job well done.
I think the security forces have been working tirelessly to foil plots to attack the UK. You must have also forgotten 7/7 when multiple bombs did explode on our streets, or the barbaric killing of Lee Rigby on the streets of Woolwich.
People seem to be laughing off the risk. I remember growing up as a kid when the IRA was bombing London and multiple other bomb scares, never pleasant knowing your dad is working up town & if he is safe or not (no mobiles back then!).
I was working in town on 7/7, I started a new job a week later on Tavistock Square, the tubes eerily quiet still. I'd never want us to go back to those days like that, where there is a palpable risk daily of some extremist managing to pull off a terrorist act. Everyone from all communities needs to do more to challenge extremism and stop it manifesting itself as violently as we're seeing on our tv's daily.
Or just ban religion.
You are absoluteley right that back then there were no mobile's there was also no internet or 24 hour news services. So people went to work as normal and showed the cowardly bastards planting the bombs that they could not and would not win or break the spirit of the people under threat. I lived through it and was on the train behind the one involved in the London Bridge Bomb. The fact that no one stopped going to work and carried on as normal is one of pride to me and you should be proud of your Dad that he felt the same way.
What is more disconcerting is the fact that it could so easily happen again (the only remaining piece of safety procedure since London Bridge is the fact that you cannot find a rubbish bin at any London Station in case a fag packet full of semtex is dropped in it) and the fact that it actually does not need to happen again as just the threat, made in the right way and through the various social media outlets, could conceiveably shut down the City. I still believe however that most Britons faced with such a threat will continue to say "F**ck 'em, they won't stop me me doing my job," just as they did throughoiut the Seventies and Eighties when the Irish threat was at it's height.
You've got to admire their optimism! The map, in fact, is apparently inaccurate as per Islamic History; with incorrect names and incorrect geography.
I find them quite intriguing to be honest, but their flag (which looks like a 4 year old child drew it during playtime) combined with that map does give them quite a comedic angle.
I also find it quite amusing that they will undoubtedly have a brutal "traditional" stance on women , yet the abbreviation they initially clung too (Isis) was a female goddess to the Ancient Egyptians. (Who, if you want to take it even further, gave birth to Horus - who I think was the protector of Egypt.. just one of the countries on their list to invade.)
Not sure "intriguing", "comedic" or "amusing" are the best words for this evil organisation which is engaged is brutal genocide by the most barbarous and cruel means imaginable.
This new victim was apparently well versed in Islamic culture and loved the culture.
These extremists are tearing the soul out of Islam. They are tarring it with a very bloody and inaccurate brush.
Please just remember an Islamic extremist is seen by most Muslims as not Islamic at all.
So why aren't other Muslims forming a coalition to destroy them?
Would you collect up a group of your friends and family to 'destroy' terrorists who say they share the same religion as you but it is clearly not the truth of what you were taught to believe?
It's simple these are wolves in sheep's clothing that are killing people then broadcasting it to the world.
Don't insult the non extremists by calling them the 'other' Muslims.
They are the true Muslims and the extremists are killers using an incorrect interpretation of Islam to mask their faces and their actions.
If you take the extremist view on the bible you can be equally cruel.
I have plenty of Muslim friends and they are becoming more and more afraid to admit their religion.
They have been targeted with racism more and more since their teens, not in their opinion because of their skin colour but their religion...
You've got to admire their optimism! The map, in fact, is apparently inaccurate as per Islamic History; with incorrect names and incorrect geography.
I find them quite intriguing to be honest, but their flag (which looks like a 4 year old child drew it during playtime) combined with that map does give them quite a comedic angle.
I also find it quite amusing that they will undoubtedly have a brutal "traditional" stance on women , yet the abbreviation they initially clung too (Isis) was a female goddess to the Ancient Egyptians. (Who, if you want to take it even further, gave birth to Horus - who I think was the protector of Egypt.. just one of the countries on their list to invade.)
Not sure "intriguing", "comedic" or "amusing" are the best words for this evil organisation which is engaged is brutal genocide by the most barbarous and cruel means imaginable.
I appreciate the sentiments, and to clarify, nowhere have I claimed their behaviour is anything other than sicking and worrying.
Perhaps you're right about "comedic" and "amusing", and they weren't the best of words, however I feel you're a bit out of line regarding the use of 'intriguing'.
intriguing( ˈɪntriːgɪŋ,ɪnˈtriːgɪŋ/) adjective
arousing one's curiosity or interest; fascinating.
It isn't wrong to be curious; in fact, in my mind, it's healthy. This point is going to lead me on to a rant about other things; but allow me..
People are seeking out beheading videos and lapping up every single word of the atrocities, all the time media outlets are using whatever gory soundbites they can get just to get some cheap traffic online or to sell papers. (For example; From the NewsShopper reporting about the woman in Lewisham to the Daily Mail with their multiple articles per day, all the time providing links to multiple versions of the videos)
Ask your average chap on the street what's going on about ISIS/IS, do you even think they'll be able to tell you which countries are involved? How the problem developed? What the risks are? No, they wont. I'm pretty sure they'll be able to let you know about the risk of young lads from the UK travelling out there - and "that American journalist" who was murdered.
That's not aimed at you, but it's aimed at a large chunk of our society today - all you have to do is read the comments section of most newspapers to see how worrying peoples ignorance is. This drives social issues like the moronic EDL/Britain First groups, knee-jerk reactions and increases the risk of Islamophobia; all the while making certain 'at risk groups' more likely to be susceptible to radicalisation.
I don't need to seek out videos and photos of the atrocities, nor do I want to seek them out. I do, however, want to understand exactly what's going on in the world and how it's happened.
So actually, I pride myself on being interested, and I feel it's far more healthy than that of generic outrage at a problem you don't understand.
Basically they want to shove through some laws that grants them more power to do wtf they want and they're doing it the tried and tested way by creating by a good ol climate of fear so they can swoop in and protect us. And win some votes while they at it.
This new victim was apparently well versed in Islamic culture and loved the culture.
These extremists are tearing the soul out of Islam. They are tarring it with a very bloody and inaccurate brush.
Please just remember an Islamic extremist is seen by most Muslims as not Islamic at all.
So why aren't other Muslims forming a coalition to destroy them?
Where do you think the intelligence agencies get much of their information from?
Hasn't helped lately it seems.
I must've missed the bombs going off on every street corner in London and the rise of Shariah law being enforced by packs of armed thugs roaming the streets...
Jokes aside, I think our intelligence agencies do a great job. Unfortunately, due to the nature of their work, going under-appreciated is perhaps the most recognition they will ever get for a job well done.
I think the security forces have been working tirelessly to foil plots to attack the UK. You must have also forgotten 7/7 when multiple bombs did explode on our streets, or the barbaric killing of Lee Rigby on the streets of Woolwich.
People seem to be laughing off the risk. I remember growing up as a kid when the IRA was bombing London and multiple other bomb scares, never pleasant knowing your dad is working up town & if he is safe or not (no mobiles back then!).
I was working in town on 7/7, I started a new job a week later on Tavistock Square, the tubes eerily quiet still. I'd never want us to go back to those days like that, where there is a palpable risk daily of some extremist managing to pull off a terrorist act. Everyone from all communities needs to do more to challenge extremism and stop it manifesting itself as violently as we're seeing on our tv's daily.
Or just ban religion.
Well said, SLL.
But beware of mentioning the "r" word in the same breath as war/atrocities etc.....although you won't find me disagreeing with you
For the record, I'm neither confused nor American. I have no problem distinguishing "true Muslims" as suggested, from "extremist Muslims" if that's more PC. When I posted on this thread this morning I was sickened by the barbarous act, and surprised that the thread had "gone dead" for so long, I'm glad it has stimulated lively and (mostly) respectful debate. For any who might be interested, I grew up in Forest Hill, then Ashford (Kent), and retain my UK citizenship after 42 years living in the US.
Those of you who oppose military intervention*, may I ask what your opinions were of military intervention (via the UN, as well as later NATO during the conflict in Kosovo) during the breakup of Yugoslavia?
I only ask as there was a heavy religious component, and it involved the systematic murder of minority groups on a large scale.. but possibly smaller than the scale currently seen in the Middle East. Similarly, there were external forces (Greek and Russian flags flying with Serbian forces, and the Bosnian Mujahideen who included Abu Hamza as well as a large contingent of North African fighters.) who were going out to fight, even though they were foreign and had no real ties to the *region*.
Would the Balkans not be the ideal example of what can happen when the world rallies together and says "enough is enough"? Or is it perhaps a case of "Well, that means fighting against the worst of a bad bunch - and calling that bad bunch allies."? Perhaps that it's not in Europe?
There are countless statements available via the UN in the 1990s, claiming that lessons needed to be learnt from the failings of intervention in the Yoguslav Wars; that adequate equipment and rules of engagement must be provided in any future events and that the UN had a moral obligation to stop such events ever occurring again.
Yet here we are, 20 years on, and hearing that surrendering soldiers are being marched off in to the desert to be executed whilst there are crucifixions, stonings and beheadings being carried out in the streets against those who are deemed to have acted in a way not in keeping with Islam. Anyone who doesn't prescribe to IS' particular flavour of Islam (thus, many Muslims as well as the obvious Christians etc.) is simply not human to them, and thus also gets dealt with very quickly.
The way I see it is that at the moment the world is in a very fragile place. NATO are posturing against Russia, Russia are amassing troops for what essentially appears to be an invasion of Ukranian territory, meanwhile there's a complete and utter disaster unfolding in the Middle East as ISIS/IL/IS decide to brutally murder anyone that doesn't conform to their idea of a model Muslim whilst threatening just about anyone they see, including the primary NATO members and Russia. Oh, and there's potentially a few thousand fighters out in the Middle East who will be returning to Western Europe soon.
Today IS threatened Putin regarding Chechnya, within hours of NATO saying they intended to have a 4,000 man force based in Eastern Europe to counter any Russian threat to those countries.
*My own thoughts aren't very clear regarding military intervention; I think we'll make a mess 10x greater for ourselves and provide ammunition for every fanatic in the world to come and try and give us (and maybe succeed in giving us) a bloody nose, whilst if we continue doing nothing we have to sit back and watch horrific scenes unfold as we're literally powerless - and also have to think about the return of fighters who hail from the UK.
One thing is clear, there is one huge common enemy - IS. Who else gets universal condemnation from Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Syrian Opposition, Iraq, US, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Al-Qaeda, Turkey, Indonesia, China... So what's going wrong? Surely the Arab League should be the first to make a pact - let's deal with the mess on our doorstep, and prevent this from spreading any further. Overseen by a UNSC resolution (thus legal.) and with western assistance (intelligence, imagery etc).. Perhaps we could prevent this disaster going any further. Those who are coming back from fighting out there (if many make it.) are then tried as the War Criminals they are.
Financially Russia gets some arms sales when those nations inevitably need more ammunition and equipment after any conflict. Politically the Arab nations get some assistance and intelligence about IS. The West continues it's "humanitarian" operations by dropping down supplies to those refugees who are currently at risk. All parties cross IS off as a potential threat.
The only problems would be coordinating the Arab nations to work together, with the potential for it to become a free for all and spark off something much worse. (To liken it to the Balkans, when Croatia ended up attacking Bosnia despite being allies.) Undeniably, it would take trust and a mutual respect of each other. Furthermore, we'd end up with arguably more splinter groups - and "Better the enemy you know", at least we know IS.
It shouldn't be our responsibility, but someone needs to step up and stop the bloodshed going on any longer.
I can't help but think that it's a matter of time until there's a form of terror attack in England/USA from Isis representatives.
I also can't help but think that it's a matter of time until they get their hands on some form of Nuke.
I feel sorry for the peaceful Muslims as there are a few people around who are scared and have their back up about them, as there seems to be so many Muslims being brainwashed into extremists. The peaceful Muslims have to deal with some people being wary around them and that can't be a nice way to live but at the same time, can you blame some people for being wary?
I watched a video the other day about a group of Islamists trying to enforce sharia law in walthamstowe. They openly admitted that they will do anything to get the law in use round there, including violence. The video showed the going up to a young girl and intimidating her as she didn't follow sharia law.
But as I say, it's the peaceful Muslims that will suffer, because people are scared. Mix that in with some anger and ignorance and the whole of the Muslim community are being tarred with the same brush.
Muslims are scared as well, this is nothing to do with Islam as a religion. I have just listened to David Cameron on Radio 4. I find myself agreeing with what he said. He does seem to have recognised past errors and understands that you can't bomb an idea out of existence. He also knows that bombing involves killing innocents and that the only people that benefit are the barbarian extremists. Arming the Kurds seems dangerous although I have no alternatives to offer. But I still think this is being unnecessarily talked up for political reasons. We have to be vigilant but what exactly does that mean?
Isn't it time Kuwait and Saudi Arabia returned the favour and started using some of the billions of dollars worth of arms sold to them. The armies of Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan etc should be able to contain the threat of IS but I fear their hearts are not in it.
I am probably gonna be shot down in flames/flagged here but I really am of the opinion it is up to Syria and Iraq to sort this out.
Syria have been waging war on their own people for some time now - perhaps they should reflect on the IS problem instead.
The journalists knew the risks - that is 90% of the reason they were out there - beats reporting on missing cats for their local paper.
Any jihadists coming back to this country - intern them, no publicity and no acknowledgement of them or that they have even come back to the UK.
Al Qaeda had years to attack us and managed one deadly attack on the tube/busses. The raising of the alert level is political in my opinion rather than based on any new facts or evidence.
The raising of the alert level is political in my opinion rather than based on any new facts or evidence.
If, by political, you mean "of or relating to the government or public affairs of a country", then of course, almost everything can be described as such. If you mean a decision taken for party political purposes, then you are wrong. As already discussed on this thread the threat level changes are made by a group operating under the auspices of MI5 based on the intelligence available to them and as an informed decision. The politicians merely announce what the security specialists tell them to. However, how that announcement is made is indeed open to manipulation by the politicians.
Comments
People seem to be laughing off the risk. I remember growing up as a kid when the IRA was bombing London and multiple other bomb scares, never pleasant knowing your dad is working up town & if he is safe or not (no mobiles back then!).
I was working in town on 7/7, I started a new job a week later on Tavistock Square, the tubes eerily quiet still. I'd never want us to go back to those days like that, where there is a palpable risk daily of some extremist managing to pull off a terrorist act. Everyone from all communities needs to do more to challenge extremism and stop it manifesting itself as violently as we're seeing on our tv's daily.
Or just ban religion.
Are people seriously trying to insinuate that other Muslims in the UK are comfortable with the goings on in Iraq and Syria? Looking at the media every day does create that image because all we see is the brutality and horror but I can't be having that notion at all. I don't pretend to know the Koran but, as with all religions, interpretation varies from one following to another and a minority of Muslims have decided to follow the extremist path. When Muslim groups do voice their disgust (as is often the case), it is normally mentioned in the last couple of lines of a report and not highlighted.
They have issued a fatwa, or religious decree, describing them as “heretics”.
The fatwa ”religiously prohibits” would-be British jihadists from joining “oppressive and tyrannical” Isis, also known as Islamic State. The imams order all Muslims to oppose Isis’s “poisonous ideology” , especially when it is promoted within Britain.
The fatwa, the first of its kind issued by British Muslim scholars, follows the elevation of Britain’s terror threat from substantial to severe, meaning an attack is “highly likely”.
Senior officials revealed last night that the prime minister would announce plans tomorrow for laws to prevent British jihadists fighting in Iraq and Syria from re-entering Britain. Passports of UK citizens suspected of terrorist activity will be cancelled."
I would suggest that military involvement right now would, in the long term, increase the security threats to this country as opposed to trying to assist localised force against them in a more diplomatic and behind-the-scenes capacity.
It's simple these are wolves in sheep's clothing that are killing people then broadcasting it to the world.
Don't insult the non extremists by calling them the 'other' Muslims.
They are the true Muslims and the extremists are killers using an incorrect interpretation of Islam to mask their faces and their actions.
If you take the extremist view on the bible you can be equally cruel.
I have plenty of Muslim friends and they are becoming more and more afraid to admit their religion.
They have been targeted with racism more and more since their teens, not in their opinion because of their skin colour but their religion...
Why should they feel that way?
Pakistan is the real worry for me. Could the people in that country be turned and persuaded to overthrow the current fragile democracy ? Pakistan is a nuclear power and should ISIL ever reach the point where Pakistan were to be in danger then I fear we would be staring at World War III.
Big decisions need to be made and fairly quickly. Whatever is decided will for some be unacceptable but regardless a united strategy needs to be set out.
I suspect we need military intervention soon or run the risk of serious military action being required some years down the line.
It's going to be a rough ride.
and
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85158
The thesis in summary is that this is not entirely a 'Muslim' issue and that accommodation with Russia is key to a lasting solution from the Syrian perspective anyway.
While we are familiar with the concept of nation states who have control over their own affairs ISIL reject that and seek one rule (the caliphate) based on Islam and only Islam. Other distinctions such as race, national boundaries etc would no longer matter.
It is Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who have the most to fear from ISIL as while they are muslim they are very much states in the Westphalian sense. So is the Syria of Assad.
My take on it was that the US and its allies will have to back or at least not oppose the likes of Assad in Syria, the current regimes in Saudi and Pakistan, unpalatable though that is to try and suppress ISIL. They will do this because they will want to keep the status quo of Westphalian states as do the Pakistanis, Saudis and Assad.
There maybe some good guys such as the Kurds in the Iraqi region of Kurdistan but there is the risk that other Kurds in Syria, Turkey and Iran will then wish to join them in setting up a new Kurdish state and so upsetting a Nato country in Turkey and well as Iran.
If only there was a simple answer but there really isn't.
Any action will have consequences some predictable and others not.
My sarcasm was directed at the sentiment that the security services weren't doing a great job; they are. The mere fact we can only point to 7/7 and the horrific murder of Lee Rigby is, strangely, a possible testament as to how very little makes it's way on to our streets.
My point being is that it's wrong to dig out those working to stop acts of terror - because simply put, if they're quite and not often in the news then that's surely an incredibly good sign. After all, we only really learn about what they're doing when something has slipped through net.
Whilst they now refer to themselves as Islamic State, as they're already referring to themselves as an independent caliphate, this doesn't mean they're not going to fight for more land and try and expand.
They wish to be the rulers of the Islamic world, to my mind, that suggests more than a state.
I find them quite intriguing to be honest, but their flag (which looks like a 4 year old child drew it during playtime) combined with that map does give them quite a comedic angle.
I also find it quite amusing that they will undoubtedly have a brutal "traditional" stance on women , yet the abbreviation they initially clung too (Isis) was a female goddess to the Ancient Egyptians. (Who, if you want to take it even further, gave birth to Horus - who I think was the protector of Egypt.. just one of the countries on their list to invade.)
What is more disconcerting is the fact that it could so easily happen again (the only remaining piece of safety procedure since London Bridge is the fact that you cannot find a rubbish bin at any London Station in case a fag packet full of semtex is dropped in it) and the fact that it actually does not need to happen again as just the threat, made in the right way and through the various social media outlets, could conceiveably shut down the City. I still believe however that most Britons faced with such a threat will continue to say "F**ck 'em, they won't stop me me doing my job," just as they did throughoiut the Seventies and Eighties when the Irish threat was at it's height.
Perhaps you're right about "comedic" and "amusing", and they weren't the best of words, however I feel you're a bit out of line regarding the use of 'intriguing'. It isn't wrong to be curious; in fact, in my mind, it's healthy. This point is going to lead me on to a rant about other things; but allow me..
People are seeking out beheading videos and lapping up every single word of the atrocities, all the time media outlets are using whatever gory soundbites they can get just to get some cheap traffic online or to sell papers. (For example; From the NewsShopper reporting about the woman in Lewisham to the Daily Mail with their multiple articles per day, all the time providing links to multiple versions of the videos)
Ask your average chap on the street what's going on about ISIS/IS, do you even think they'll be able to tell you which countries are involved? How the problem developed? What the risks are? No, they wont. I'm pretty sure they'll be able to let you know about the risk of young lads from the UK travelling out there - and "that American journalist" who was murdered.
That's not aimed at you, but it's aimed at a large chunk of our society today - all you have to do is read the comments section of most newspapers to see how worrying peoples ignorance is. This drives social issues like the moronic EDL/Britain First groups, knee-jerk reactions and increases the risk of Islamophobia; all the while making certain 'at risk groups' more likely to be susceptible to radicalisation.
I don't need to seek out videos and photos of the atrocities, nor do I want to seek them out. I do, however, want to understand exactly what's going on in the world and how it's happened.
So actually, I pride myself on being interested, and I feel it's far more healthy than that of generic outrage at a problem you don't understand.
But beware of mentioning the "r" word in the same breath as war/atrocities etc.....although you won't find me disagreeing with you
:-)
For any who might be interested, I grew up in Forest Hill, then Ashford (Kent), and retain my UK citizenship after 42 years living in the US.
I only ask as there was a heavy religious component, and it involved the systematic murder of minority groups on a large scale.. but possibly smaller than the scale currently seen in the Middle East. Similarly, there were external forces (Greek and Russian flags flying with Serbian forces, and the Bosnian Mujahideen who included Abu Hamza as well as a large contingent of North African fighters.) who were going out to fight, even though they were foreign and had no real ties to the *region*.
Would the Balkans not be the ideal example of what can happen when the world rallies together and says "enough is enough"? Or is it perhaps a case of "Well, that means fighting against the worst of a bad bunch - and calling that bad bunch allies."? Perhaps that it's not in Europe?
There are countless statements available via the UN in the 1990s, claiming that lessons needed to be learnt from the failings of intervention in the Yoguslav Wars; that adequate equipment and rules of engagement must be provided in any future events and that the UN had a moral obligation to stop such events ever occurring again.
Yet here we are, 20 years on, and hearing that surrendering soldiers are being marched off in to the desert to be executed whilst there are crucifixions, stonings and beheadings being carried out in the streets against those who are deemed to have acted in a way not in keeping with Islam. Anyone who doesn't prescribe to IS' particular flavour of Islam (thus, many Muslims as well as the obvious Christians etc.) is simply not human to them, and thus also gets dealt with very quickly.
The way I see it is that at the moment the world is in a very fragile place. NATO are posturing against Russia, Russia are amassing troops for what essentially appears to be an invasion of Ukranian territory, meanwhile there's a complete and utter disaster unfolding in the Middle East as ISIS/IL/IS decide to brutally murder anyone that doesn't conform to their idea of a model Muslim whilst threatening just about anyone they see, including the primary NATO members and Russia. Oh, and there's potentially a few thousand fighters out in the Middle East who will be returning to Western Europe soon.
Today IS threatened Putin regarding Chechnya, within hours of NATO saying they intended to have a 4,000 man force based in Eastern Europe to counter any Russian threat to those countries.
*My own thoughts aren't very clear regarding military intervention; I think we'll make a mess 10x greater for ourselves and provide ammunition for every fanatic in the world to come and try and give us (and maybe succeed in giving us) a bloody nose, whilst if we continue doing nothing we have to sit back and watch horrific scenes unfold as we're literally powerless - and also have to think about the return of fighters who hail from the UK.
One thing is clear, there is one huge common enemy - IS. Who else gets universal condemnation from Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Syrian Opposition, Iraq, US, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Al-Qaeda, Turkey, Indonesia, China... So what's going wrong? Surely the Arab League should be the first to make a pact - let's deal with the mess on our doorstep, and prevent this from spreading any further. Overseen by a UNSC resolution (thus legal.) and with western assistance (intelligence, imagery etc).. Perhaps we could prevent this disaster going any further. Those who are coming back from fighting out there (if many make it.) are then tried as the War Criminals they are.
Financially Russia gets some arms sales when those nations inevitably need more ammunition and equipment after any conflict. Politically the Arab nations get some assistance and intelligence about IS. The West continues it's "humanitarian" operations by dropping down supplies to those refugees who are currently at risk. All parties cross IS off as a potential threat.
The only problems would be coordinating the Arab nations to work together, with the potential for it to become a free for all and spark off something much worse. (To liken it to the Balkans, when Croatia ended up attacking Bosnia despite being allies.) Undeniably, it would take trust and a mutual respect of each other. Furthermore, we'd end up with arguably more splinter groups - and "Better the enemy you know", at least we know IS.
It shouldn't be our responsibility, but someone needs to step up and stop the bloodshed going on any longer.
I also can't help but think that it's a matter of time until they get their hands on some form of Nuke.
I feel sorry for the peaceful Muslims as there are a few people around who are scared and have their back up about them, as there seems to be so many Muslims being brainwashed into extremists. The peaceful Muslims have to deal with some people being wary around them and that can't be a nice way to live but at the same time, can you blame some people for being wary?
I watched a video the other day about a group of Islamists trying to enforce sharia law in walthamstowe. They openly admitted that they will do anything to get the law in use round there, including violence. The video showed the going up to a young girl and intimidating her as she didn't follow sharia law.
But as I say, it's the peaceful Muslims that will suffer, because people are scared. Mix that in with some anger and ignorance and the whole of the Muslim community are being tarred with the same brush.
But I still think this is being unnecessarily talked up for political reasons. We have to be vigilant but what exactly does that mean?
The armies of Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan etc should be able to contain the threat of IS but I fear their hearts are not in it.
Syria have been waging war on their own people for some time now - perhaps they should reflect on the IS problem instead.
The journalists knew the risks - that is 90% of the reason they were out there - beats reporting on missing cats for their local paper.
Any jihadists coming back to this country - intern them, no publicity and no acknowledgement of them or that they have even come back to the UK.
Al Qaeda had years to attack us and managed one deadly attack on the tube/busses.
The raising of the alert level is political in my opinion rather than based on any new facts or evidence.
If you mean a decision taken for party political purposes, then you are wrong. As already discussed on this thread the threat level changes are made by a group operating under the auspices of MI5 based on the intelligence available to them and as an informed decision. The politicians merely announce what the security specialists tell them to. However, how that announcement is made is indeed open to manipulation by the politicians.