People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Why wouldn't it work? They were allowed in in the first place. It may well be that we will have to say that anyone from a Muslim country does not get a visa, barring some very exceptional circumstances. I certainly don't see why we would positively invite in Muslims from extremist regions or failed states into Europe at this time. The risks to us seem to me to outweigh any benefits to us.
Because I disagree that it is Islam particularly that is the problem, I would say it was a clash of cultures, and that clash exists because of the numbers not the ideology
There are significantly more Muslims in Europe than any other religion bar Christianity. If there were the same number of muslims in Europe as there were Hindus, or Buddhists or Jews, I think we would have the same amount of terrorism from Muslims as we do those other religions I mention
Look at the stats. wherever there are 4-10% Muslims in a European country there is trouble
Why aren't there muslim terrorists in South America? If its all to do with the Koran there should be, but there isn't because there aren't enough Muslims to have a significant % of them being terrorists
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Why wouldn't it work? They were allowed in in the first place. It may well be that we will have to say that anyone from a Muslim country does not get a visa, barring some very exceptional circumstances. I certainly don't see why we would positively invite in Muslims from extremist regions or failed states into Europe at this time. The risks to us seem to me to outweigh any benefits to us.
WRT the asylum seekers from Syria, few may be supporters of IS, but given the number of factions, none of whom have clean hands, and given that they tend to be young men, it's a fair assumption that some of them will have carried out acts of extreme cruelty. And if IS lose, we can expect to see their supporters claiming asylum.
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
So to be honest the short answer to my question is that neither Hussain nor Assad have been involved in sponsoring or encouraging terrorism against us. The answers you gave here clearly show they are not nice people but do not include a single example of what you claimed.
Like I said, they might not be nice people but that is no reason not to continue the policy we had in the past of doing business with them as long as they are not threatening us directly. It may not be very palatable but it is often the only way to protect ourselves.
Are you saying Hussein was not threatening us or our interests when he invaded Kuwait? Their actions and campaigns via proxies against Israel were not against our interests?
And I forgot to mention the IRA training camps in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
Good morning all. Another excellent article from DH; it's a shame that it's necessary, once again, to try to come to grips with militant, intolerant Islam (in fairness I should call it Salafism).
Clever enemies exploit weaknesses; the West's weaknesses are well known and it would be otiose to repeat them. I've yet to see any measures advocated that are would be practical and effective.
When the intelligence agencies were preparing for Iraq II, I was mystified by NSA counterparts who had such great faith in 'Democracy'. It's not a panacea.
The UK has had centuries to develop mature institutions - essentially since the Enlightenment.
We have a judiciary and police service with low levels of corruption, a society that understands the difference between state and religious strictures, generally fair means for personal advancement and so forth. Enfranchising a populace does not magically change anything without the underpinnings. I'm sure it's been said before, but true democracy is an emergent property.
True democracy is at heart a state of mind. It is not compatible with a credal society, where faith determines laws. The West thought that by creating the institutions it would also create the soil in which democracy would flourish. That was to misunderstand what it took to get democracy to develop and flourish in the Wesr - and even then it's been a tough struggle and we cannot be sanguine about how deep the roots of democracy really are everywhere in Europe.
But while Muslims think their holy sayings can be the only source of their politics then democracy and liberalism will struggle to find fertile ground in which to grow.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Why wouldn't it work? They were allowed in in the first place. It may well be that we will have to say that anyone from a Muslim country does not get a visa, barring some very exceptional circumstances. I certainly don't see why we would positively invite in Muslims from extremist regions or failed states into Europe at this time. The risks to us seem to me to outweigh any benefits to us.
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
So to be honest the short answer to my question is that neither Hussain nor Assad have been involved in sponsoring or encouraging terrorism against us. The answers you gave here clearly show they are not nice people but do not include a single example of what you claimed.
Like I said, they might not be nice people but that is no reason not to continue the policy we had in the past of doing business with them as long as they are not threatening us directly. It may not be very palatable but it is often the only way to protect ourselves.
Are you saying Hussein was not threatening us or our interests when he invaded Kuwait? Their actions and campaigns via proxies against Israel were not against our interests?
And I forgot to mention the IRA training camps in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
Lets also consider where the IRA got its weapons from.
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
So to be honest the short answer to my question is that neither Hussain nor Assad have been involved in sponsoring or encouraging terrorism against us. The answers you gave here clearly show they are not nice people but do not include a single example of what you claimed.
Like I said, they might not be nice people but that is no reason not to continue the policy we had in the past of doing business with them as long as they are not threatening us directly. It may not be very palatable but it is often the only way to protect ourselves.
Are you saying Hussein was not threatening us or our interests when he invaded Kuwait? Their actions and campaigns via proxies against Israel were not against our interests?
And I forgot to mention the IRA training camps in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
You specifically said that Hussain and Assad were encouraging and sponsoring terrorism against the UK. You have completely failed to provide any evidence of that and try to widen it into them being nasty people who do things that are against our interests. That was not and is not the point I was countering.
Stop changing the argument and accept you were wrong.
Can never understand why we allow entry to those who dislike us and give them all the benefits of living here. At the same time we turn away Ghurkas who are the most loyal and friendly to this country we are likely to have. A small group I know but it's the principle.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Just Muslims or people from specific countries
I am not adverse to the argument that we need to blacklist countries with known concentrations of terror groups acting with impunity, failed states etc. I am just doubtful of any easy or simple solution for a complex problem like this
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Why wouldn't it work? They were allowed in in the first place. It may well be that we will have to say that anyone from a Muslim country does not get a visa, barring some very exceptional circumstances. I certainly don't see why we would positively invite in Muslims from extremist regions or failed states into Europe at this time. The risks to us seem to me to outweigh any benefits to us.
What about holiday visas
What about business trips
What about the people here already
I'm talking about migration. I'd be sceptical about someone from Syria saying they wanted to come here for a two week holiday, frankly. Or exactly what business someone from a failed state might be doing here.
Mr. Thompson, I think the last FPS I played was Goldeneye, on a friend's N64.
I would recommend it. VATS decreases the FPS element, you can get a companion to lighten that load, and, if all else fails, difficulty can be decreased. But even as a non-FPS fan, I like the combat.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Cide, I like violent computer games. The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 both have their share of gore.
I've also played F1 games. Yet nobody's worried I'll become an incredibly skilled driver.
I presume you've watched the video, so you're aware. It's the pleasure aspect that concerns me more than the copy cat ambitions.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Why wouldn't it work? They were allowed in in the first place. It may well be that we will have to say that anyone from a Muslim country does not get a visa, barring some very exceptional circumstances. I certainly don't see why we would positively invite in Muslims from extremist regions or failed states into Europe at this time. The risks to us seem to me to outweigh any benefits to us.
What about holiday visas
What about business trips
What about the people here already
I'm talking about migration. I'd be sceptical about someone from Syria saying they wanted to come here for a two week holiday, frankly. Or exactly what business someone from a failed state might be doing here.
What about Saudi Arabia, homeland of 9/11 bombers and honoured trade partner?
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
So to be honest the short answer to my question is that neither Hussain nor Assad have been involved in sponsoring or encouraging terrorism against us. The answers you gave here clearly show they are not nice people but do not include a single example of what you claimed.
Like I said, they might not be nice people but that is no reason not to continue the policy we had in the past of doing business with them as long as they are not threatening us directly. It may not be very palatable but it is often the only way to protect ourselves.
Are you saying Hussein was not threatening us or our interests when he invaded Kuwait? Their actions and campaigns via proxies against Israel were not against our interests?
And I forgot to mention the IRA training camps in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
Lets also consider where the IRA got its weapons from.
Indeed. Though the irony of that may be lost on Josias in his present mood. .
edmundintokyo thank you for your responses. But you seem to want to keep analysing and finessing the issues endlessly rather than taking action that would immediately reduce, for France, the level of risk that it has. Yes these measures need to be fine tuned but they actually require cold hard logic and action that reduces the incidence quickly. Lesbos is Greece's problem but a passport controlled border to France and Germany would reduce the attractiveness of Lesbos to migrants and helps Greece by reducing the volume of people. Greece also needs to decide if it wants a viable economy and a viable tourist economy through effective border controls.
Breaking news: Gatwick North Terminal evacuated as bomb squad are called and police arrest man with a 'grenade in his bag'
Witnesses said that police screamed 'get down, get down' to a passenger There were reports that the suspect had a 'gun in his bag' Police said the terminal was evacuated due to a suspicious package Explosive ordnance disposal officers were dispatched to the airport Flights are arriving and departing as normal, a spokesperson said
'I am just doubtful of any easy or simple solution for a complex problem like this
I suspect you want to call this a 'complex problem' because, like stop the war, you are happy for the status quo to go on. You want indecision, dither, inactivity and appeasement of violence.
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
Islam was spread by violence, its not surprising they see violence as the best way now.
I'm not at all certain that they've lost. They're poorer than us, but they have the will to win.
Indeed.
There's a lot of complacency about the "they've lost" comments we will read and hear so much.
Indeed. As MD said earlier, who won in the battle between Rome and the barbarians in the end? Or, for that matter, between the New Rome and the Caliphate?
I do sometimes wonder if Western Europeans today are in a similar position to Western Europeans in about 400 AD.
I've cut men in half in The Witcher 3, but that doesn't mean I want to grab a sword and start lopping limbs off in real life.
This is an issue of Islamic extremism.
Edited extra bit: Mr. F, think that's too negative. We're at the tail of the Golden Age of Imperial Rome, with the overrated Marcus Aurelius in charge, having inherited a blissful state. Luxury and complacency has enervated our virtues, and vigorous but savage barbarians stand ready to take advantage.
Edited extra bit 2: if we are at 400AD, then almost the whole of Europe is irretrievably ****ed. Where's Byzantium?
Well, in that, we might be lucky. It *could* be us. With sufficient leadership.
Corbyn as PM would be like Arcadius, Honorius and the Angeli all at once.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Why wouldn't it work? They were allowed in in the first place. It may well be that we will have to say that anyone from a Muslim country does not get a visa, barring some very exceptional circumstances. I certainly don't see why we would positively invite in Muslims from extremist regions or failed states into Europe at this time. The risks to us seem to me to outweigh any benefits to us.
Because I disagree that it is Islam particularly that is the problem, I would say it was a clash of cultures, and that clash exists because of the numbers not the ideology
There are significantly more Muslims in Europe than any other religion bar Christianity. If there were the same number of muslims in Europe as there were Hindus, or Buddhists or Jews, I think we would have the same amount of terrorism from Muslims as we do those other religions I mention
Look at the stats. wherever there are 4-10% Muslims in a European country there is trouble
Why aren't there muslim terrorists in South America? If its all to do with the Koran there should be, but there isn't because there aren't enough Muslims to have a significant % of them being terrorists
I know we have debated this before. I think the problem is Islam which is subject to extremist winds and currents at the moment and this is heightened when you have significant numbers because this makes integration less necessary and harder and emboldens the extremists to make demands rather than to accommodate themselves to the host society.
I'm not going to mention what I thought of Corbyns interview just now on Sky News
I will
He failed to condemn terrorists again. He cautioned against jumping to conclusions regarding ISIL and Syria
And he praised multiculturalism and multi-faith society
Meanwhile, his fellow travellers...
@Jake_Wilde: I think, if you're going to tell people that their death is their own fault, you should wait until after the funeral https://t.co/yylPOL7NPQ
He is not fit to be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Agreed
Love the first response which clearly gets the guys point across
edmundintokyo thank you for your responses. But you seem to want to keep analysing and finessing the issues endlessly rather than taking action that would immediately reduce, for France, the level of risk that it has. Yes these measures need to be fine tuned but they actually require cold hard logic and action that reduces the incidence quickly. Lesbos is Greece's problem but a passport controlled border to France and Germany would reduce the attractiveness of Lesbos to migrants and helps Greece by reducing the volume of people. Greece also needs to decide if it wants a viable economy and a viable tourist economy through effective border controls.
I'm not finessing anything, security measures need to be based on cold, hard cost-benefit analysis not on what makes you feel good.
'I am just doubtful of any easy or simple solution for a complex problem like this
I suspect you want to call this a 'complex problem' because, like stop the war, you are happy for the status quo to go on. You want indecision, dither, inactivity and appeasement of violence.
Incorrect
I want NATO to pound IS and a diplomatic solution in Syria
Domestically I want a balance between showing moderate Muslims that they can have a good life here, that our values are superior, and acting ruthlessly against banned organisations.
But how you implement all that is difficult and not straightforward
Yes it was. I am not sure where this myth came from but I debunked it last time it was raised. Look at the dates for the vote and the dates for growing Isil activity inside Syria and the growth of Isil predates our Parliamentary decision by many months if not a year.
The alternatives you mention were already being ripped apart by internecine fighting well before we decided to get involved and the idea there was anyone else than Isil who would have been able to take advantage of our bombing Assad is ridiculous
That's not true, is it? IS were in Syria before the vote, but they were only just getting organised. Assad was under severe pressure, which was why he used chemical weapons in attacks on the outskirts of Damascus. The FSA were still a coherent fighting force, mainly comprising ex-Syrian soldiers.
By my reading, the FSA were destroyed not by internecine fighting, but by combined pressure by both the formative ISIS and the regime's forces. They were the easiest target for both sets of forces individually.
Then there is the fact that Assad's use of chemical weapons should not have gone unpunished.
A combined FSA/Syrian army under a different leader was a great opportunity for relative peace that was lost.
At the time I said a lack of action would lead to the conflict spreading and destabilising the region, and it has. I hope one of my other predictions does not come true: that we will face a greater threat of chemical weapons use against us.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Why wouldn't it work? They were allowed in in the first place. It may well be that we will have to say that anyone from a Muslim country does not get a visa, barring some very exceptional circumstances. I certainly don't see why we would positively invite in Muslims from extremist regions or failed states into Europe at this time. The risks to us seem to me to outweigh any benefits to us.
What about holiday visas
What about business trips
What about the people here already
I'm talking about migration. I'd be sceptical about someone from Syria saying they wanted to come here for a two week holiday, frankly. Or exactly what business someone from a failed state might be doing here.
What about Saudi Arabia, homeland of 9/11 bombers and honoured trade partner?
I have said before repeatedly that I consider it a squalid country with whom, if we have to sup with it at all, should be done with a very long spoon indeed. I would not permit Saudi funding of any mosque or educational establishment in this country.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
How do Saudis deal with Christians in their country?
Do you think we should treat Islam the same way Islamic countries treat other religions?
I once read an interesting book by an ex British Ambassador to Saudi - lets just say it was clear he was not a fan of the place and their practices.
Might it not be a fair starting place for debate at least?
edmundintokyo thank you for your responses. But you seem to want to keep analysing and finessing the issues endlessly rather than taking action that would immediately reduce, for France, the level of risk that it has. Yes these measures need to be fine tuned but they actually require cold hard logic and action that reduces the incidence quickly. Lesbos is Greece's problem but a passport controlled border to France and Germany would reduce the attractiveness of Lesbos to migrants and helps Greece by reducing the volume of people. Greece also needs to decide if it wants a viable economy and a viable tourist economy through effective border controls.
I'm not finessing anything, security measures need to be based on cold, hard cost-benefit analysis not on what makes you feel good.
I would not feel good about Schengen being scrapped. I just see it as inevitable.
I don't know the answers but I'm inclined to agree with Tyson's excellent post. Much Islamic culture seems to be deeply stifling. Blaming religion or belief in God doesn't really seem adequate. Time and again we see terrorists who seem much less devout than many of their contemporaries - drinking, pornography etc. Growing up in a modern culture so far from what they are expected to be can't be easy.
You must be careful not to judge the poor moslem terrorist by your standards.
Well the vast majority of kids exposed to that culture don't resort to violence. It may just be that a small minority of human beings have psychopathic tendencies and much Islamic culture is not goo at dealing with that. Or indeed it's deeply authoritarian, submissive approach doesn't always work.
I am not adverse to the argument that we need to blacklist countries with known concentrations of terror groups acting with impunity, failed states etc. I am just doubtful of any easy or simple solution for a complex problem like this'
- No further muslim immigration until such time as the existing population is fully integrated and the mass murders stop.
-Withdraw flights to high risk countries.
-Ban on UK nationals returning from Syria.
-Withdrawal of passports
-Withdrawal of benefits from individuals openly supporting ISIS / Al Quada
-No automatic right to British citizenship.
-Closure of Mosques that have entertained hate preachers.
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
So to be honest the short answer to my question is that neither Hussain nor Assad have been involved in sponsoring or encouraging terrorism against us. The answers you gave here clearly show they are not nice people but do not include a single example of what you claimed.
Like I said, they might not be nice people but that is no reason not to continue the policy we had in the past of doing business with them as long as they are not threatening us directly. It may not be very palatable but it is often the only way to protect ourselves.
Are you saying Hussein was not threatening us or our interests when he invaded Kuwait? Their actions and campaigns via proxies against Israel were not against our interests?
And I forgot to mention the IRA training camps in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
Lets also consider where the IRA got its weapons from.
Indeed. Though the irony of that may be lost on Josias in his present mood. .
What 'mood'? You think because I'm disagreeing with you I'm in a 'mood' ?
I'm pointing out that these strongmen who you would support have a rather nasty tendency of turning against us.
Guns going from the US to the IRA are not the same, reprehensible as it was: the US state was not actively supplying them. Instead they were being bought or stolen, and smuggled in. That is an important distinction.
Oh, and Libya provided them with plenty of arms and semtex, whilst Syria trained them in the Bekaa Valley.
I don't expect you, in your 'mood', to comprehend that.
Can never understand why we allow entry to those who dislike us and give them all the benefits of living here. At the same time we turn away Ghurkas who are the most loyal and friendly to this country we are likely to have. A small group I know but it's the principle.
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
Your glorious leader will be laying out a welcome for some of these poor migrants come terrorists. Get real, these lefties/SNPs will do anything to reduce Britain to a third world backwater.
The Paris terror attacks have been keenly felt in Russia, where the horror of the attack on the Bataclan theatre drew immediate parallells with the 2002 Nord Ost theatre siege in Moscow, and just weeks after the Russian plane crash in the Sinai.
A steady stream of Muscovites bearing flowers and memorial candles have been coming and going at the French Embassy all morning, and social media, newspapers, and Russian official statements have been flooded with expressions of condolences.
I'm not going to mention what I thought of Corbyns interview just now on Sky News
I will
He failed to condemn terrorists again. He cautioned against jumping to conclusions regarding ISIL and Syria
And he praised multiculturalism and multi-faith society
Meanwhile, his fellow travellers...
@Jake_Wilde: I think, if you're going to tell people that their death is their own fault, you should wait until after the funeral https://t.co/yylPOL7NPQ
He is not fit to be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Blinkered Tory fan boy opinion spouted. LOTO gives his opinion (possibly half baked), but our armchair Tory warriors want blood, just not their own please. Jingoist imperialists are in a frenzy to bomb Syria. You could not make it up, is it any wonder this country is so F*****d.
That's not true, is it? IS were in Syria before the vote, but they were only just getting organised. Assad was under severe pressure, which was why he used chemical weapons in attacks on the outskirts of Damascus. The FSA were still a coherent fighting force, mainly comprising ex-Syrian soldiers.
By my reading, the FSA were destroyed not by internecine fighting, but by combined pressure by both the formative ISIS and the regime's forces. They were the easiest target for both sets of forces individually.
Then there is the fact that Assad's use of chemical weapons should not have gone unpunished.
A combined FSA/Syrian army under a different leader was a great opportunity for relative peace that was lost.
At the time I said a lack of action would lead to the conflict spreading and destabilising the region, and it has. I hope one of my other predictions does not come true: that we will face a greater threat of chemical weapons use against us.
The offer that was made to Parliament at the time was not to bomb Assad to bring about regime change, it was to bomb him as a 'punishment' for 'using chemical weapons'. It was very specifically not about regime change. Are you saying that Parliament was lied to?
The South American country with the biggest proportion of muslims is Argentina, less than 2%
Peru had 5,000 in 1980 and still has 5,000 now
Has there been Islamic extremism in South America recently?
Do South American muslims take the Koran less seriously than others? Or is it because the lack of numbers mean that if the same proportion were extremists as in Europe, there wouldn't be enough to be significant?
@bopanc: Polish #EU minister says that #Poland will not accept #refugees quota after #ParisAttacks - reports
Hardly surprising.
This is a Merkel 4 cup, why should Poland pay for it ?
Poland has a history of paying for German 4 cups.
Trust you are well Field Marshall.
Yes, been blogging light of late Mr Eagles as it's been damned hard pounding at work.
Good to see you are busy Alan
Wrong kind of busy malc.
This has been a really slow quarter for sales so we're siffering. Had to let a guy go yesterday and have been managing cash more than usual.
Normally my biggest customer is quite buoyant at this time of the year but they are construction related and construction and the building trade is flat on its arse at the moment.
I've cut men in half in The Witcher 3, but that doesn't mean I want to grab a sword and start lopping limbs off in real life.
This is an issue of Islamic extremism.
Edited extra bit: Mr. F, think that's too negative. We're at the tail of the Golden Age of Imperial Rome, with the overrated Marcus Aurelius in charge, having inherited a blissful state. Luxury and complacency has enervated our virtues, and vigorous but savage barbarians stand ready to take advantage.
Edited extra bit 2: if we are at 400AD, then almost the whole of Europe is irretrievably ****ed. Where's Byzantium?
Well, in that, we might be lucky. It *could* be us. With sufficient leadership.
Corbyn as PM would be like Arcadius, Honorius and the Angeli all at once.
apropos not very much but can I ask why you didn't view the video?
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
So to be honest the short answer to my question is that neither Hussain nor Assad have been involved in sponsoring or encouraging terrorism against us. The answers you gave here clearly show they are not nice people but do not include a single example of what you claimed.
Like I said, they might not be nice people but that is no reason not to continue the policy we had in the past of doing business with them as long as they are not threatening us directly. It may not be very palatable but it is often the only way to protect ourselves.
Are you saying Hussein was not threatening us or our interests when he invaded Kuwait? Their actions and campaigns via proxies against Israel were not against our interests?
And I forgot to mention the IRA training camps in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
You specifically said that Hussain and Assad were encouraging and sponsoring terrorism against the UK. You have completely failed to provide any evidence of that and try to widen it into them being nasty people who do things that are against our interests. That was not and is not the point I was countering.
Stop changing the argument and accept you were wrong.
Hang on, how is the IRA training in a Syrian-run camp in the Bekaa Vallley not sponsoring terrorism against us?
You have more of a point in the case of Hussein.
I also mentioned Gadaffi, who you have unsurprisingly dropped from the conversation.
I'm not going to mention what I thought of Corbyns interview just now on Sky News
I will
He failed to condemn terrorists again. He cautioned against jumping to conclusions regarding ISIL and Syria
And he praised multiculturalism and multi-faith society
Meanwhile, his fellow travellers...
@Jake_Wilde: I think, if you're going to tell people that their death is their own fault, you should wait until after the funeral https://t.co/yylPOL7NPQ
He is not fit to be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Blinkered Tory fan boy opinion spouted. LOTO gives his opinion (possibly half baked), but our armchair Tory warriors want blood, just not their own please. Jingoist imperialists are in a frenzy to bomb Syria. You could not make it up, is it any wonder this country is so F*****d.
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
So to be honest the short answer to my question is that neither Hussain nor Assad have been involved in sponsoring or encouraging terrorism against us. The answers you gave here clearly show they are not nice people but do not include a single example of what you claimed.
Like I said, they might not be nice people but that is no reason not to continue the policy we had in the past of doing business with them as long as they are not threatening us directly. It may not be very palatable but it is often the only way to protect ourselves.
Are you saying Hussein was not threatening us or our interests when he invaded Kuwait? Their actions and campaigns via proxies against Israel were not against our interests?
And I forgot to mention the IRA training camps in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
Lets also consider where the IRA got its weapons from.
Indeed. Though the irony of that may be lost on Josias in his present mood. .
What 'mood'? You think because I'm disagreeing with you I'm in a 'mood' ?
I'm pointing out that these strongmen who you would support have a rather nasty tendency of turning against us.
Guns going from the US to the IRA are not the same, reprehensible as it was: the US state was not actively supplying them. Instead they were being bought or stolen, and smuggled in. That is an important distinction.
Oh, and Libya provided them with plenty of arms and semtex, whilst Syria trained them in the Bekaa Valley.
I don't expect you, in your 'mood', to comprehend that.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Why wouldn't it work? They were allowed in in the first place. It may well be that we will have to say that anyone from a Muslim country does not get a visa, barring some very exceptional circumstances. I certainly don't see why we would positively invite in Muslims from extremist regions or failed states into Europe at this time. The risks to us seem to me to outweigh any benefits to us.
Visa aren't the real problem in many respects, it's phoney asylum seekers.
For example, we have around 100,000 Somalis in the UK that are failed asylum seekers, that have failed their appeal, and yet have not been deported. On average we deport less than 6% of failed asylum seekers each year.
That's not true, is it? IS were in Syria before the vote, but they were only just getting organised. Assad was under severe pressure, which was why he used chemical weapons in attacks on the outskirts of Damascus. The FSA were still a coherent fighting force, mainly comprising ex-Syrian soldiers.
By my reading, the FSA were destroyed not by internecine fighting, but by combined pressure by both the formative ISIS and the regime's forces. They were the easiest target for both sets of forces individually.
Then there is the fact that Assad's use of chemical weapons should not have gone unpunished.
A combined FSA/Syrian army under a different leader was a great opportunity for relative peace that was lost.
At the time I said a lack of action would lead to the conflict spreading and destabilising the region, and it has. I hope one of my other predictions does not come true: that we will face a greater threat of chemical weapons use against us.
The offer that was made to Parliament at the time was not to bomb Assad to bring about regime change, it was to bomb him as a 'punishment' for 'using chemical weapons'. It was very specifically not about regime change. Are you saying that Parliament was lied to?
I believe it should have been stronger. If it had, we might not be in the position we are now in.
But if you're asking if the Assad regime should have been punished for using chemical weapons against his own people, then the answer is yes.
There is no good reason why we should betting in any more Somalis, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis into Britain.
I'm inclined to agree in all but the most exceptional cases - big earners and exceptionally capable people.
We can recruit all the economic labour we need from within Europe, and that labour integrates more successfully, works more regularly and places fewer demands on the state.
Benefit caps and tax credit curbs are vitally important in driving cultural change (smaller families, wives taking up work) in these groups as well.
The Islamists behind the botched Glasgow attack were doctors.
That's not true, is it? IS were in Syria before the vote, but they were only just getting organised. Assad was under severe pressure, which was why he used chemical weapons in attacks on the outskirts of Damascus. The FSA were still a coherent fighting force, mainly comprising ex-Syrian soldiers.
By my reading, the FSA were destroyed not by internecine fighting, but by combined pressure by both the formative ISIS and the regime's forces. They were the easiest target for both sets of forces individually.
Then there is the fact that Assad's use of chemical weapons should not have gone unpunished.
A combined FSA/Syrian army under a different leader was a great opportunity for relative peace that was lost.
At the time I said a lack of action would lead to the conflict spreading and destabilising the region, and it has. I hope one of my other predictions does not come true: that we will face a greater threat of chemical weapons use against us.
The offer that was made to Parliament at the time was not to bomb Assad to bring about regime change, it was to bomb him as a 'punishment' for 'using chemical weapons'. It was very specifically not about regime change. Are you saying that Parliament was lied to?
I believe it should have been stronger. If it had, we might not be in the position we are now in.
But if you're asking if the Assad regime should have been punished for using chemical weapons against his own people, then the answer is yes.
No, I'm not asking that. I was pointing out that rightly or wrongly (I make no comment on that), there was no 'plan' for regime change attached to the first bombing proposal. You are re-writing history in your suggestion that some sort of 'stable Government' would have been put in place had we intervened earlier.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Why wouldn't it work? They were allowed in in the first place. It may well be that we will have to say that anyone from a Muslim country does not get a visa, barring some very exceptional circumstances. I certainly don't see why we would positively invite in Muslims from extremist regions or failed states into Europe at this time. The risks to us seem to me to outweigh any benefits to us.
What about holiday visas
What about business trips
What about the people here already
What about when the third or fourth attack kills a thousand people, possibly in London and the furious population demand action, now, where will you hand wringing be then ? Better to fix it now that have a Farage landslide in a couple of years maybe ?
Paul Waugh Jeremy Corbyn letter reveals his unease over extending UK military action to Syria As MoD prepares fresh MP briefing https://t.co/4hVgEdim0c
I'm not going to mention what I thought of Corbyns interview just now on Sky News
I will
He failed to condemn terrorists again. He cautioned against jumping to conclusions regarding ISIL and Syria
And he praised multiculturalism and multi-faith society
Meanwhile, his fellow travellers...
@Jake_Wilde: I think, if you're going to tell people that their death is their own fault, you should wait until after the funeral https://t.co/yylPOL7NPQ
He is not fit to be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Agreed
Love the first response which clearly gets the guys point across
" Are you fucking serious?"
What the F have Labour done?
Unless they stop them now, the 'Stop the War Coalition' will be the Labour Party in 18 months. It's defacto chairman is after all the leader of the labour party right now.
As well as trying to get a tiny bit of work done after the Fallout 4 review and before I have to pay attention to practice and write a pre-qualifying piece, I didn't feel the need.
With the attacks yesterday and the reported incidents this morning, I don't feel the need to read or watch much more, after reading most of the previous thread.
Paul Waugh Jeremy Corbyn letter reveals his unease over extending UK military action to Syria As MoD prepares fresh MP briefing https://t.co/4hVgEdim0c
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
So to be honest the short answer to my question is that neither Hussain nor Assad have been involved in sponsoring or encouraging terrorism against us. The answers you gave here clearly show they are not nice people but do not include a single example of what you claimed.
Like I said, they might not be nice people but that is no reason not to continue the policy we had in the past of doing business with them as long as they are not threatening us directly. It may not be very palatable but it is often the only way to protect ourselves.
Are you saying Hussein was not threatening us or our interests when he invaded Kuwait? Their actions and campaigns via proxies against Israel were not against our interests?
And I forgot to mention the IRA training camps in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
You specifically said that Hussain and Assad were encouraging and sponsoring terrorism against the UK. You have completely failed to provide any evidence of that and try to widen it into them being nasty people who do things that are against our interests. That was not and is not the point I was countering.
Stop changing the argument and accept you were wrong.
Hang on, how is the IRA training in a Syrian-run camp in the Bekaa Vallley not sponsoring terrorism against us?
You have more of a point in the case of Hussein.
I also mentioned Gadaffi, who you have unsurprisingly dropped from the conversation.
No I didn't drop him from the conversation. I never included him in my very first response because I didn't disagree with you over him. Go back and look rather than rewriting history.
And in case you missed it Assad's father shut down all the IRA training camps back in the early 1990s - a decade before the current Assad even came to power. Indeed when the camps were shut down the current Assad was in doing postgrad medical studies.
@bopanc: Polish #EU minister says that #Poland will not accept #refugees quota after #ParisAttacks - reports
Hardly surprising.
This is a Merkel 4 cup, why should Poland pay for it ?
Poland has a history of paying for German 4 cups.
Trust you are well Field Marshall.
Yes, been blogging light of late Mr Eagles as it's been damned hard pounding at work.
Good to see you are busy Alan
Wrong kind of busy malc.
This has been a really slow quarter for sales so we're siffering. Had to let a guy go yesterday and have been managing cash more than usual.
Normally my biggest customer is quite buoyant at this time of the year but they are construction related and construction and the building trade is flat on its arse at the moment.
"...construction and the building trade is flat on its arse at the moment."
Might I suggest, Mr. Brooke, you send your salesmen down to Sussex. They are throwing up houses on every spot of land they can down here. We have the biggest building boom going on that I have ever seen, and not just new estates, whole new towns are being built.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Why wouldn't it work? They were allowed in in the first place. It may well be that we will have to say that anyone from a Muslim country does not get a visa, barring some very exceptional circumstances. I certainly don't see why we would positively invite in Muslims from extremist regions or failed states into Europe at this time. The risks to us seem to me to outweigh any benefits to us.
What about holiday visas
What about business trips
What about the people here already
What about when the third or fourth attack kills a thousand people, possibly in London and the furious population demand action, now, where will you hand wringing be then ? Better to fix it now that have a Farage landslide in a couple of years maybe ?
I want action, I'm not saying do nothing, just arguing that immigration policy is not going to be a panacea. It is one possible tool of a combination we should use, but let's not pretend it's a simple case of raising the drawbridge
That's not true, is it? IS were in Syria before the vote, but they were only just getting organised. Assad was under severe pressure, which was why he used chemical weapons in attacks on the outskirts of Damascus. The FSA were still a coherent fighting force, mainly comprising ex-Syrian soldiers.
By my reading, the FSA were destroyed not by internecine fighting, but by combined pressure by both the formative ISIS and the regime's forces. They were the easiest target for both sets of forces individually.
Then there is the fact that Assad's use of chemical weapons should not have gone unpunished.
A combined FSA/Syrian army under a different leader was a great opportunity for relative peace that was lost.
At the time I said a lack of action would lead to the conflict spreading and destabilising the region, and it has. I hope one of my other predictions does not come true: that we will face a greater threat of chemical weapons use against us.
The offer that was made to Parliament at the time was not to bomb Assad to bring about regime change, it was to bomb him as a 'punishment' for 'using chemical weapons'. It was very specifically not about regime change. Are you saying that Parliament was lied to?
I believe it should have been stronger. If it had, we might not be in the position we are now in.
But if you're asking if the Assad regime should have been punished for using chemical weapons against his own people, then the answer is yes.
No, I'm not asking that. I was pointing out that rightly or wrongly (I make no comment on that), there was no 'plan' for regime change attached to the first bombing proposal. You are re-writing history in your suggestion that some sort of 'stable Government' would have been put in place had we intervened earlier.
There had been before, but the shadows of the Iraq conflict loomed large. The scheme was progressively watered down. But a bombing in response to the use of chemical weapons would have been a good course of action.
I'm not ''re-writing history' - that's impossible, as history did not take that course. It's a projected alternate history, albeit a likely one IMO.
A stable Government was on the cards, and was possible. ISTR there were reports that some senior officers in the Syrian army were talking to some of their recent colleagues who had defected to the FSA about what they wanted, and how there could be an orderly transition. Some FSA units were essentially intact from their time in the Syrian Army.
They're mostly gone now. It was a massive opportunity lost. Perhaps it was the only opportunity to come out of this with an intact Syria.
Billy Connelly has some thought on those Glaswegian attackers..on You Tube
It is a shame they censored that piece to remove his comments about the 72 virgins. That was the funniest part but I suppose someone thought that it could give offence to a certain religion.
That ties up pretty well with my experience of the game thus far. I do love Bethesda games, but no-one should expect the most polished animations from them, they clearly put their efforts elsewhere! Creatures are much more visually interesting now I thought.
The settlement building aspect was not something I'd have asked for, and I'm not clear on how best to utilise it yet either, but it is strangely absorbing, and being able to clear our some of the mess of the world makes me think of a joke I heard about many of these post apocalyptic games, essentially 'I know there was an apocalypse, but you couldn't take 5 minutes in the past 200 years to put up a lick of paint or something?' I feel the idea of the protagonist, particular given their backstory, trying to restore the Wasteland a bit at a time, is really compelling, almost to the point of distracting from the main narrative a bit too well (even understanding that one rarely sticks to the main path in Bethesda games).
Not had much time for companions yet, is a bit more New Vegas than 3 I guess?
Overall I'd call it a good evolution of the classic Bethesda model, rather than something revolutionary. It looks and plays better than the older ones, as you'd expect with time, but it essentially more of the same. Which, 16 hours in and barely scratching the surface, is really all I'm after.
Billy Connelly has some thought on those Glaswegian attackers..on You Tube
It is a shame they censored that piece to remove his comments about the 72 virgins. That was the funniest part but I suppose someone thought that it could give offence to a certain religion.
Billy Connelly has some thought on those Glaswegian attackers..on You Tube
It is a shame they censored that piece to remove his comments about the 72 virgins. That was the funniest part but I suppose someone thought that it could give offence to a certain religion.
@bopanc: Polish #EU minister says that #Poland will not accept #refugees quota after #ParisAttacks - reports
Hardly surprising.
This is a Merkel 4 cup, why should Poland pay for it ?
Poland has a history of paying for German 4 cups.
Trust you are well Field Marshall.
Yes, been blogging light of late Mr Eagles as it's been damned hard pounding at work.
Good to see you are busy Alan
Wrong kind of busy malc.
This has been a really slow quarter for sales so we're siffering. Had to let a guy go yesterday and have been managing cash more than usual.
Normally my biggest customer is quite buoyant at this time of the year but they are construction related and construction and the building trade is flat on its arse at the moment.
"...construction and the building trade is flat on its arse at the moment."
Might I suggest, Mr. Brooke, you send your salesmen down to Sussex. They are throwing up houses on every spot of land they can down here. We have the biggest building boom going on that I have ever seen, and not just new estates, whole new towns are being built.
That will probably be stuff I get next year. The stuff my customer sells is more used at the fitting out stage so it's a time lad issue.
Yes it was. I am not sure where this myth came from but I debunked it last time it was raised. Look at the dates for the vote and the dates for growing Isil activity inside Syria and the growth of Isil predates our Parliamentary decision by many months if not a year.
The alternatives you mention were already being ripped apart by internecine fighting well before we decided to get involved and the idea there was anyone else than Isil who would have been able to take advantage of our bombing Assad is ridiculous
That's not true, is it? IS were in Syria before the vote, but they were only just getting organised. Assad was under severe pressure, which was why he used chemical weapons in attacks on the outskirts of Damascus. The FSA were still a coherent fighting force, mainly comprising ex-Syrian soldiers.
By my reading, the FSA were destroyed not by internecine fighting, but by combined pressure by both the formative ISIS and the regime's forces. They were the easiest target for both sets of forces individually.
Then there is the fact that Assad's use of chemical weapons should not have gone unpunished.
A combined FSA/Syrian army under a different leader was a great opportunity for relative peace that was lost.
At the time I said a lack of action would lead to the conflict spreading and destabilising the region, and it has. I hope one of my other predictions does not come true: that we will face a greater threat of chemical weapons use against us.
Like most of the rest of your 'facts' I am afraid most of this posting is based on a distinct lack of knowledge combined with some sort of moral crusade which has no place in this debate. No one denies Assad is not a nice man. But your facts and timeline are seriously skewed for you to believe that us bombing Assad would have in any way helped with the current situation. Those who were so keen to bomb Syrian civilians (which is what in effect we are talking about) in 2013 are trying to use the current problems as some warped reason to support their cause. In fact exactly the opposite is true. Without Assad IS would have been in a far stronger position and right now he is the only viable force in the country we can use to try and beat them.
Mr. kle4, aye, the graphics are fine, but they're not going to outdo The Witcher 3.
I didn't play New Vegas. The best comparison might actually be Dragon Age. Yes, you only get one, but they feel more three-dimensional by far than in previous Bethesda games (based on my limited experience).
There is no good reason why we should betting in any more Somalis, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis into Britain.
I'm inclined to agree in all but the most exceptional cases - big earners and exceptionally capable people.
We can recruit all the economic labour we need from within Europe, and that labour integrates more successfully, works more regularly and places fewer demands on the state.
Benefit caps and tax credit curbs are vitally important in driving cultural change (smaller families, wives taking up work) in these groups as well.
The Islamists behind the botched Glasgow attack were doctors.
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
I think that European governments need to completely rethink their attitudes towards discrimination and "hate" speech. Currently, the default official position is to treat White Europeans as perpetrators of racial and religious discrimination, and ethnic minorities in general, and Muslims in particular, as their victims. A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
The author has made an argument. UCAS have rejected that argument.
I thought UCAS had agreed to implement blind naming going forward.
I have no objection to blind naming.
The point is you claimed proof, & linked to an article that actually says the diametric opposite of what you claimed.
The article explicitly says that we cannot draw the conclusion that you did without further research.
No. There's evidence that BAME students aren't getting the same opportunities.
It was Sean who said there was no evidence/proof.
I merely said there was proof/evidence for Nadim Zahawi's assertions.
Given their strong Corbynist sympathies, I'd have thought university academics would be the last people in the world to discriminate on the basis of named applicants.
One of Europe's values is that Europe's values are up for democratic debate, apart from the principle of democracy itself. Sixty years ago, it was evident that European public policy should be guided by Keynesianism or even outright economic planning, traditional Christian values (even in secularist France, unto a point), the demilitarisation of Germany and conciliation with Soviet Socialism. It's not evident to me whether surveillance, for instance, is or is not a European value when the largest Western European country looks at its own history of surveillance in horror, but when other European countries would see it much more as a matter of utilitarian benefits and harms.
Is it so controversial, therefore, to say that "cultural relativism" is a bogeyman like the international Communist conspiracy, but many of the behaviours therein may be... European values? Who says secularism is a European value? If European values really need to be imposed uncontestably in the wake of atrocities, are they really actually-existing European values or a political project? (I note that we have heard from Cameron, Herdson, etc. a lot about liberty but these exhortations often exclude equality and fraternity - suggesting it is a political project.)
Proportionality is hard to maintain because atrocities are terrifying, but it is likely that more French people died of heart disease than of terrorism, on what was by far the scariest day in my memory in Western Europe. That's not to say that the actions aren't morally bad in and of themselves and deserving of retribution, but that is because of their moral content and not their danger to life as such.
Paul Waugh Jeremy Corbyn letter reveals his unease over extending UK military action to Syria As MoD prepares fresh MP briefing https://t.co/4hVgEdim0c
Quite right too.
I believe that the government should be free to strike at Britain's enemies wherever they may be, in whatever way is necessary, and without warning. I would like to see them state they will not ask Parliament for "permission" in future. Going to war is a Prerogative function and the House of Commons has no authority in the matter.
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
So to be honest the short answer to my question is that neither Hussain nor Assad have been involved in sponsoring or encouraging terrorism against us. The answers you gave here clearly show they are not nice people but do not include a single example of what you claimed.
Like I said, they might not be nice people but that is no reason not to continue the policy we had in the past of doing business with them as long as they are not threatening us directly. It may not be very palatable but it is often the only way to protect ourselves.
Are you saying Hussein was not threatening us or our interests when he invaded Kuwait? Their actions and campaigns via proxies against Israel were not against our interests?
And I forgot to mention the IRA training camps in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
Lets also consider where the IRA got its weapons from.
Indeed. Though the irony of that may be lost on Josias in his present mood. .
What 'mood'? You think because I'm disagreeing with you I'm in a 'mood' ?
I'm pointing out that these strongmen who you would support have a rather nasty tendency of turning against us.
Guns going from the US to the IRA are not the same, reprehensible as it was: the US state was not actively supplying them. Instead they were being bought or stolen, and smuggled in. That is an important distinction.
Oh, and Libya provided them with plenty of arms and semtex, whilst Syria trained them in the Bekaa Valley.
I don't expect you, in your 'mood', to comprehend that.
So do all our "friends" or "ex friends" , the whole point is that we should not be meddling in their countries trying to change regimes to the ones we want. As we see they end up worse than the ones we dispose. The trillions spent on this could have enriched our own countries rather than being pi***d up a wall. You will also know well that the UK government worked with at least one if not both sides in Ireland when it suited.
''There needs to be an assault on this belief system which is the kind of religious strait-jacket that this country has spent decades throwing off.''
The left in this country have roped this off. Do what you suggest and you end up losing your livelihood, reputation and liberty.
Let's tear the bloody rope down then. We are the many. They only get away with this bollocks because we let them. It is our duty to criticise Islam - and any other religion or belief system - as much, as often and as critically as we want. And if people don't like it tough.
A substantial portion of Conservative modernisers think they need to embrace that rope to ensure the party appeals to the centre-ground.
And if someone can explain the practicalities of how a million deportations to Syria and points east by gunpoint will happen nicely, you are doing better than I, but in any case I would rather not re-enact the darkest hour of when all Europe refused European values to the children of the 1930s Ghettos.
No I didn't drop him from the conversation. I never included him in my very first response because I didn't disagree with you over him. Go back and look rather than rewriting history.
And in case you missed it Assad's father shut down all the IRA training camps back in the early 1990s - a decade before the current Assad even came to power. Indeed when the camps were shut down the current Assad was in doing postgrad medical studies.
I hope you're not claiming that Assad Snr was fine and dandy because he shut down the camps he allowed to open so that people could train to kill our citizens ...
The point remains: the strongmen you want to take over either directly sponsored terrorism against us, or acted as massive destabilising forces against the region and, by extension, us. Whether it was Assad with the terrorist training camps, Gadaffi providing weaponry to terrorist organisations and blowing PanAm 800 and UTA 772 out of the air along with the Berlin disco bombing, or Hussein declaring war and invading neighbouring nations, and Assad Jr and Hussein using chemical weapons, or Libya and Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.
Etc, etc.
We need less of these people in the region, not more.
Corbyn's fellow travellers and mates speak.... Stop the War @STWuk #ParisAttacks reaping whirlwind of western support for extremist violence in Middle East http://bit.ly/1MIkZAN
Bloody hell.... Is Corbyn still conntected with them?
No I didn't drop him from the conversation. I never included him in my very first response because I didn't disagree with you over him. Go back and look rather than rewriting history.
And in case you missed it Assad's father shut down all the IRA training camps back in the early 1990s - a decade before the current Assad even came to power. Indeed when the camps were shut down the current Assad was in doing postgrad medical studies.
I hope you're not claiming that Assad Snr was fine and dandy because he shut down the camps he allowed to open so that people could train to kill our citizens ...
The point remains: the strongmen you want to take over either directly sponsored terrorism against us, or acted as massive destabilising forces against the region and, by extension, us. Whether it was Assad with the terrorist training camps, Gadaffi providing weaponry to terrorist organisations and blowing PanAm 800 and UTA 772 out of the air along with the Berlin disco bombing, or Hussein declaring war and invading neighbouring nations, and Assad Jr and Hussein using chemical weapons, or Libya and Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.
Etc, etc.
We need less of these people in the region, not more.
We can see that is exactly what is happening NOT, what you cannot seem to grasp is that he was the best of a bad ( or much worse ) lot.
No I didn't drop him from the conversation. I never included him in my very first response because I didn't disagree with you over him. Go back and look rather than rewriting history.
And in case you missed it Assad's father shut down all the IRA training camps back in the early 1990s - a decade before the current Assad even came to power. Indeed when the camps were shut down the current Assad was in doing postgrad medical studies.
I hope you're not claiming that Assad Snr was fine and dandy because he shut down the camps he allowed to open so that people could train to kill our citizens ...
The point remains: the strongmen you want to take over either directly sponsored terrorism against us, or acted as massive destabilising forces against the region and, by extension, us. Whether it was Assad with the terrorist training camps, Gadaffi providing weaponry to terrorist organisations and blowing PanAm 800 and UTA 772 out of the air along with the Berlin disco bombing, or Hussein declaring war and invading neighbouring nations, and Assad Jr and Hussein using chemical weapons, or Libya and Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.
Etc, etc.
We need less of these people in the region, not more.
Nope. I was pointing out you can't blame Assad Jnr for something that ended a decade before he came to power and when he was in no way involved in politics in his country. Kind of ruins your argument don't you think?
And then for the rest of your post you just repeat the same false claims and straw man arguments you just had comprehensively trashed.
I repeat. Please back up your claims that Hussain or Assad encouraged or sponsored terrorist acts against the UK.
And if someone can explain the practicalities of how a million deportations to Syria and points east by gunpoint will happen nicely, you are doing better than I, but in any case I would rather not re-enact the darkest hour of when all Europe refused European values to the children of the 1930s Ghettos.
The 1930s are already being re-enacted by IS.
Some people are still playing Neville Chamberlain.
No I didn't drop him from the conversation. I never included him in my very first response because I didn't disagree with you over him. Go back and look rather than rewriting history.
And in case you missed it Assad's father shut down all the IRA training camps back in the early 1990s - a decade before the current Assad even came to power. Indeed when the camps were shut down the current Assad was in doing postgrad medical studies.
I hope you're not claiming that Assad Snr was fine and dandy because he shut down the camps he allowed to open so that people could train to kill our citizens ...
The point remains: the strongmen you want to take over either directly sponsored terrorism against us, or acted as massive destabilising forces against the region and, by extension, us. Whether it was Assad with the terrorist training camps, Gadaffi providing weaponry to terrorist organisations and blowing PanAm 800 and UTA 772 out of the air along with the Berlin disco bombing, or Hussein declaring war and invading neighbouring nations, and Assad Jr and Hussein using chemical weapons, or Libya and Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.
Etc, etc.
We need less of these people in the region, not more.
What the world needs is democracy not despots. Who knows how the new govt in Burma turns out... but what is important is that it can be defeated in an election if that's what it's public want.
Paul Waugh Jeremy Corbyn letter reveals his unease over extending UK military action to Syria As MoD prepares fresh MP briefing https://t.co/4hVgEdim0c
Quite right too.
I believe that the government should be free to strike at Britain's enemies wherever they may be, in whatever way is necessary, and without warning. I would like to see them state they will not ask Parliament for "permission" in future. Going to war is a Prerogative function and the House of Commons has no authority in the matter.
Afternoon all,
Dreadful events.
As I understand it, this is still the case. It has become a convention that there is a debate in HoC and Cameron seems to have extended this to allowing Parliament a decisive decision over war matters. But nothing has been set in stone. He could act under Royal Prerogative this afternoon as far as I follow the situation, if he so choose to do so. The govern is to choose as someone once said.
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
Islam was spread by violence, its not surprising they see violence as the best way now.
I'm not at all certain that they've lost. They're poorer than us, but they have the will to win.
And that's precisely what it boils down to.
So far, judging by my social media feed today people are (1) posting CND badges with the Eiffel Tower (2) tentatively signalling that we must all ensure we police (what they perceive) as early warning signs of racism.
Indeed, emotion does cause a lot of problems in the discussion, I can assure you I'm not posting based on emotion, purely logic, at last as I see things,.
I agree with pretty much everything you've posted. Iran has always been a beacon in the Islamic world, a long term, stable democracy with male and female suffrage from the age of 15. The Saudi's have always been the most despotic, terror-funding, terror-running state in the region. Yet we let them be and create a hotbed for the most radical defence against any form of Reformation.
But there is a significantly long way to go before any brand of Islam is compatible with the established values of the West and accepting a multicultural solution for Islam inside Western Nations is doing nothing but importing problems -------------------------------
There are countries away from the Middle East block where Islam has mixed with local culture. I am not saying that they are not Muslims. In theological terms they maybe stronger but less hypocritical. I mean countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh.
I was reading a development magazine which stated that 97% of Bangladeshi girls attend school [ higher than boys ]. Virtually all women work.
I feel Education has a lot to do with it. Particularly, female education. Again , in these countries, nobody has heard of FGM, for example.
None of these aforementioned countries are perfect. If we are looking for perfection, there will not be any. I applaud David Herdson for mentioning Assad. Whilst we condemn and seek to remove "dictators", we arm and protect the most vile of them lot.
Assad maybe nasty, but he is, at least, secular. I am not sure, strictly speaking, his sect can even be termed Muslim. But they call themselves Muslims, therefore, should be good enough for us.
Also, Iran should not be isolated. A country with 3000 years of tradition and culture does not become a baddie suddenly. We had no problem allying with the Shah. As I wrote in the previous thread, the Shias, in theological terms, are more "liberal" than Sunnis. The whole of Iran is adorned with pictures of Ali and even Mohammed. It would be a death sentence effectively in any Sunni country. The fact that the revolution removed another dictator, the Shah [ our dictator ], was the reason why Iran became a pariah. Funnily enough, we had no problem selling billions of pounds were of arms to the Saudis.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
Thanks for the words you put into my mouth, but my own are better
I am happy for Muslims to be in Europe. The only way of stopping a high number of extremists is to control the number of muslims allowed into Europe very tightly. It's not a new idea, but the establishment seem to think it doesn't work
Why wouldn't it work? They were allowed in in the first place. It may well be that we will have to say that anyone from a Muslim country does not get a visa, barring some very exceptional circumstances. I certainly don't see why we would positively invite in Muslims from extremist regions or failed states into Europe at this time. The risks to us seem to me to outweigh any benefits to us.
WRT the asylum seekers from Syria, few may be supporters of IS, but given the number of factions, none of whom have clean hands, and given that they tend to be young men, it's a fair assumption that some of them will have carried out acts of extreme cruelty. And if IS lose, we can expect to see their supporters claiming asylum.
It was pretty clear from the video links posted on here by JEO (and others) of young men trying to force their way into Hungary over the border fences that many of them weren't exactly budding National Trust volunteers.
Comments
There are significantly more Muslims in Europe than any other religion bar Christianity. If there were the same number of muslims in Europe as there were Hindus, or Buddhists or Jews, I think we would have the same amount of terrorism from Muslims as we do those other religions I mention
Look at the stats. wherever there are 4-10% Muslims in a European country there is trouble
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
Why aren't there muslim terrorists in South America? If its all to do with the Koran there should be, but there isn't because there aren't enough Muslims to have a significant % of them being terrorists
Also confirming the Syrian passport story.
And I forgot to mention the IRA training camps in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
But while Muslims think their holy sayings can be the only source of their politics then democracy and liberalism will struggle to find fertile ground in which to grow.
What about business trips
What about the people here already
Betfair 2.8 for a grand
Stop changing the argument and accept you were wrong.
At the same time we turn away Ghurkas who are the most loyal and friendly to this country we are likely to have. A small group I know but it's the principle.
I am not adverse to the argument that we need to blacklist countries with known concentrations of terror groups acting with impunity, failed states etc. I am just doubtful of any easy or simple solution for a complex problem like this
I'm talking about migration. I'd be sceptical about someone from Syria saying they wanted to come here for a two week holiday, frankly. Or exactly what business someone from a failed state might be doing here.
Merkel's migration idiocy has divided Europe.
Mr. Slackbladder, I believe it's Corbyn/Labour policy to consult Stop The War on matters of defence.
Corbyn was chair of stop the war until September, apparently.
I suspect you want to call this a 'complex problem' because, like stop the war, you are happy for the status quo to go on. You want indecision, dither, inactivity and appeasement of violence.
I've cut men in half in The Witcher 3, but that doesn't mean I want to grab a sword and start lopping limbs off in real life.
This is an issue of Islamic extremism.
Edited extra bit: Mr. F, think that's too negative. We're at the tail of the Golden Age of Imperial Rome, with the overrated Marcus Aurelius in charge, having inherited a blissful state. Luxury and complacency has enervated our virtues, and vigorous but savage barbarians stand ready to take advantage.
Edited extra bit 2: if we are at 400AD, then almost the whole of Europe is irretrievably ****ed. Where's Byzantium?
Well, in that, we might be lucky. It *could* be us. With sufficient leadership.
Corbyn as PM would be like Arcadius, Honorius and the Angeli all at once.
I'm revolted.
I want NATO to pound IS and a diplomatic solution in Syria
Domestically I want a balance between showing moderate Muslims that they can have a good life here, that our values are superior, and acting ruthlessly against banned organisations.
But how you implement all that is difficult and not straightforward
By my reading, the FSA were destroyed not by internecine fighting, but by combined pressure by both the formative ISIS and the regime's forces. They were the easiest target for both sets of forces individually.
Then there is the fact that Assad's use of chemical weapons should not have gone unpunished.
A combined FSA/Syrian army under a different leader was a great opportunity for relative peace that was lost.
At the time I said a lack of action would lead to the conflict spreading and destabilising the region, and it has. I hope one of my other predictions does not come true: that we will face a greater threat of chemical weapons use against us.
which is the maximum. spanish contact.
'Just Muslims or people from specific countries
I am not adverse to the argument that we need to blacklist countries with known concentrations of terror groups acting with impunity, failed states etc. I am just doubtful of any easy or simple solution for a complex problem like this'
- No further muslim immigration until such time as the existing population is fully integrated and the mass murders stop.
-Withdraw flights to high risk countries.
-Ban on UK nationals returning from Syria.
-Withdrawal of passports
-Withdrawal of benefits from individuals openly supporting ISIS / Al Quada
-No automatic right to British citizenship.
-Closure of Mosques that have entertained hate preachers.
I'm pointing out that these strongmen who you would support have a rather nasty tendency of turning against us.
Guns going from the US to the IRA are not the same, reprehensible as it was: the US state was not actively supplying them. Instead they were being bought or stolen, and smuggled in. That is an important distinction.
Oh, and Libya provided them with plenty of arms and semtex, whilst Syria trained them in the Bekaa Valley.
I don't expect you, in your 'mood', to comprehend that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34815218
Peru had 5,000 in 1980 and still has 5,000 now
Has there been Islamic extremism in South America recently?
Do South American muslims take the Koran less seriously than others? Or is it because the lack of numbers mean that if the same proportion were extremists as in Europe, there wouldn't be enough to be significant?
This has been a really slow quarter for sales so we're siffering. Had to let a guy go yesterday and have been managing cash more than usual.
Normally my biggest customer is quite buoyant at this time of the year but they are construction related and construction and the building trade is flat on its arse at the moment.
The guys who runs our local Nepalese are all ex Gurkhas. Delicious food served with a genial military precision in spotless surroundings.
Top blokes. Try to give them as much custom as I can.
You have more of a point in the case of Hussein.
I also mentioned Gadaffi, who you have unsurprisingly dropped from the conversation.
For example, we have around 100,000 Somalis in the UK that are failed asylum seekers, that have failed their appeal, and yet have not been deported. On average we deport less than 6% of failed asylum seekers each year.
But if you're asking if the Assad regime should have been punished for using chemical weapons against his own people, then the answer is yes.
@GerryAdamsSF: Deplorable attacks in Paris are to be condemned.
https://t.co/2HOrNXDrq2
#Breaking French police forces are chasing after three terrorists in #Paris
11:52 AM - 14 Nov 2015
https://twitter.com/maturefinancier/status/665456713559093248
Jeremy Corbyn letter reveals his unease over extending UK military action to Syria
As MoD prepares fresh MP briefing
https://t.co/4hVgEdim0c
As well as trying to get a tiny bit of work done after the Fallout 4 review and before I have to pay attention to practice and write a pre-qualifying piece, I didn't feel the need.
With the attacks yesterday and the reported incidents this morning, I don't feel the need to read or watch much more, after reading most of the previous thread.
And in case you missed it Assad's father shut down all the IRA training camps back in the early 1990s - a decade before the current Assad even came to power. Indeed when the camps were shut down the current Assad was in doing postgrad medical studies.
Might I suggest, Mr. Brooke, you send your salesmen down to Sussex. They are throwing up houses on every spot of land they can down here. We have the biggest building boom going on that I have ever seen, and not just new estates, whole new towns are being built.
It is one possible tool of a combination we should use, but let's not pretend it's a simple case of raising the drawbridge
I'm not ''re-writing history' - that's impossible, as history did not take that course. It's a projected alternate history, albeit a likely one IMO.
A stable Government was on the cards, and was possible. ISTR there were reports that some senior officers in the Syrian army were talking to some of their recent colleagues who had defected to the FSA about what they wanted, and how there could be an orderly transition. Some FSA units were essentially intact from their time in the Syrian Army.
They're mostly gone now. It was a massive opportunity lost. Perhaps it was the only opportunity to come out of this with an intact Syria.
The settlement building aspect was not something I'd have asked for, and I'm not clear on how best to utilise it yet either, but it is strangely absorbing, and being able to clear our some of the mess of the world makes me think of a joke I heard about many of these post apocalyptic games, essentially 'I know there was an apocalypse, but you couldn't take 5 minutes in the past 200 years to put up a lick of paint or something?' I feel the idea of the protagonist, particular given their backstory, trying to restore the Wasteland a bit at a time, is really compelling, almost to the point of distracting from the main narrative a bit too well (even understanding that one rarely sticks to the main path in Bethesda games).
Not had much time for companions yet, is a bit more New Vegas than 3 I guess?
Overall I'd call it a good evolution of the classic Bethesda model, rather than something revolutionary. It looks and plays better than the older ones, as you'd expect with time, but it essentially more of the same. Which, 16 hours in and barely scratching the surface, is really all I'm after.
Could have been the winner of some fast moving lead.
I didn't play New Vegas. The best comparison might actually be Dragon Age. Yes, you only get one, but they feel more three-dimensional by far than in previous Bethesda games (based on my limited experience).
Is it so controversial, therefore, to say that "cultural relativism" is a bogeyman like the international Communist conspiracy, but many of the behaviours therein may be... European values? Who says secularism is a European value? If European values really need to be imposed uncontestably in the wake of atrocities, are they really actually-existing European values or a political project? (I note that we have heard from Cameron, Herdson, etc. a lot about liberty but these exhortations often exclude equality and fraternity - suggesting it is a political project.)
Proportionality is hard to maintain because atrocities are terrifying, but it is likely that more French people died of heart disease than of terrorism, on what was by far the scariest day in my memory in Western Europe. That's not to say that the actions aren't morally bad in and of themselves and deserving of retribution, but that is because of their moral content and not their danger to life as such.
You will also know well that the UK government worked with at least one if not both sides in Ireland when it suited.
I don't know what planet they live on.
The point remains: the strongmen you want to take over either directly sponsored terrorism against us, or acted as massive destabilising forces against the region and, by extension, us. Whether it was Assad with the terrorist training camps, Gadaffi providing weaponry to terrorist organisations and blowing PanAm 800 and UTA 772 out of the air along with the Berlin disco bombing, or Hussein declaring war and invading neighbouring nations, and Assad Jr and Hussein using chemical weapons, or Libya and Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.
Etc, etc.
We need less of these people in the region, not more.
And then for the rest of your post you just repeat the same false claims and straw man arguments you just had comprehensively trashed.
I repeat. Please back up your claims that Hussain or Assad encouraged or sponsored terrorist acts against the UK.
Some people are still playing Neville Chamberlain.
Dreadful events.
As I understand it, this is still the case. It has become a convention that there is a debate in HoC and Cameron seems to have extended this to allowing Parliament a decisive decision over war matters. But nothing has been set in stone. He could act under Royal Prerogative this afternoon as far as I follow the situation, if he so choose to do so. The govern is to choose as someone once said.
So far, judging by my social media feed today people are (1) posting CND badges with the Eiffel Tower (2) tentatively signalling that we must all ensure we police (what they perceive) as early warning signs of racism.
That's as far as it goes.
Indeed, emotion does cause a lot of problems in the discussion, I can assure you I'm not posting based on emotion, purely logic, at last as I see things,.
I agree with pretty much everything you've posted. Iran has always been a beacon in the Islamic world, a long term, stable democracy with male and female suffrage from the age of 15. The Saudi's have always been the most despotic, terror-funding, terror-running state in the region. Yet we let them be and create a hotbed for the most radical defence against any form of Reformation.
But there is a significantly long way to go before any brand of Islam is compatible with the established values of the West and accepting a multicultural solution for Islam inside Western Nations is doing nothing but importing problems
-------------------------------
@Dair
There are countries away from the Middle East block where Islam has mixed with local culture. I am not saying that they are not Muslims. In theological terms they maybe stronger but less hypocritical. I mean countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh.
I was reading a development magazine which stated that 97% of Bangladeshi girls attend school [ higher than boys ]. Virtually all women work.
I feel Education has a lot to do with it. Particularly, female education. Again , in these countries, nobody has heard of FGM, for example.
None of these aforementioned countries are perfect. If we are looking for perfection, there will not be any. I applaud David Herdson for mentioning Assad. Whilst we condemn and seek to remove "dictators", we arm and protect the most vile of them lot.
Assad maybe nasty, but he is, at least, secular. I am not sure, strictly speaking, his sect can even be termed Muslim. But they call themselves Muslims, therefore, should be good enough for us.
Also, Iran should not be isolated. A country with 3000 years of tradition and culture does not become a baddie suddenly. We had no problem allying with the Shah. As I wrote in the previous thread, the Shias, in theological terms, are more "liberal" than Sunnis. The whole of Iran is adorned with pictures of Ali and even Mohammed. It would be a death sentence effectively in any Sunni country. The fact that the revolution removed another dictator, the Shah [ our dictator ], was the reason why Iran became a pariah. Funnily enough, we had no problem selling billions of pounds were of arms to the Saudis.