I love the way people on this thread are blithely redesigning a bunch of foreign countries and their populations, as if they get to decide. Along the same lines I'm thinking we move the Catholics in Glasgow to the Shetland Islands, then move the protestants from Belfast into their houses.
"What I find hard to get my head around is many of those that have traditionally fought the hardest against homophobia, inequality, animal rights etc etc etc, seem completely willing to turn a blind eye to it within a certain section of society."
Do you think this is a battle of cultures-just that?
It doesn't really add up. In fact nothing does. They don't seem to be trying to affect our governance and I'm pretty sure they don't want to convert us to Islam. They could be doing a Sodom and Gomorrah but that would make them insane. More likely they're trying to stop our interference in areas they are interested in or even seeking revenge for our previous involvement in those areas.
But who knows? It's a very unusual enemy and until we understand it better ideas of group punishments against Muslims are putting the cart before the horse
Stupid article. No attempt to address the overwhelming problem - the Muslims already here, living in Europe, who tolerate Isis, or even, tacitly, support them. Closely followed by the hundreds of thousands of European Muslims who have grotesque beliefs (gays, women, apostasy) utterly at odds with modern liberal western values.
Fail. 2/10. Next.
So what's your big plan?
Repatriation? Internment?
1/10 for having thought it through.
Throw your hands up all you want, we are where we are. We must try, over the course of very many years, both to convince those with the extremist views you describe that our value system is preferable, and to work to prevent those not yet convinced from doing any harm, by all means possible.
I think we are doing a lot in both regards. I appreciate that some people, especially here on PB, believe we accommodate different minority cultures too much but it's not something to get hung up on.
We have been here before, perhaps absent the scale of threat, so if I were you, and to the many on here who are forecasting the end of western civilisation, I'd calm down a bit.
Dear god what has it come to when Roger provides one of the few voices of reason on PB.
You were always a sad old [moderated], now you're a sad old quisling [moderated] Congrats on your intellectual promotion.
0.5/10
What would you do with the "Muslims already here"?
Apostatise or leave.
It's really that simple.
You'd better be careful. The SNP has tasked Police Scotland to deal with internet thought criminals.
Stupid article. No attempt to address the overwhelming problem - the Muslims already here, living in Europe, who tolerate Isis, or even, tacitly, support them. Closely followed by the hundreds of thousands of European Muslims who have grotesque beliefs (gays, women, apostasy) utterly at odds with modern liberal western values.
Fail. 2/10. Next.
So what's your big plan?
Repatriation? Internment?
1/10 for having thought it through.
Throw your hands up all you want, we are where we are. We must try, over the course of very many years, both to convince those with the extremist views you describe that our value system is preferable, and to work to prevent those not yet convinced from doing any harm, by all means possible.
I think we are doing a lot in both regards. I appreciate that some people, especially here on PB, believe we accommodate different minority cultures too much but it's not something to get hung up on.
We have been here before, perhaps absent the scale of threat, so if I were you, and to the many on here who are forecasting the end of western civilisation, I'd calm down a bit.
Dear god what has it come to when Roger provides one of the few voices of reason on PB.
How can we win the argument intellectually when we refuse to admit the extremism began with the founding of Islam in the 600s, as described below?
Whatever the problems and whenever they began does or should not alter our belief that western liberal democracy is a superior societal model. Of course we have gone to great lengths these past few years of trying to impose that model on various countries without overwhelming success but we can continue to believe and argue for it regardless.
We are trying to argue for Muslims to reject terrorism while refusing to challenge the violent extremism that lays at the heart and history of their religion. Christians are happy to reject the crusades, but Muslims are never expected to reject the Arab conquests. We should not be surprised when our argument is not persuasive.
I absolutely do think they should reject terrorism. As has often been said, read the bible if you want to know about violence. I don't think because there is a history of violence in a religion, today's practitioners are unable to reject violence.
Not sure why you think muslims are not being asked, nor wish to reject violent events in the history of their religion.
London already has been attacked, 56 died in the bombings on 7th July 2005.
The only long-term solution in Syria will probably involve splitting the country, with Assad having the Shiite, Alawite bit and the FSA and what moderate rebels there are the Sunni bit. That would require Assad and Russia's agreement and then an FSA led assault on ISIS backed by western airpower and special forces and ideally forces from Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Kurds too. In Iraq the solution will require the Iraqi government to incorporate more Sunni representation and then a large scale attack by the Iraqi army again backed by western airpower and western and Iranian special forces.
As mentioned earlier, with caveats that's basically the way I'm heading, although it's fraught with dangers and short-term pain (then again, there's plenty of pain the region as it is).
I'd add a couple of things: there would have to be a Kurdish region in the north, and some of Iraq might need to be ceded as well. This will all mean mass movements of peoples, which will cause massive hardship.
The chances are there will not be a singly Kurdish state, there are significant differences between the Iraqi, Syrian and Iranian Kurds to make a single state problematic. This is why they each had their own Peshmergas until earlier this year, when they went under one command.
Instead, expect them to be separately-administered states that will slowly coalesce over time. Not that Turkey will like that prospect ...
The region might have to be split down religious and ethic lines. And that might be impossible in practice.
It is shocking how little support there is in the West for muslims who want to become apostates, and how little protection against the intimidation associated with it.
Our country will not even stand up for minority Muslims sects persecuted here, let alone the apostates.
Does anyone think Corbyn is the right guy for any of the above? He is going to get hammered for his positions week in, week out, and rightly so.
Do you not think his position on Iraq war was correct and that there wouldnt even be an ISIS?
No - because Islamist terrorism started long before the Iraq war.
When did islamic terrorism start? Can anyone pinpoint where it all went down hill?
About 630 AD.
Indeed.
In truth Mohammad was a barbaric Warlord, murderer and paedophile** who invented a corruption of Abrahamic religion in order to enhance his ability to wage war. It was hardly a new concept even then but quite a successful one.
** Perhaps the greatest squirm of Islamists is watching them justify his rape of Aisha, whom he married when the child was 6. The adherents claim "but he waited till she was ready before he consumated it". Ready, in this case, meant 9 years old.
@YanniKouts: #Greece PublicOrderMin Toskas confirms Paris attacker w Syrian passport was registered as refugee on Leros island in Oct. /via @AntennaNews
Game over.
It's only just started. If true, he was one of the many here, soon to be joined by the millions Merkel invited.
The ramifications of this will be big, first of all the blame is now on 2 hands, Merkel and Tsipras, although Greece can no longer be described as a state but rather a German satellite, therefore Merkel gets more of the blame.
You know in British terms Merkel would be forced to resign.
There are some things we are better at than the Germans. Taking responsibility for decisions is one.
I'm not sure you can really get away with that comment.
Germany, since 1945 is possibly the greatest example of a society fully and unconditionally taking responsibility for its disastrous decisions.
Ever since the announcement of Merkel's migration policy (which now, certainly looks ill-advised and pretty much impossible to implement given the lack of support for it in Germany and across Europe), on PB there's been a 'aren't Germany terrible' and 'isn't Merkel awful/Dave is amazing' theme to various threads.
Stupid article. No attempt to address the overwhelming problem - the Muslims already here, living in Europe, who tolerate Isis, or even, tacitly, support them. Closely followed by the hundreds of thousands of European Muslims who have grotesque beliefs (gays, women, apostasy) utterly at odds with modern liberal western values.
Fail. 2/10. Next.
So what's your big plan?
Repatriation? Internment?
1/10 for having thought it through.
Throw your hands up all you want, we are where we are. We must try, over the course of very many years, both to convince those with the extremist views you describe that our value system is preferable, and to work to prevent those not yet convinced from doing any harm, by all means possible.
I think we are doing a lot in both regards. I appreciate that some people, especially here on PB, believe we accommodate different minority cultures too much but it's not something to get hung up on.
We have been here before, perhaps absent the scale of threat, so if I were you, and to the many on here who are forecasting the end of western civilisation, I'd calm down a bit.
Dear god what has it come to when Roger provides one of the few voices of reason on PB.
You were always a sad old [moderated], now you're a sad old quisling [moderated] Congrats on your intellectual promotion.
0.5/10
What would you do with the "Muslims already here"?
Disband organised Islam. close all the mosques and exterminate radical Islam in the country. Vet all preachers and oversee all sermons until we are certain that radical Islam is gone. If people find this intolerable then they are free to seek asylum in less restrictive countries where they can practice their religion without state interference.
Stupid article. No attempt to address the overwhelming problem - the Muslims already here, living in Europe, who tolerate Isis, or even, tacitly, support them. Closely followed by the hundreds of thousands of European Muslims who have grotesque beliefs (gays, women, apostasy) utterly at odds with modern liberal western values.
Fail. 2/10. Next.
So what's your big plan?
Repatriation? Internment?
1/10 for having thought it through.
Throw your hands up all you want, we are where we are. We must try, over the course of very many years, both to convince those with the extremist views you describe that our value system is preferable, and to work to prevent those not yet convinced from doing any harm, by all means possible.
We have been here before, perhaps absent the scale of threat, so if I were you, and to the many on here who are forecasting the end of western civilisation, I'd calm down a bit.
Dear god what has it come to when Roger provides one of the few voices of reason on PB.
How can we win the argument intellectually when we refuse to admit the extremism began with the founding of Islam in the 600s, as described below?
Whatever the problems and whenever they began does or should not alter our belief that western liberal democracy is a superior societal model. Of course we have gone to great lengths these past few years of trying to impose that model on various countries without overwhelming success but we can continue to believe and argue for it regardless.
We are trying to argue for Muslims to reject terrorism while refusing to challenge the violent extremism that lays at the heart and history of their religion. Christians are happy to reject the crusades, but Muslims are never expected to reject the Arab conquests. We should not be surprised when our argument is not persuasive.
How can you persuade someone, when the basis of their belief is faith? We keep missing the point. 7th century Islam was black-and-white - dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb. No ifs, ands or buts. That was modified by the 8th century to include the 'dar al-Sulh' - i.e. non-muslim but friendly countries.
Salafism rejects that modification. I've not seen many people on PB be persuaded by argument, no matter how compelling the logic. How little chance do we have of dealing with people who have faith in a literal interpretation of a book written by Allah (blessed be His Name)?
I see calls for apostasy; well, good luck with that approach. I can see the appeal, however it's just not going to work.
Police in Bavaria stopped a VW Golf with explosives, arms and ammunition "professionally concealed" in it just after he crossed the German border. He was apparently heading for Paris.
Stupid article. No attempt to address the overwhelming problem - the Muslims already here, living in Europe, who tolerate Isis, or even, tacitly, support them. Closely followed by the hundreds of thousands of European Muslims who have grotesque beliefs (gays, women, apostasy) utterly at odds with modern liberal western values.
Fail. 2/10. Next.
So what's your big plan?
Repatriation? Internment?
1/10 for having thought it through.
Throw your hands up all you want, we are where we are. We must try, over the course of very many years, both to convince those with the extremist views you describe that our value system is preferable, and to work to prevent those not yet convinced from doing any harm, by all means possible.
I think we are doing a lot in both regards. I appreciate that some people, especially here on PB, believe we accommodate different minority cultures too much but it's not something to get hung up on.
We have been here before, perhaps absent the scale of threat, so if I were you, and to the many on here who are forecasting the end of western civilisation, I'd calm down a bit.
Dear god what has it come to when Roger provides one of the few voices of reason on PB.
You were always a sad old [moderated], now you're a sad old quisling [moderated] Congrats on your intellectual promotion.
0.5/10
What would you do with the "Muslims already here"?
Disband organised Islam. close all the mosques and exterminate radical Islam in the country. Vet all preachers and oversee all sermons until we are certain that radical Islam is gone. If people find this intolerable then they are free to seek asylum in less restrictive countries where they can practice their religion without state interference.
will closing all the mosques be as effective in exterminating radical Islam as, say, prohibition in the US was at exterminating boozing?
Hardly a surprise, given how easy it'd be to smuggle terrorists in. Just to reinforce The_Apocalypse's views, that's why Cameron was right to pick from the camps and Merkel was wrong to just throw open the borders.
I love the way people on this thread are blithely redesigning a bunch of foreign countries and their populations, as if they get to decide. Along the same lines I'm thinking we move the Catholics in Glasgow to the Shetland Islands, then move the protestants from Belfast into their houses.
Hardly a surprise, given how easy it'd be to smuggle terrorists in. Just to reinforce The_Apocalypse's views, that's why Cameron was right to pick from the camps and Merkel was wrong to just throw open the borders.
Stupid article. No attempt to address the overwhelming problem - the Muslims already here, living in Europe, who tolerate Isis, or even, tacitly, support them. Closely followed by the hundreds of thousands of European Muslims who have grotesque beliefs (gays, women, apostasy) utterly at odds with modern liberal western values.
Fail. 2/10. Next.
So what's your big plan?
Repatriation? Internment?
1/10 for having thought it through.
Throw your hands up all you want, we are where we are. We must try, over the course of very many years, both to convince those with the extremist views you describe that our value system is preferable, and to work to prevent those not yet convinced from doing any harm, by all means possible.
I think we are doing a lot in both regards. I appreciate that some people, especially here on PB, believe we accommodate different minority cultures too much but it's not something to get hung up on.
We have been here before, perhaps absent the scale of threat, so if I were you, and to the many on here who are forecasting the end of western civilisation, I'd calm down a bit.
Dear god what has it come to when Roger provides one of the few voices of reason on PB.
You were always a sad old [moderated], now you're a sad old quisling [moderated] Congrats on your intellectual promotion.
0.5/10
What would you do with the "Muslims already here"?
Disband organised Islam. close all the mosques and exterminate radical Islam in the country. Vet all preachers and oversee all sermons until we are certain that radical Islam is gone. If people find this intolerable then they are free to seek asylum in less restrictive countries where they can practice their religion without state interference.
will closing all the mosques be as effective in exterminating radical Islam as, say, prohibition in the US was at exterminating boozing?
Well replace them with designated centres where sermons can be given, overseen by the state.
You pinko liberals are cheering the downfall of western civilisation even as we are under attack from radical Islam. It's no good moaning about how unfair it all is and how we can do nothing about it. It is time to do something about it, even if it offends people and causes short term problems. It is time for Muslims to integrate or leave.
London already has been attacked, 56 died in the bombings on 7th July 2005.
The only long-term solution in Syria will probably involve splitting the country, with Assad having the Shiite, Alawite bit and the FSA and what moderate rebels there are the Sunni bit. That would require Assad and Russia's agreement and then an FSA led assault on ISIS backed by western airpower and special forces and ideally forces from Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Kurds too. In Iraq the solution will require the Iraqi government to incorporate more Sunni representation and then a large scale attack by the Iraqi army again backed by western airpower and western and Iranian special forces.
As mentioned earlier, with caveats that's basically the way I'm heading, although it's fraught with dangers and short-term pain (then again, there's plenty of pain the region as it is).
I'd add a couple of things: there would have to be a Kurdish region in the north, and some of Iraq might need to be ceded as well. This will all mean mass movements of peoples, which will cause massive hardship.
The chances are there will not be a singly Kurdish state, there are significant differences between the Iraqi, Syrian and Iranian Kurds to make a single state problematic. This is why they each had their own Peshmergas until earlier this year, when they went under one command.
Instead, expect them to be separately-administered states that will slowly coalesce over time. Not that Turkey will like that prospect ...
The region might have to be split down religious and ethic lines. And that might be impossible in practice.
Don't forget that most Kurds live in Turkey!
As if I would! Note the 'Not that Turkey will like that prospect ...' line.
Hardly a surprise, given how easy it'd be to smuggle terrorists in. Just to reinforce The_Apocalypse's views, that's why Cameron was right to pick from the camps and Merkel was wrong to just throw open the borders.
Stupid article. No attempt to address the overwhelming problem - the Muslims already here, living in Europe, who tolerate Isis, or even, tacitly, support them. Closely followed by the hundreds of thousands of European Muslims who have grotesque beliefs (gays, women, apostasy) utterly at odds with modern liberal western values.
Fail. 2/10. Next.
So what's your big plan?
Repatriation? Internment?
1/10 for having thought it through.
Throw your hands up all you want, we are where we are. We must try, over the course of very many years, both to convince those with the extremist views you describe that our value system is preferable, and to work to prevent those not yet convinced from doing any harm, by all means possible.
I think we are doing a lot in both regards. I appreciate that some people, especially here on PB, believe we accommodate different minority cultures too much but it's not something to get hung up on.
We have been here before, perhaps absent the scale of threat, so if I were you, and to the many on here who are forecasting the end of western civilisation, I'd calm down a bit.
Dear god what has it come to when Roger provides one of the few voices of reason on PB.
You were always a sad old [moderated], now you're a sad old quisling [moderated] Congrats on your intellectual promotion.
0.5/10
What would you do with the "Muslims already here"?
Apostatise or leave.
It's really that simple.
QED x 2.
Revolting.
Revolting is watching hundreds die on the streets of Paris.
Expecting people to renounce a Death Cult is not revolting at all.
How can you persuade someone, when the basis of their belief is faith? We keep missing the point. 7th century Islam was black-and-white - dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb. No ifs, ands or buts. That was modified by the 8th century to include the 'dar al-Sulh' - i.e. non-muslim but friendly countries.
Salafism rejects that modification. I've not seen many people on PB be persuaded by argument, no matter how compelling the logic. How little chance do we have of dealing with people who have faith in a literal interpretation of a book written by Allah (blessed be His Name)?
I see calls for apostasy; well, good luck with that approach. I can see the appeal, however it's just not going to work.
The current approach is what's not working. Islamic extremism is just getting worse and worse. We must show that Muhammad was a terrible person and make them ashamed to associate with him. At the very least, it will put off the next generation who have not yet formed their views.
I love the way people on this thread are blithely redesigning a bunch of foreign countries and their populations, as if they get to decide. Along the same lines I'm thinking we move the Catholics in Glasgow to the Shetland Islands, then move the protestants from Belfast into their houses.
As I've said, there are massive problems and dangers with it. But the current situation cannot continue as the ethic and religious makeup of the countries, and the inability of those ethnicities to work together, is a large part of the problem.
Your example is stupid, as the problems are nowhere near as serious or involved.
Hardly a surprise, given how easy it'd be to smuggle terrorists in. Just to reinforce The_Apocalypse's views, that's why Cameron was right to pick from the camps and Merkel was wrong to just throw open the borders.
Mr. Max, if the government sought to close every mosque in the country we would have a situation not dissimilar to civil war.
Mr. Gord, if true, it only deepens the hole which Merkel has dug for herself.
Mr. B, only just saw your comment, but I don't think McLaren being unreliable counts as a spoiler, alas.
Mr. F, the Fourth Crusade was madness, arguably the most self-harming piece of foreign policy, as it were, Europe has ever adopted.
If that's the case then they truly have no allegiance to this nation. We've been told time and again that moderate Muslims make up the vast majority in this country, if they are willing to declare war on the state then clearly this is not the case.
I don't think it will be as bad as that. I think there would be a lot of protests, a lot of marches, a lot of anger whipped up by the likes of Stop the War and other assorted idiots, and eventually it will settle down. Friday prayers will be overseen by the state and have heavy police presences. Over time those who disagree will choose to leave, we can expel radical preachers and once we have achieved it Mosques can re-open and the state can reduce its presence. For now it is clear that the Muslim community does not deserve the trust we have given them with freedom to practice their religion without state intervention.
Stupid article. No attempt to address the overwhelming problem - the Muslims already here, living in Europe, who tolerate Isis, or even, tacitly, support them. Closely followed by the hundreds of thousands of European Muslims who have grotesque beliefs (gays, women, apostasy) utterly at odds with modern liberal western values.
Fail. 2/10. Next.
So what's your big plan?
Repatriation? Internment?
1/10 for having thought it through.
Throw your hands up all you want, we are where we are. We must try, over the course of very many years, both to convince those with the extremist views you describe that our value system is preferable, and to work to prevent those not yet convinced from doing any harm, by all means possible.
I think we are doing a lot in both regards. I appreciate that some people, especially here on PB, believe we accommodate different minority cultures too much but it's not something to get hung up on.
We have been here before, perhaps absent the scale of threat, so if I were you, and to the many on here who are forecasting the end of western civilisation, I'd calm down a bit.
Dear god what has it come to when Roger provides one of the few voices of reason on PB.
You were always a sad old [moderated], now you're a sad old quisling [moderated] Congrats on your intellectual promotion.
0.5/10
What would you do with the "Muslims already here"?
Disband organised Islam. close all the mosques and exterminate radical Islam in the country. Vet all preachers and oversee all sermons until we are certain that radical Islam is gone. If people find this intolerable then they are free to seek asylum in less restrictive countries where they can practice their religion without state interference.
will closing all the mosques be as effective in exterminating radical Islam as, say, prohibition in the US was at exterminating boozing?
Well replace them with designated centres where sermons can be given, overseen by the state.
You pinko liberals are cheering the downfall of western civilisation even as we are under attack from radical Islam. It's no good moaning about how unfair it all is and how we can do nothing about it. It is time to do something about it, even if it offends people and causes short term problems. It is time for Muslims to integrate or leave.
Very amusing.
If you think a bunch of terrorists are going to overthrow western civilisation I would say either that you are not very confident in its attractions, or that you are scared and need to get a grip, or that you have been on the sauce already this evening.
If you think a bunch of terrorists are going to overthrow western civilisation I would say either that you are not very confident in its attractions, or that you are scared and need to get a grip, or that you have been on the sauce already this evening.
So where were the British newspapers printing the Charlie Hebdo pictures or the Danish pictures? Oh, right, racial hatred laws eh...
"What I find hard to get my head around is many of those that have traditionally fought the hardest against homophobia, inequality, animal rights etc etc etc, seem completely willing to turn a blind eye to it within a certain section of society."
Do you think this is a battle of cultures-just that?
It doesn't really add up. In fact nothing does. They don't seem to be trying to affect our governance and I'm pretty sure they don't want to convert us to Islam. They could be doing a Sodom and Gomorrah but that would make them insane. More likely they're trying to stop our interference in areas they are interested in or even seeking revenge for our previous involvement in those areas.
But who knows? It's a very unusual enemy and until we understand it better ideas of group punishments against Muslims are putting the cart before the horse
As a matter of fact, they seek nothing less than The Apocalypse...
'We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.'
'Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.'
'The Islamic State awaits the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.'
'It is here, the Prophet reportedly said, that the armies of Rome will set up their camp. The armies of Islam will meet them, and Dabiq will be Rome’s Waterloo or its Antietam.'
'An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.'
One of the cars used last night was Belgian registered and rented by a Belgian resident Frenchman. He was detained this morning re-entering Belgium driving a different car with two other people in it.
I'm getting from the wires that it's possibly 2 of them that were masquerading as Syrian refugees from Greece, so out of 8 terrorists 2 of them Syrian refugees from Greece and 3 Belgians.
Mr. Topping, it was a small group of incompetent terrorists who precipitated World War One.
I think there's a great degree of complacency regarding Western civilisation. It isn't inevitable and it isn't invincible, just as fundamentalist madness is neither inevitable nor invincible.
Rome under Trajan was a colossus bestriding the world. About a hundred years later the Empire had split into three and was losing multiple wars to barbarians every year, and it took Aurelian (arguably the greatest of all emperors) to hold everything together.
Hardly a surprise, given how easy it'd be to smuggle terrorists in. Just to reinforce The_Apocalypse's views, that's why Cameron was right to pick from the camps and Merkel was wrong to just throw open the borders.
Nothing on the BBC news about it
They will get there eventually. It was again really telling last night how unwilling the likes of Nolan on the radio was to describe this as a terrorist attack conducted by terrorists, and definitely not to engage in the fact it was mailed on an Islamist terrorist attack. You could hear the sharp intakes of breath when a security expert came on the programme and just told it how it is.
"What I find hard to get my head around is many of those that have traditionally fought the hardest against homophobia, inequality, animal rights etc etc etc, seem completely willing to turn a blind eye to it within a certain section of society."
Do you think this is a battle of cultures-just that?
It doesn't really add up. In fact nothing does. They don't seem to be trying to affect our governance and I'm pretty sure they don't want to convert us to Islam. They could be doing a Sodom and Gomorrah but that would make them insane. More likely they're trying to stop our interference in areas they are interested in or even seeking revenge for our previous involvement in those areas.
But who knows? It's a very unusual enemy and until we understand it better ideas of group punishments against Muslims are putting the cart before the horse
As a matter of fact, they seek nothing less than The Apocalypse...
Mr. Topping, it was a small group of incompetent terrorists who precipitated World War One.
I think there's a great degree of complacency regarding Western civilisation. It isn't inevitable and it isn't invincible, just as fundamentalist madness is neither inevitable nor invincible.
Rome under Trajan was a colossus bestriding the world. About a hundred years later the Empire had split into three and was losing multiple wars to barbarians every year, and it took Aurelian (arguably the greatest of all emperors) to hold everything together.
A small group funded by Vickers to sell more weapons.
Stupid article. No attempt to address the overwhelming problem - the Muslims already here, living in Europe, who tolerate Isis, or even, tacitly, support them. Closely followed by the hundreds of thousands of European Muslims who have grotesque beliefs (gays, women, apostasy) utterly at odds with modern liberal western values.
Fail. 2/10. Next.
So what's your big plan?
Repatriation? Internment?
1/10 for having thought it through.
Throw your hands up all you want, we are where we are. We must try, over the course of very many years, both to convince those with the extremist views you describe that our value system is preferable, and to work to prevent those not yet convinced from doing any harm, by all means possible.
I think we are doing a lot in both regards. I appreciate that some people, especially here on PB, believe we accommodate different minority cultures too much but it's not something to get hung up on.
We have been here before, perhaps absent the scale of threat, so if I were you, and to the many on here who are forecasting the end of western civilisation, I'd calm down a bit.
Dear god what has it come to when Roger provides one of the few voices of reason on PB.
You were always a sad old [moderated], now you're a sad old quisling [moderated] Congrats on your intellectual promotion.
0.5/10
What would you do with the "Muslims already here"?
Apostatise or leave.
It's really that simple.
You'd better be careful. The SNP has tasked Police Scotland to deal with internet thought criminals.
Mr. Topping, it was a small group of incompetent terrorists who precipitated World War One.
I think there's a great degree of complacency regarding Western civilisation. It isn't inevitable and it isn't invincible, just as fundamentalist madness is neither inevitable nor invincible.
Rome under Trajan was a colossus bestriding the world. About a hundred years later the Empire had split into three and was losing multiple wars to barbarians every year, and it took Aurelian (arguably the greatest of all emperors) to hold everything together.
Indeed. We're drunk, fat Romans telling the world to come and have a go.
Mr. Topping, it was a small group of incompetent terrorists who precipitated World War One.
I think there's a great degree of complacency regarding Western civilisation. It isn't inevitable and it isn't invincible, just as fundamentalist madness is neither inevitable nor invincible.
This is the point, isn't it? A bunch of armed nutjobs can't destroy western civilization. But if they can provoke a counter-productive enough response, they can get western civilization to destroy western civilization.
Stupid article. No attempt to address the overwhelming problem - the Muslims already here, living in Europe, who tolerate Isis, or even, tacitly, support them. Closely followed by the hundreds of thousands of European Muslims who have grotesque beliefs (gays, women, apostasy) utterly at odds with modern liberal western values.
Fail. 2/10. Next.
So what's your big plan?
Repatriation? Internment?
1/10 for having thought it through.
Throw your hands up all you want, we are where we are. We must try, over the course of very many years, both to convince those with the extremist views you describe that our value system is preferable, and to work to prevent those not yet convinced from doing any harm, by all means possible.
I think we are doing a lot in both regards. I appreciate that some people, especially here on PB, believe we accommodate different minority cultures too much but it's not something to get hung up on.
We have been here before, perhaps absent the scale of threat, so if I were you, and to the many on here who are forecasting the end of western civilisation, I'd calm down a bit.
Dear god what has it come to when Roger provides one of the few voices of reason on PB.
You were always a sad old [moderated], now you're a sad old quisling [moderated] Congrats on your intellectual promotion.
0.5/10
What would you do with the "Muslims already here"?
Disband organised Islam. close all the mosques and exterminate radical Islam in the country. Vet all preachers and oversee all sermons until we are certain that radical Islam is gone. If people find this intolerable then they are free to seek asylum in less restrictive countries where they can practice their religion without state interference.
will closing all the mosques be as effective in exterminating radical Islam as, say, prohibition in the US was at exterminating boozing?
Thank you for trying to inject just a touch of sanity into this debate.
If you think a bunch of terrorists are going to overthrow western civilisation I would say either that you are not very confident in its attractions, or that you are scared and need to get a grip, or that you have been on the sauce already this evening.
So where were the British newspapers printing the Charlie Hebdo pictures or the Danish pictures? Oh, right, racial hatred laws eh...
They were scared. Which I understand. I don't think even Private Eye published them, did they?
Please don't misunderstand me, my first post on the subject said that we should combat extremism by all means possible. This includes monitoring of hate-preachers where we are aware of them, extensive programmes of engagement with as yet unradicalised muslims, and using organisations such as Quilliam to lead initiatives. I do not forgive islamofascism on account of any sense of cultural relativism or "pinko liberalism" as you quaintly put it.
But vilifying all muslims, wanting to send them back, wanting them to renounce their faith, and any number of similar suggestions from the PB intelligentsia? Really? Apart from anything else do you suppose such measures will not provoke further radicalisation?
I think everyone here can be agreed upon one single thing; Jeremy Corbyn is not the man you want to be leading your country in this kind of crisis. He is fine as a pressure group politician, but the compromises that you require for saying the right things, and setting the right tone, for bringing people with you, Corbyn just cannot do this. It is simply not in him.
Hollande was hamfisted today, but he played the political leader (sort of) well. Blair was good, Clinton too- OK, not quite Churchill, but not bad.
And, also, we can all now see why Ed lost. Britain will never vote in as PM someone who hasn't the credibility to do the basics well- and the basics very much include leading the country through a crisis.
Stupid article. No attempt to address the overwhelming problem - the Muslims already here, living in Europe, who tolerate Isis, or even, tacitly, support them. Closely followed by the hundreds of thousands of European Muslims who have grotesque beliefs (gays, women, apostasy) utterly at odds with modern liberal western values.
Fail. 2/10. Next.
So what's your big plan?
Repatriation? Internment?
1/10 for having thought it through.
Throw your hands up all you want, we are where we are. We must try, over the course of very many years, both to convince those with the extremist views you describe that our value system is preferable, and to work to prevent those not yet convinced from doing any harm, by all means possible.
I think we are doing a lot in both regards. I appreciate that some people, especially here on PB, believe we accommodate different minority cultures too
You were always a sad old [moderated], now you're a sad old quisling [moderated] Congrats on your intellectual promotion.
0.5/10
What would you do with the "Muslims already here"?
Disband organised Islam. close all the mosques and exterminate radical Islam in the country. Vet all preachers and oversee all sermons until we are certain that radical Islam is gone. If people find this intolerable then they are free to seek asylum in less restrictive countries where they can practice their religion without state interference.
will closing all the mosques be as effective in exterminating radical Islam as, say, prohibition in the US was at exterminating boozing?
Well replace them with designated centres where sermons can be given, overseen by the state.
You pinko liberals are cheering the downfall of western civilisation even as we are under attack from radical Islam. It's no good moaning about how unfair it all is and how we can do nothing about it. It is time to do something about it, even if it offends people and causes short term problems. It is time for Muslims to integrate or leave.
Very amusing.
If you think a bunch of terrorists are going to overthrow western civilisation I would say either that you are not very confident in its attractions, or that you are scared and need to get a grip, or that you have been on the sauce already this evening.
Relatively small numbers of people overthrew Rome. There is nothing inevitable about the survival of the more sophisticated way of life.
Mr. Topping, it was a small group of incompetent terrorists who precipitated World War One.
I think there's a great degree of complacency regarding Western civilisation. It isn't inevitable and it isn't invincible, just as fundamentalist madness is neither inevitable nor invincible.
Rome under Trajan was a colossus bestriding the world. About a hundred years later the Empire had split into three and was losing multiple wars to barbarians every year, and it took Aurelian (arguably the greatest of all emperors) to hold everything together.
It was germany wondering how to address the threat from their eastern flank while not being sure they would face a threat on their western flank that precipitated WWI. It was simply a matter of timing as to when best to go to war for them.
Kim Howells making apocalyptic predictions on Sky News.
"We are all part of this war now (between Sunni and Shia). You cannot turn the clock back. There are 4 and a half million Muslims in France, and probably a similar number in this country..."
Francis Do you think this is a battle of cultures-just that?
It doesn't really add up. In fact nothing does. They don't seem to be trying to affect our governance and I'm pretty sure they don't want to convert us to Islam. They could be doing a Sodom and Gomorrah but that would make them insane. More likely they're trying to stop our interference in areas they are interested in or even seeking revenge for our previous involvement in those areas.
But who knows? It's a very unusual enemy and until we understand it better ideas of group punishments against Muslims are putting the cart before the horse
It is exactly a battle between cultures. The problem you are finding, I think, is that you are making the Equivalence of War Aims mistake. A common problem is studying history is the instinctive belief that two sides goals are mirror images. In fact, they almost never are.
ISIL are quite clear about what they want. They want to convert everyone to their exact brand of back-to-the-8th-century Islam. Anyone who doesn't join the pure & the faithful will be a slave/dead.
The author is right that we must not blame all Muslims but we have invited into our country people who follow a religion which says we are inferior and must be overcome. It only takes one nut job with a Kalashnikov to do a lot of damage. There are supposedly thousands of illegal aliens in this country. Although I once hated the idea we must resurrect ID cards.
Would an ID card prevent a terrorist acquiring said Kalashnikov? Or detonating a suicide vest?
If we're fighting for our values we must maintain them. That means ending the de facto blasphemy law and holding onto the right to go about our business without being asked for our papers, please.
"Because if we did not know before now – and if we did not, it was because we were wilfully denying a grimly observable reality – we know now. There is no compromise that can be struck with the mindset behind these murders.
They may hate us for what we do but, more significantly, they despise us – all the western world – for who we are and how we live. This is so obvious by now that it risks seeming banal but it demands restating because, even now, even after all this, there remain too many people who deny the truth."
If you think a bunch of terrorists are going to overthrow western civilisation I would say either that you are not very confident in its attractions, or that you are scared and need to get a grip, or that you have been on the sauce already this evening.
So where were the British newspapers printing the Charlie Hebdo pictures or the Danish pictures? Oh, right, racial hatred laws eh...
They were scared. Which I understand. I don't think even Private Eye published them, did they?
Please don't misunderstand me, my first post on the subject said that we should combat extremism by all means possible. This includes monitoring of hate-preachers where we are aware of them, extensive programmes of engagement with as yet unradicalised muslims, and using organisations such as Quilliam to lead initiatives. I do not forgive islamofascism on account of any sense of cultural relativism or "pinko liberalism" as you quaintly put it.
But vilifying all muslims, wanting to send them back, wanting them to renounce their faith, and any number of similar suggestions from the PB intelligentsia? Really? Apart from anything else do you suppose such measures will not provoke further radicalisation?
I don't deny that it wouldn't provoke further radicalisation in the short term. Muslims in the UK would be living in an effective police state, they have broken our trust too many times to have the freedoms the rest of us enjoy. They must earn our trust back, if it means they have to apostatise or at least stop practising in a more general sense, then I'm not going to shed any tears. If those who disagree decide to leave then that's a net gain. If there are some who want to act out violently then force must be met with overwhelming force.
Kim Howells making apocalyptic predictions on Sky News.
"We are all part of this war now (between Sunni and Shia). You cannot turn the clock back. There are 4 and a half million Muslims in France, and probably a similar number in this country..."
"Because if we did not know before now – and if we did not, it was because we were wilfully denying a grimly observable reality – we know now. There is no compromise that can be struck with the mindset behind these murders.
They may hate us for what we do but, more significantly, they despise us – all the western world – for who we are and how we live. This is so obvious by now that it risks seeming banal but it demands restating because, even now, even after all this, there remain too many people who deny the truth."
Ain't that the case......
We have seen plenty of that on here since last night.
A lot of hysteria over this. A horrendous attack in Paris does not mean that ISIS is going to be taking over Downing Street or that every Muslim in the UK is going to be a suicide bomber. Yes, it's horrible that 128 have died but 15 times as many will die in road traffic accidents this year. We give terrorism far more coverage and allow it to affect our lives far more than it deserves (which, of course, is the terrorists' aim)
If you think a bunch of terrorists are going to overthrow western civilisation I would say either that you are not very confident in its attractions, or that you are scared and need to get a grip, or that you have been on the sauce already this evening.
So where were the British newspapers printing the Charlie Hebdo pictures or the Danish pictures? Oh, right, racial hatred laws eh...
They were scared. Which I understand. I don't think even Private Eye published them, did they?
Please don't misunderstand me, my first post on the subject said that we should combat extremism by all means possible. This includes monitoring of hate-preachers where we are aware of them, extensive programmes of engagement with as yet unradicalised muslims, and using organisations such as Quilliam to lead initiatives. I do not forgive islamofascism on account of any sense of cultural relativism or "pinko liberalism" as you quaintly put it.
But vilifying all muslims, wanting to send them back, wanting them to renounce their faith, and any number of similar suggestions from the PB intelligentsia? Really? Apart from anything else do you suppose such measures will not provoke further radicalisation?
I don't deny that it wouldn't provoke further radicalisation in the short term. Muslims in the UK would be living in an effective police state, they have broken our trust too many times to have the freedoms the rest of us enjoy. They must earn our trust back, if it means they have to apostatise or at least stop practising in a more general sense, then I'm not going to shed any tears. If those who disagree decide to leave then that's a net gain. If there are some who want to act out violently then force must be met with overwhelming force.
And don't get me started on Catholics: An ongoing history of terrorism going back hundreds of years, and numerous bombings in recent history including nearly killing the Prime Minister.
A lot of hysteria over this. A horrendous attack in Paris does not mean that ISIS is going to be taking over Downing Street or that every Muslim in the UK is going to be a suicide bomber. Yes, it's horrible that 128 have died but 15 times as many will die in road traffic accidents this year. We give terrorism far more coverage and allow it to affect our lives far more than it deserves (which, of course, is the terrorists' aim)
Remind me in advance when you post again and I'll take care not to read such bull excrement..
A lot of hysteria over this. A horrendous attack in Paris does not mean that ISIS is going to be taking over Downing Street or that every Muslim in the UK is going to be a suicide bomber. Yes, it's horrible that 128 have died but 15 times as many will die in road traffic accidents this year. We give terrorism far more coverage and allow it to affect our lives far more than it deserves (which, of course, is the terrorists' aim)
Remind me in advance when you post again and I'll take care not to read such bull excrement..
As to practical measures.... Well, the first thing is to remember the lessons of the past. Who won against terrorists. Who won in way that was compatible with a social democracy.
The later point rules out the methodology of the Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.
In Peru, the nihlistic Maoism of the Shining Path (which approached Pol Pot death cult behavior) was dealt with by using Maoist ideology against itself. The military armed the peasants who deleted Shining Path with enthusiasm. There was a small moral issue. The people making up these militias did not include the Hague Convention of 1898 in their light reading. The trials for the actions in those times continue today....
Mass state oppression will not work - it would require repression on a totalitarian state scale to work. Amateur terrorist hunting Peruvian style would be.. interesting. What are we left with?
In the aftermath of the Brighton Bomb, Mrs Thatcher was presented with a large number of very, very stupid ideas. Internment without trial. Mass raids on Nationalist areas to "turn up the heat" on the IRA. With the dust from the bomb still on her clothes, she turned them all down.
The story of what happened next is mostly rumors. It seems that MI5 infiltrated the counter-intelligence bits of both the Loyalist and Republican terror groups - this had in fact been going on since the 60s. It is an old technique - first you infiltrate the spy hunters. Then you have everything. But what changed was how this was used.
The "nutting squads" were turned around to destroy the most radical and anti-peace members of their own organisations. Which they did - with electric drills and baseball bats.
Information was used to setup ambushes for others - the Loughgall ambush was designed to destroy a group in the IRA completely opposed to peace.
It's no wonder that many in Northern Ireland wonder which side Gerry and Marty were really on...
So there we have it - what will work is a nasty little war in the dark. Which is probably already be going on. Remember the allegations that UK intelligence had allowed young Muslims to travel to Pakistan to "study" - but when their training had finished, the trucks taking them across the border to Afghanistan got droned?
Let them go to Syria. Find their friends. Occasionally set some of them up to appear to be informers and sit back and watch what happens. Recruit the worst as your spies and use them to torture and murder the rest.
I think everyone here can be agreed upon one single thing; Jeremy Corbyn is not the man you want to be leading your country in this kind of crisis. He is fine as a pressure group politician, but the compromises that you require for saying the right things, and setting the right tone, for bringing people with you, Corbyn just cannot do this. It is simply not in him.
Hollande was hamfisted today, but he played the political leader (sort of) well. Blair was good, Clinton too- OK, not quite Churchill, but not bad.
And, also, we can all now see why Ed lost. Britain will never vote in as PM someone who hasn't the credibility to do the basics well- and the basics very much include leading the country through a crisis.
Yup - and Cameron scores very highly on all these skills.
Forget all policies - when a non-committed middle of the road voter looks at the candidates for PM then if one of them looks head and shoulders above the others as if they look, feel and sound like a PM then that person is going to get "extra" votes because of it. Not necessarily many - but some - and 2% or 3% "extra" votes because of this makes all the difference.
A lot of hysteria over this. A horrendous attack in Paris does not mean that ISIS is going to be taking over Downing Street or that every Muslim in the UK is going to be a suicide bomber. Yes, it's horrible that 128 have died but 15 times as many will die in road traffic accidents this year. We give terrorism far more coverage and allow it to affect our lives far more than it deserves (which, of course, is the terrorists' aim)
The head in the sand approach has worked so well up to now, hasn't it?
If you think a bunch of terrorists are going to overthrow western civilisation I would say either that you are not very confident in its attractions, or that you are scared and need to get a grip, or that you have been on the sauce already this evening.
So where were the British newspapers printing the Charlie Hebdo pictures or the Danish pictures? Oh, right, racial hatred laws eh...
They were scared. Which I understand. I don't think even Private Eye published them, did they?
Please don't misunderstand me, my first post on the subject said that we should combat extremism by all means possible. This includes monitoring of hate-preachers where we are aware of them, extensive programmes of engagement with as yet unradicalised muslims, and using organisations such as Quilliam to lead initiatives. I do not forgive islamofascism on account of any sense of cultural relativism or "pinko liberalism" as you quaintly put it.
But vilifying all muslims, wanting to send them back, wanting them to renounce their faith, and any number of similar suggestions from the PB intelligentsia? Really? Apart from anything else do you suppose such measures will not provoke further radicalisation?
I don't deny that it wouldn't provoke further radicalisation in the short term. Muslims in the UK would be living in an effective police state, they have broken our trust too many times to have the freedoms the rest of us enjoy. They must earn our trust back, if it means they have to apostatise or at least stop practising in a more general sense, then I'm not going to shed any tears. If those who disagree decide to leave then that's a net gain. If there are some who want to act out violently then force must be met with overwhelming force.
And don't get me started on Catholics: An ongoing history of terrorism going back hundreds of years, and numerous bombings in recent history including nearly killing the Prime Minister.
Exactly - remember what said Prime Minister actually did about it? Not general repression, but possible the most sharply directed "active" anti-terrorism policy I can recall. The peace process was simply the end game.
The author is right that we must not blame all Muslims but we have invited into our country people who follow a religion which says we are inferior and must be overcome. It only takes one nut job with a Kalashnikov to do a lot of damage. There are supposedly thousands of illegal aliens in this country. Although I once hated the idea we must resurrect ID cards.
No we must not. It would not make a blind bit of difference. France has ID cards. It made no difference last night.
A lot of hysteria over this. A horrendous attack in Paris does not mean that ISIS is going to be taking over Downing Street or that every Muslim in the UK is going to be a suicide bomber. Yes, it's horrible that 128 have died but 15 times as many will die in road traffic accidents this year. We give terrorism far more coverage and allow it to affect our lives far more than it deserves (which, of course, is the terrorists' aim)
The head in the sand approach has worked so well up to now, hasn't it?
No one is saying that there shouldn't be counter-terrorism, which on the whole seems to work well: the vast majority of terror plots are stopped. Charlie Hebdo was the first serious attack in Europe since 7/7. But some of the solution being advocated on here such as "banning" Islam are completely out of scale compared to the threat.
So there we have it - what will work is a nasty little war in the dark. Which is probably already be going on. Remember the allegations that UK intelligence had allowed young Muslims to travel to Pakistan to "study" - but when their training had finished, the trucks taking them across the border to Afghanistan got droned?
Let them go to Syria. Find their friends. Occasionally set some of them up to appear to be informers and sit back and watch what happens. Recruit the worst as your spies and use them to torture and murder the rest.
I think everyone here can be agreed upon one single thing; Jeremy Corbyn is not the man you want to be leading your country in this kind of crisis. He is fine as a pressure group politician, but the compromises that you require for saying the right things, and setting the right tone, for bringing people with you, Corbyn just cannot do this. It is simply not in him.
Hollande was hamfisted today, but he played the political leader (sort of) well. Blair was good, Clinton too- OK, not quite Churchill, but not bad.
And, also, we can all now see why Ed lost. Britain will never vote in as PM someone who hasn't the credibility to do the basics well- and the basics very much include leading the country through a crisis.
Yup - and Cameron scores very highly on all these skills.
Forget all policies - when a non-committed middle of the road voter looks at the candidates for PM then if one of them looks head and shoulders above the others as if they look, feel and sound like a PM then that person is going to get "extra" votes because of it. Not necessarily many - but some - and 2% or 3% "extra" votes because of this makes all the difference.
There's a technical term for this phenomenon - Leadership
A lot of hysteria over this. A horrendous attack in Paris does not mean that ISIS is going to be taking over Downing Street or that every Muslim in the UK is going to be a suicide bomber. Yes, it's horrible that 128 have died but 15 times as many will die in road traffic accidents this year. We give terrorism far more coverage and allow it to affect our lives far more than it deserves (which, of course, is the terrorists' aim)
It's not going to be popular today, but I agree. Most of the initial responses have been either wordy bloviating (including me!) or ludicrously disproportionate over-reactions.
I hope our leaders can see that open borders are a luxury we cannot afford. I hope our leaders realise that multiculturalism has had undesirable outcomes that are evident to any sensible person, and that we should do our best to address those outcomes; we have plenty of laws in place already.
That doesn't include outlawing Muslim practices in this country, booting out Muslims or setting up state-run mosques. Terrorists? Fuck 'em.
Would an ID card prevent a terrorist acquiring said Kalashnikov? Or detonating a suicide vest?
If we're fighting for our values we must maintain them. That means ending the de facto blasphemy law and holding onto the right to go about our business without being asked for our papers, please.
There'd be no "paper" involved, a plastic card with an electronic counterpart :P.
Daily Mail is reporting one of those involved was thought to be just 15.
Yesterday there was an interview with one of the self-elected Muslim groups about the death of Jihadi John. The spokesman was taking the line that it was a shame that Jihadi John had not been taken alive, so we could work out how he had been converted to extremism.
The idea that Jihadi John could be expected to tell the truth as opposed to what advances his own warped view is naive in the extreme. It's certainly not a good reason why he should have been captured alive.
But we do need to understand why young men and women are being perverted in this manner. The answers will not be simple, and a combination of a whole host of factors. Only when we understand this can we start tackling extremism at home.
Why do you girls run away to ISIS? Why did Jihadi Jane convert?
What is missing from their lives and our society that makes ISIS such a compelling alternative?
A lot of hysteria over this. A horrendous attack in Paris does not mean that ISIS is going to be taking over Downing Street or that every Muslim in the UK is going to be a suicide bomber. Yes, it's horrible that 128 have died but 15 times as many will die in road traffic accidents this year. We give terrorism far more coverage and allow it to affect our lives far more than it deserves (which, of course, is the terrorists' aim)
You missed off the 99.6% spurious statistic of loyal muslims.
Comments
"What I find hard to get my head around is many of those that have traditionally fought the hardest against homophobia, inequality, animal rights etc etc etc, seem completely willing to turn a blind eye to it within a certain section of society."
Do you think this is a battle of cultures-just that?
It doesn't really add up. In fact nothing does. They don't seem to be trying to affect our governance and I'm pretty sure they don't want to convert us to Islam. They could be doing a Sodom and Gomorrah but that would make them insane. More likely they're trying to stop our interference in areas they are interested in or even seeking revenge for our previous involvement in those areas.
But who knows? It's a very unusual enemy and until we understand it better ideas of group punishments against Muslims are putting the cart before the horse
Not sure why you think muslims are not being asked, nor wish to reject violent events in the history of their religion.
oh, and sex slaves.
Salafism rejects that modification. I've not seen many people on PB be persuaded by argument, no matter how compelling the logic. How little chance do we have of dealing with people who have faith in a literal interpretation of a book written by Allah (blessed be His Name)?
I see calls for apostasy; well, good luck with that approach. I can see the appeal, however it's just not going to work.
Betting PostF1: is this a pre-race article about the Brazilian Grand Prix I see before me?
Yes. Yes it is. With literally more than one tip.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/brazil-pre-race.html
Backed the two McLarens to fail, and I'll be annoyed if Alonso's car lasts the race after the weekend he's had so far.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995913/Terrorists-are-defining-Islam.-We-Muslims-must-react.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34820371
You pinko liberals are cheering the downfall of western civilisation even as we are under attack from radical Islam. It's no good moaning about how unfair it all is and how we can do nothing about it. It is time to do something about it, even if it offends people and causes short term problems. It is time for Muslims to integrate or leave.
Expecting people to renounce a Death Cult is not revolting at all.
Mr. Gord, if true, it only deepens the hole which Merkel has dug for herself.
Mr. B, only just saw your comment, but I don't think McLaren being unreliable counts as a spoiler, alas.
Mr. F, the Fourth Crusade was madness, arguably the most self-harming piece of foreign policy, as it were, Europe has ever adopted.
Your example is stupid, as the problems are nowhere near as serious or involved.
They are complicit in the Islamisation of the UK.
I don't think it will be as bad as that. I think there would be a lot of protests, a lot of marches, a lot of anger whipped up by the likes of Stop the War and other assorted idiots, and eventually it will settle down. Friday prayers will be overseen by the state and have heavy police presences. Over time those who disagree will choose to leave, we can expel radical preachers and once we have achieved it Mosques can re-open and the state can reduce its presence. For now it is clear that the Muslim community does not deserve the trust we have given them with freedom to practice their religion without state intervention.
If you think a bunch of terrorists are going to overthrow western civilisation I would say either that you are not very confident in its attractions, or that you are scared and need to get a grip, or that you have been on the sauce already this evening.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
'We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.'
'Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.'
'The Islamic State awaits the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.'
'It is here, the Prophet reportedly said, that the armies of Rome will set up their camp. The armies of Islam will meet them, and Dabiq will be Rome’s Waterloo or its Antietam.'
'An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.'
Also:
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 15m15 minutes ago
Trump surges among likely Republican primary voters. Now 42% http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0T22HB20151113#8ApjclSrLQFeaIvm.97 …
You're a bit late OGH, I posted that yesterday.
I think there's a great degree of complacency regarding Western civilisation. It isn't inevitable and it isn't invincible, just as fundamentalist madness is neither inevitable nor invincible.
Rome under Trajan was a colossus bestriding the world. About a hundred years later the Empire had split into three and was losing multiple wars to barbarians every year, and it took Aurelian (arguably the greatest of all emperors) to hold everything together.
Please don't misunderstand me, my first post on the subject said that we should combat extremism by all means possible. This includes monitoring of hate-preachers where we are aware of them, extensive programmes of engagement with as yet unradicalised muslims, and using organisations such as Quilliam to lead initiatives. I do not forgive islamofascism on account of any sense of cultural relativism or "pinko liberalism" as you quaintly put it.
But vilifying all muslims, wanting to send them back, wanting them to renounce their faith, and any number of similar suggestions from the PB intelligentsia? Really? Apart from anything else do you suppose such measures will not provoke further radicalisation?
Hollande was hamfisted today, but he played the political leader (sort of) well. Blair was good, Clinton too- OK, not quite Churchill, but not bad.
And, also, we can all now see why Ed lost. Britain will never vote in as PM someone who hasn't the credibility to do the basics well- and the basics very much include leading the country through a crisis.
Edited extra bit: Mr. F, for that matter, the Macedonians were dwarfed in number by the Persians they fought. They still won.
As did the Romans at the Battle of Tigranocerta[sp].
But I digress...
"We are all part of this war now (between Sunni and Shia). You cannot turn the clock back. There are 4 and a half million Muslims in France, and probably a similar number in this country..."
terroristsmigrants already in Europe to be included?ISIL are quite clear about what they want. They want to convert everyone to their exact brand of back-to-the-8th-century Islam. Anyone who doesn't join the pure & the faithful will be a slave/dead.
There are supposedly thousands of illegal aliens in this country. Although I once hated the idea we must resurrect ID cards.
Would an ID card prevent a terrorist acquiring said Kalashnikov? Or detonating a suicide vest?
If we're fighting for our values we must maintain them. That means ending the de facto blasphemy law and holding onto the right to go about our business without being asked for our papers, please.
"Because if we did not know before now – and if we did not, it was because we were wilfully denying a grimly observable reality – we know now. There is no compromise that can be struck with the mindset behind these murders.
They may hate us for what we do but, more significantly, they despise us – all the western world – for who we are and how we live. This is so obvious by now that it risks seeming banal but it demands restating because, even now, even after all this, there remain too many people who deny the truth."
Ain't that the case......
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150907/debtext/150907-0001.htm#1509074000002
https://i.imgur.com/yvG3PwT.jpg
And isn't it often said that if an article stars with a question, the answer is most likely no
http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=107516
The later point rules out the methodology of the Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.
In Peru, the nihlistic Maoism of the Shining Path (which approached Pol Pot death cult behavior) was dealt with by using Maoist ideology against itself. The military armed the peasants who deleted Shining Path with enthusiasm. There was a small moral issue. The people making up these militias did not include the Hague Convention of 1898 in their light reading. The trials for the actions in those times continue today....
Mass state oppression will not work - it would require repression on a totalitarian state scale to work. Amateur terrorist hunting Peruvian style would be.. interesting. What are we left with?
In the aftermath of the Brighton Bomb, Mrs Thatcher was presented with a large number of very, very stupid ideas. Internment without trial. Mass raids on Nationalist areas to "turn up the heat" on the IRA. With the dust from the bomb still on her clothes, she turned them all down.
The story of what happened next is mostly rumors. It seems that MI5 infiltrated the counter-intelligence bits of both the Loyalist and Republican terror groups - this had in fact been going on since the 60s. It is an old technique - first you infiltrate the spy hunters. Then you have everything. But what changed was how this was used.
The "nutting squads" were turned around to destroy the most radical and anti-peace members of their own organisations. Which they did - with electric drills and baseball bats.
Information was used to setup ambushes for others - the Loughgall ambush was designed to destroy a group in the IRA completely opposed to peace.
It's no wonder that many in Northern Ireland wonder which side Gerry and Marty were really on...
So there we have it - what will work is a nasty little war in the dark. Which is probably already be going on. Remember the allegations that UK intelligence had allowed young Muslims to travel to Pakistan to "study" - but when their training had finished, the trucks taking them across the border to Afghanistan got droned?
Let them go to Syria. Find their friends. Occasionally set some of them up to appear to be informers and sit back and watch what happens. Recruit the worst as your spies and use them to torture and murder the rest.
Forget all policies - when a non-committed middle of the road voter looks at the candidates for PM then if one of them looks head and shoulders above the others as if they look, feel and sound like a PM then that person is going to get "extra" votes because of it. Not necessarily many - but some - and 2% or 3% "extra" votes because of this makes all the difference.
I hope our leaders can see that open borders are a luxury we cannot afford. I hope our leaders realise that multiculturalism has had undesirable outcomes that are evident to any sensible person, and that we should do our best to address those outcomes; we have plenty of laws in place already.
That doesn't include outlawing Muslim practices in this country, booting out Muslims or setting up state-run mosques. Terrorists? Fuck 'em.
The idea that Jihadi John could be expected to tell the truth as opposed to what advances his own warped view is naive in the extreme. It's certainly not a good reason why he should have been captured alive.
But we do need to understand why young men and women are being perverted in this manner. The answers will not be simple, and a combination of a whole host of factors. Only when we understand this can we start tackling extremism at home.
Why do you girls run away to ISIS? Why did Jihadi Jane convert?
What is missing from their lives and our society that makes ISIS such a compelling alternative?