I'm naive in all this, what does Saudi Arabia gain from funding ISIS?
Reward in heaven or so the Wahabbis think.
Technically all Muslims believe in heavenly rewards, what is specific about Wahhabism is its extreme interpretation which means that there is a permanent state of war with the non-islamic world and that "people of the book" is much less of a safe haven than it is to other Islamic creeds (which to be fair its the most logical reading of the Q'ran but most Islamic creeds try to temper it as far as possible.
To a Wahhabist, the cold blooded murder of a non-Muslim is not murder, the victim is not even a human.
A big part of Labour's problem, I feel, is that it appears hard-wired into the left wing mindset that the ends generally justify the means. I have seen this time and again from local labour politicians, and it was on show from the Blair/Brown government - Iraq being an extreme example, but also from the heavy-handed morass of targets dumped wholesale onto the public sector, or the numerous financial sticks and carrots used to lever councils into doing whatever government wanted.
The tragedy of Labour's time in office is that most of the things they were trying to achieve were worthwhile, but often the way they went about it proved counter-productive. In politics, particularly, my view has always been that the way you go about things is as important as the intended objective. Yet, even in its moderate days, Labour has always been renowned for 'machine politics', a lot of this culture originating from the trade unions.
Now we have a civil war within Labour where both sides feel their desired outcome is the "right" one and more or less any means are justified to achieve it. At national level this evidences through attempts, on both sides, to 'stitch up' the result, legal action over the rules, decisions to deny voting rights even from people earlier promised them. And a nationwide ban on any and all local meetings! And at individual level there are clearly many who think the strength of their cause justifies all manner of unpleasant or violent behaviour. What is on display to the outsider is a contempt both for democracy and for the individuals' right to have their own view and a say.
And whilst this is most obvious from the threatening behaviour of what appear mostly to be local corbynites, the same attitude is on show from the rebel MPs who clearly will use any procedural trick or bend any rule in order to remove Corbyn from office, regardless of what their members actually want. Harris's guardian article fingers a lot of this very well.
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Fine. But again, think through what you're implying. Are you advocating war on Saudi? And if you are, what happens after the West wins (assuming it does - not all wars go to plan).
On your second point, what do you do to UK citizens who worship a different faith? Religious courts?
To attack the freedom to practice religion within the law is as much an attack on our values as what took place in Nice. However, it's also the case that if there is sufficient sympathy or tolerance within a population for those who would subvert it then that population as a whole cannot stand. The toleration of intolerance is a mark of a civilised society and so it normally should be - it is usually better to have intolerant voices in the public domain both because it's easier to keep tabs on them and because they provide the warning of safety valves. But there also comes a point where the sheer scale of intolerance is incompatible with a civilised society. There is no easy place to draw the line but then simple solutions are for simple people - and simple people shouldn't be let near the levers of power.
It was mentioned in the papers at the time of the Lee Rigby murder by a person who was previously on a watchlist that the ability of the security services was limited to being able to mount 24hr surveillance on I beleive 400 people, I have no doubt funding has been increased considerably since, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that this number is going to be more than a thousand or so, and will include all the other sorts of people they need to watch full time such a foreign state agents of one sort of another, high level actors in various illegal trades etc.
Then we consider somewhere in excess of 4000 British citizens have gone to fight in the war in Syria, and a third of them have already returned home.
Time for country of origin labelling for forecourt hydrocarbons. In the same way previous generations could boycott South Africa, we need to be able to choose to not patronise the fundamentalist nations.
I'm naive in all this, what does Saudi Arabia gain from funding ISIS?
Reward in heaven or so the Wahabbis think.
Technically all Muslims believe in heavenly rewards, what is specific about Wahhabism is its extreme interpretation which means that there is a permanent state of war with the non-islamic world and that "people of the book" is much less of a safe haven than it is to other Islamic creeds (which to be fair its the most logical reading of the Q'ran but most Islamic creeds try to temper it as far as possible.
To a Wahhabist, the cold blooded murder of a non-Muslim is not murder, the victim is not even a human.
This is the underlying problem, life is cheap, worthless even, to these people. I poured boiling water on an ant's nest yesterday, it almost seems similar.
That is as maybe but surely the lesson of Iraq and Libya (not Syria so much, which was an internally- rather than externally-collapsed state), is that failure to plan and execute a post-intervention strategy produced a worse outcome than doing nothing.
And leaving aside questions of legality, practicality and judgement, if we were to cut off the Saudi head (which would be a lot harder than you make it sound), who do you put in place to run things afterwards? If push came to shove, would you be prepared to station Western troops in Mecca? And how many billions would you be prepared to spend on the venture?
That really depends on your goal. If your goal is to (in the medium term) end the threat to the West then you don't have to do anything militarily, leave it as a war torn hell hole for decades, backed by economic embargo. Without money, there is no ability to project terror into the West.
Clearly there are certain humanitarian concerns about such a policy and it depends how willing an individual is to detach themselves from that sort of consideration.
It is a stark choice. Accept that the West will be victims of escalating incidence of Islamic terrorism, or send Saudia Arabia back to the stone in age in terms of military and economy to match its insipid medieval religion.
Edit - actually there is an intermediate position. Destroy the Saudi military, embargo it economically, and leave enough of the ruling class to (just) maintain their grip on power. Effectively turn Saudi Arabia into 1990-2003 Iraq - a toothless, meaningless, impotent factor.
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Fine. But again, think through what you're implying. Are you advocating war on Saudi? And if you are, what happens after the West wins (assuming it does - not all wars go to plan).
On your second point, what do you do to UK citizens who worship a different faith? Religious courts?
Suppose a similar event happened in the UK somewhere, in some provincial city every week ? How long before the politicians had no choice. It is said the difference between a dog and a wolf is three meals.
French media saying the driver was French-Tunisian.
From Nice.
Yet again, French people killing French people.
The solution to this can only come from inside the Moslem community.
snip
snip
Snip
However, the problem with militant Islam is that there's no clean break on the scale down to individual secular practice. In the German case, had every Nazi been prosecuted, millions would have ended up behind bars or dead and there'd have been a lasting division and resentment (including towards those seen as having 'escaped'), but there was no need for that. It's all very well saying that we must shut down "delusional and violent cults" but what does that mean in practice? What counts as a "delusional and violent cult"?
To attack the freedom to practice religion within the law is as much an attack on our values as what took place in Nice. However, it's also the case that if there is sufficient sympathy or tolerance within a population for those who would subvert it then that population as a whole cannot stand. The toleration of intolerance is a mark of a civilised society and so it normally should be - it is usually better to have intolerant voices in the public domain both because it's easier to keep tabs on them and because they provide the warning of safety valves. But there also comes a point where the sheer scale of intolerance is incompatible with a civilised society. There is no easy place to draw the line but then simple solutions are for simple people - and simple people shouldn't be let near the levers of power.
To attack the freedom to practice religion within the law is as much an attack on our values as what took place in Nice.
I agree with this sentiment. However it is legitimate to consider if we should alter our law to accommodate religious practices that require actions that are outside our normal parameters of acceptability. All animals slaughtered for meat should be killed in the ethical way we believe causes them the minimum harm. Other means of slaughter to appease Jews, Muslims or any other religious order should not be acceptable to us.
The burqa? Let it be worn in daily life, but we should retain the right to have school uniform if we so desire or faces on view in court if we so desire. The choice of your religion and your freedom to practice it does not exempt you from abiding by the rules laid down by the society you live in.
How do we combat the pent up rage and murderous intent of some extremists? By turning the majority of their peers against them may be the best way.
Time for country of origin labelling for forecourt hydrocarbons. In the same way previous generations could boycott South Africa, we need to be able to choose to not patronise the fundamentalist nations.
Putin, Trump or the Saudis.
Should speed up the sale of electric cars amongst liberals
Time for country of origin labelling for forecourt hydrocarbons. In the same way previous generations could boycott South Africa, we need to be able to choose to not patronise the fundamentalist nations.
Putin, Trump or the Saudis.
Should speed up the sale of electric cars amongst liberals
Only if they don't mind using electricity generated largely using gas bought from Putin
Time for country of origin labelling for forecourt hydrocarbons. In the same way previous generations could boycott South Africa, we need to be able to choose to not patronise the fundamentalist nations.
Putin, Trump or the Saudis.
Should speed up the sale of electric cars amongst liberals
Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab was someone who called for Islam to purify itself and rid itself of the bidah (innovations) and shirk (associating partners with Allah) that had crept into the religion over time.
If it's in the Quran, the Sunnah and the ahadiths of the Prophet it's not wahhabism it's Islam.
Time for country of origin labelling for forecourt hydrocarbons. In the same way previous generations could boycott South Africa, we need to be able to choose to not patronise the fundamentalist nations.
Putin, Trump or the Saudis.
Should speed up the sale of electric cars amongst liberals
Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab was someone who called for Islam to purify itself and rid itself of the bidah (innovations) and shirk (associating partners with Allah) that had crept into the religion over time.
If it's in the Quran, the Sunnah and the ahadiths of the Prophet it's not wahhabism it's Islam.
Call it Wahhabism, call it Salafism, doesn't really matter. As I said in my post, most creeds try to ameliorate the most base tenets of the Q'ran even if it is not always logical. The bottom line is that it just killed 100 people in France and will kill thousands more in the West till the Saudi threat is addressed.
France needs a change of direction - maybe a female President next year. After all, the leaders of Germany and 3 of the 4 parts of the UK are now female. M LePen would be far more ruthless in dealing with the adherents of non-Christian religions who do not share Western values.
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Fine. But again, think through what you're implying. Are you advocating war on Saudi? And if you are, what happens after the West wins (assuming it does - not all wars go to plan).
On your second point, what do you do to UK citizens who worship a different faith? Religious courts?
Yes, it would be a huge undertaking - but then world war 2 was far larger an undertaking.
Germany already has some pretty severe laws against cults.
Any such laws would basically replace the word terrorism with blasphemy. Not a step I would relish but forced integration is better than forced expulsions.
France needs a change of direction - maybe a female President next year. After all, the leaders of Germany and 3 of the 4 parts of the UK are now female. M LePen would be far more ruthless in dealing with the adherents of non-Christian religions who do not share Western values.
As much as I share LePen's views on the EU under her France would become a powder keg.
France needs a change of direction - maybe a female President next year. After all, the leaders of Germany and 3 of the 4 parts of the UK are now female. M LePen would be far more ruthless in dealing with the adherents of non-Christian religions who do not share Western values.
As much as I share LePen's views on the EU under her France would become a powder keg.
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Unless this sort of thing stops, the kinds of 'solutions' used by Ferdinand and Isabella or in the Reformation (to deal with Catholics) are going to become serious possibilities.
For the first time in my life I am beginning to understand why rational educated people during the reformation years (on all sides) felt they had no alternative to the brutality of a spanish or Walsingham inquisition
Time for country of origin labelling for forecourt hydrocarbons. In the same way previous generations could boycott South Africa, we need to be able to choose to not patronise the fundamentalist nations.
Putin, Trump or the Saudis.
Should speed up the sale of electric cars amongst liberals
Got one already.
Right on man
Hello time traveller. Got here in a De Leorean, presumably?
Such is their refinement, they make petrol cars feel like obsolete tractors.
Was initially sceptical, but they are the future.
Let me know when I can recharge one in a garage in five minutes or carry a small battery from the garage to my car stranded half a mile away having run out of battery.
Mr. Bedfordshire, in medieval England, rulers who would later be despised as tyrants were lauded by the people of the time for their harsh treatment of criminals.
When law and order breaks down or is largely absent (no rozzers in the 13th century, of course), support for strict measures and harsh treatment rises.
But we live in a different age, of mass transport and internet communications. Harsh treatment risks provocation of strong retaliation, and a vicious circle.
I don't envy politicians trying to deal with this.
Time for country of origin labelling for forecourt hydrocarbons. In the same way previous generations could boycott South Africa, we need to be able to choose to not patronise the fundamentalist nations.
Putin, Trump or the Saudis.
Should speed up the sale of electric cars amongst liberals
Got one already.
Right on man
Hello time traveller. Got here in a De Leorean, presumably?
To attack the freedom to practice religion within the law is as much an attack on our values as what took place in Nice. However, it's also the case that if there is sufficient sympathy or tolerance within a population for those who would subvert it then that population as a whole cannot stand. The toleration of intolerance is a mark of a civilised society and so it normally should be - it is usually better to have intolerant voices in the public domain both because it's easier to keep tabs on them and because they provide the warning of safety valves. But there also comes a point where the sheer scale of intolerance is incompatible with a civilised society. There is no easy place to draw the line but then simple solutions are for simple people - and simple people shouldn't be let near the levers of power.
Then we consider somewhere in excess of 4000 British citizens have gone to fight in the war in Syria, and a third of them have already returned home.
That is a sobering thought.
Isn't there now a law enabling the withdrawal of UK citizenship from people who take up arms?
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Fine. But again, think through what you're implying. Are you advocating war on Saudi? And if you are, what happens after the West wins (assuming it does - not all wars go to plan).
On your second point, what do you do to UK citizens who worship a different faith? Religious courts?
Yes, it would be a huge undertaking - but then world war 2 was far larger an undertaking.
Germany already has some pretty severe laws against cults.
Any such laws would basically replace the word terrorism with blasphemy. Not a step I would relish but forced integration is better than forced expulsions.
Maybe we should stop admitting Muslims to the EU. It's possibly do-able to integrate the Muslims that are already here. But to add another gajillion every year makes the task hopeless. Merkel fucked up BIG time in her moment of 'compassion'. Islam is not compatible with liberal secular democracy.
Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab was someone who called for Islam to purify itself and rid itself of the bidah (innovations) and shirk (associating partners with Allah) that had crept into the religion over time.
If it's in the Quran, the Sunnah and the ahadiths of the Prophet it's not wahhabism it's Islam.
The puritans in England said exactly the same to justify their repression under Cromwells commonwealth.
Just waking up to this. Absolutely horrifying. Whats more horrifying though is that unscrupulous politicians will use this as a stick to beat up on Muslims, thus adding to the pile of grievances that fuel this.
That would not be more horrifying, it woukd be a stupid and self defeating g response but not more horrifying.
The problem is that do nothing and these monsters still emerge, do something and they emerge. You crush them but lie a virus a few keep going and they find some new pretext and the idiots join them again. People still blame western actions post ww1 for this shit, which is bloody ridiculous. Such things and more recent actions fuel grievance, but these fools will always find something, and anyone who thinks it justifies their behaviour would have found something else to fuel their grievance.
Surely, the "something" that must be done is known. To ostracise Saudi Arabia and take out its entire royal family and senior clerics.
The problem is not that there is no answer to the problem, it's that the answer is not wanted by the West.
Yes, because creating chaos and political vacuums in the Middle East has worked so well, so far, hasn't it?!
Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Syria are not funding terrorists which present a genuine threat to the West. Although all did in the past before they became chaotic, political vacuums. They may have become geographic hubs for ISIS and Al Qaeda but without the huge swathes of cash funding the groups, their ability to take over parts of these wastelands is lost.
It is the consolidated and stable Saudi Arabia which funds ISIS (and other terror groups) and I think it is unlikely that the NSA do not know exactly who it is in the Saudi regime who are the main players.
I'm naive in all this, what does Saudi Arabia gain from funding ISIS?
The House of Saud only had a tenuous grip on power - their authority originally came from their control of Mecca but they lost that years ago. Now they have a deal with the wahhabits that they will provide funding for maddrassaa internationally and to spread the Wahhabit doctrine in return for being allowed to keep their throne (and the money that goes with it)
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Fine. But again, think through what you're implying. Are you advocating war on Saudi? And if you are, what happens after the West wins (assuming it does - not all wars go to plan).
On your second point, what do you do to UK citizens who worship a different faith? Religious courts?
Yes, it would be a huge undertaking - but then world war 2 was far larger an undertaking.
Germany already has some pretty severe laws against cults.
Any such laws would basically replace the word terrorism with blasphemy. Not a step I would relish but forced integration is better than forced expulsions.
Overthrowing the House of Saud would delight ISIS, it's one of their stated aims. They hate the Saudi Government. They refer to them as the Taghut (Arab tyrants who claim to be Muslim rulers but do not rule with the complete Shariah and oppress the Muslims wanting to do jihad).
To attack the freedom to practice religion within the law is as much an attack on our values as what took place in Nice. However, it's also the case that if there is sufficient sympathy or tolerance within a population for those who would subvert it then that population as a whole cannot stand. The toleration of intolerance is a mark of a civilised society and so it normally should be - it is usually better to have intolerant voices in the public domain both because it's easier to keep tabs on them and because they provide the warning of safety valves. But there also comes a point where the sheer scale of intolerance is incompatible with a civilised society. There is no easy place to draw the line but then simple solutions are for simple people - and simple people shouldn't be let near the levers of power.
Then we consider somewhere in excess of 4000 British citizens have gone to fight in the war in Syria, and a third of them have already returned home.
That is a sobering thought.
Isn't there now a law enabling the withdrawal of UK citizenship from people who take up arms?
There's an older law specifying a crime called 'treason'.
To attack the freedom to practice religion within the law is as much an attack on our values as what took place in Nice. However, it's also the case that if there is sufficient sympathy or tolerance within a population for those who would subvert it then that population as a whole cannot stand. The toleration of intolerance is a mark of a civilised society and so it normally should be - it is usually better to have intolerant voices in the public domain both because it's easier to keep tabs on them and because they provide the warning of safety valves. But there also comes a point where the sheer scale of intolerance is incompatible with a civilised society. There is no easy place to draw the line but then simple solutions are for simple people - and simple people shouldn't be let near the levers of power.
Then we consider somewhere in excess of 4000 British citizens have gone to fight in the war in Syria, and a third of them have already returned home.
That is a sobering thought.
Isn't there now a law enabling the withdrawal of UK citizenship from people who take up arms?
Only if foreign born or dual citizens, if British born its not possible, it's a power of the Home Secretary.
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed more discontent; better stating what *our* values are, and how they advantage everyone in our society, can only be positive.
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
Time for country of origin labelling for forecourt hydrocarbons. In the same way previous generations could boycott South Africa, we need to be able to choose to not patronise the fundamentalist nations.
Putin, Trump or the Saudis.
Should speed up the sale of electric cars amongst liberals
It may be that the unpleasantness of fracking and Putin are transitional costs that we have to bear but we need to stop treating energy policy as just another economic problem and start treating it as a national defence issue. Only then can we really start to deal with the middle east.
By our reckoning, Labour’s leadership contest is going to be decided, for the most part, by less than 400,000 mainly middle-class university graduates. Nearly half of these members – unlike many of Labour’s voters – live in London and the South of England. Some 75 per cent of Labour members are ABC1 voters, and 57 per cent of them have a degree. Around 15 per cent live in London and 32 per cent live in other parts of the South of England. Only 28 per cent live in the party’s northern heartlands and 20 per cent in Wales and the Midlands, where (think, Nuneaton) any party wanting to win a general election desperately needs to win over voters.
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed more discontent; better stating what *our* values are, and how they advantage everyone in our society, can only be positive.
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
Christ wake up. They don't want to be part of our society. Quite the opposite.
The purpose of Terrorism is to cause Terror. So as an aside any political response that promotes fear is aidding and abetting the perpetrators. But this is such a low tech attack it's impossible to stop. Which is it's point. If lorries are now a terrorist weapon how can any government in any state let alone a free state stop this ? While voters will rally to the ensuing security theatre deep down they know this. Which is why it's such effective terrorism. It's truly terrifying.
Many more are killed every year because 40 tonne lorries and streets full of cars bicycles and pedestrians are allowed to mingle together.
Maybe that root cause needs considering too and the Road Lobby which over the last seventy years by pressure and corruption persuaded the government to allow bigger and bigger lorries and virtually destroy the rail freight industry in the 60s and 70s held to account?
Er.... so this is the fault of the decline of rail freight?! You don't think the terrorist might have found another way in the absence of a lorry?!
You pick your moments to get on a hobby horse mate
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Unless this sort of thing stops, the kinds of 'solutions' used by Ferdinand and Isabella or in the Reformation (to deal with Catholics) are going to become serious possibilities.
For the first time in my life I am beginning to understand why rational educated people during the reformation years (on all sides) felt they had no alternative to the brutality of a spanish or Walsingham inquisition
There were always rational political arguments for religious persecution -as well as the theological arguments.
Why does France face so many of these attacks? Or have the terrorists just got lucky there?
It has a much bigger Moslem population that is very marginalised. There is a lot of history. One major issue seems to have been the secular French state has not been able to develop - up to now - ways of effectively policing and monitoring criminal acts rooted in religion.
Though the same could be said of parts of this country, eg East London, Luton, Bradford, Rochdale. Here in Luton, there are endless raids and arrests for terrorism. Perhaps a higher proportion of Muslims here are willing to tip off the authorities than in France, or perhaps it is just luck.
I think the UK is 'better' at this than France but clearly nothing to be complacent about. With yesterday's carnage it is so difficult to prevent what appears to be a 'lone wolf' assault that providing answers and re-assurance is very difficult.
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed more discontent; better stating what *our* values are, and how they advantage everyone in our society, can only be positive.
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
Christ wake up. They don't want to be part of our society. Quite the opposite.
I am awake, thanks.
Perhaps if you actually read my post you might start to consider *why* some don't feel part of our society.
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Fine. But again, think through what you're implying. Are you advocating war on Saudi? And if you are, what happens after the West wins (assuming it does - not all wars go to plan).
On your second point, what do you do to UK citizens who worship a different faith? Religious courts?
Yes, it would be a huge undertaking - but then world war 2 was far larger an undertaking.
Germany already has some pretty severe laws against cults.
Any such laws would basically replace the word terrorism with blasphemy. Not a step I would relish but forced integration is better than forced expulsions.
Islam is not compatible with liberal secular democracy.
Tell that to Indonesia. Biggest population of Muslims in the world. Founding principles include 'Belief in God' - but not a particular one. Pretty liberal, definitely a democracy - no one has the remotest idea who the next President will be......unlike most of its neighbours.....
Such is their refinement, they make petrol cars feel like obsolete tractors.
Was initially sceptical, but they are the future.
Agree completely even though I'm a liberal. I got a Toyota hybrid a year ago and I just love the quietness and the feeling of calm they give you. This replaced a diesel which contributes to the huge death toll from respiratory diseases that we see each year. They should be banned.
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed more discontent; better stating what *our* values are, and how they advantage everyone in our society, can only be positive.
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
Christ wake up. They don't want to be part of our society. Quite the opposite.
I am awake, thanks.
Perhaps if you actually read my post you might start to consider *why* some don't feel part of our society.
Such is their refinement, they make petrol cars feel like obsolete tractors.
Was initially sceptical, but they are the future.
Let me know when I can recharge one in a garage in five minutes or carry a small battery from the garage to my car stranded half a mile away having run out of battery.
It's coming. The new Sony phones have super-fast recharge batteries, I've heard that they are in talks with a couple of Japanese car manufacturers to roll them out in new all electric premium models (I'd guess at Lexus and Nissan). There is also the new Sulphur-Lithium battery that will increase capacity by 40% and have ultra-fast charge times a very low degradation (no dendrite formation).
There are solutions coming for electric vehicles that will make them as competitive as petrol based cars in terms of convenience. In 5 years we should see 500 mile range cars with full recharge times of less than 90 minutes IMO, a 10 minute recharge should add 80-100 miles to the range.
Mr. Jessop, it's the fundamentalism. Islam is almost 100% fundamentalist, and it's a smaller step from that to extremism than it would be if there were a majority of liberal or conservative views.
When you think a god's on your side, it justifies anything, and when you think the anything gets you into a paradise afterlife it removes the fear of death.
Whilst it's depressing the way things are going, hopefully we'll one day return to a world where Middle Eastern and North African leaders take the piss out of puritanical groups who want to impose their views on everyone else, and do so to laughter and applause.
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Fine. But again, think through what you're implying. Are you advocating war on Saudi? And if you are, what happens after the West wins (assuming it does - not all wars go to plan).
On your second point, what do you do to UK citizens who worship a different faith? Religious courts?
Yes, it would be a huge undertaking - but then world war 2 was far larger an undertaking.
Germany already has some pretty severe laws against cults.
Any such laws would basically replace the word terrorism with blasphemy. Not a step I would relish but forced integration is better than forced expulsions.
Islam is not compatible with liberal secular democracy.
Tell that to Indonesia. Biggest population of Muslims in the world. Founding principles include 'Belief in God' - but not a particular one. Pretty liberal, definitely a democracy - no one has the remotest idea who the next President will be......unlike most of its neighbours.....
Indonesia is going backwards though. Unfortunately.
The purpose of Terrorism is to cause Terror. So as an aside any political response that promotes fear is aidding and abetting the perpetrators. But this is such a low tech attack it's impossible to stop. Which is it's point. If lorries are now a terrorist weapon how can any government in any state let alone a free state stop this ? While voters will rally to the ensuing security theatre deep down they know this. Which is why it's such effective terrorism. It's truly terrifying.
Many more are killed every year because 40 tonne lorries and streets full of cars bicycles and pedestrians are allowed to mingle together.
Maybe that root cause needs considering too and the Road Lobby which over the last seventy years by pressure and corruption persuaded the government to allow bigger and bigger lorries and virtually destroy the rail freight industry in the 60s and 70s held to account?
Er.... so this is the fault of the decline of rail freight?! You don't think the terrorist might have found another way in the absence of a lorry?!
You pick your moments to get on a hobby horse mate
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed more discontent; better stating what *our* values are, and how they advantage everyone in our society, can only be positive.
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
Christ wake up. They don't want to be part of our society. Quite the opposite.
I am awake, thanks.
Perhaps if you actually read my post you might start to consider *why* some don't feel part of our society.
To attack the freedom to practice religion within the law is as much an attack on our values as what took place in Nice. However, it's also the case that if there is sufficient sympathy or tolerance within a population for those who would subvert it then that population as a whole cannot stand. The toleration of intolerance is a mark of a civilised society and so it normally should be - it is usually better to have intolerant voices in the public domain both because it's easier to keep tabs on them and because they provide the warning of safety valves. But there also comes a point where the sheer scale of intolerance is incompatible with a civilised society. There is no easy place to draw the line but then simple solutions are for simple people - and simple people shouldn't be let near the levers of power.
Then we consider somewhere in excess of 4000 British citizens have gone to fight in the war in Syria, and a third of them have already returned home.
That is a sobering thought.
Isn't there now a law enabling the withdrawal of UK citizenship from people who take up arms?
Charge them with Treason, and lock them up - they can't kill anyone from inside prison. Anyone taking up arms against the British (or French, wherever) state shouldn't really be surprised if that state reacts. More 'community relations' garbage won't cut it any more.
Such is their refinement, they make petrol cars feel like obsolete tractors.
Was initially sceptical, but they are the future.
Let me know when I can recharge one in a garage in five minutes or carry a small battery from the garage to my car stranded half a mile away having run out of battery.
It's coming. The new Sony phones have super-fast recharge batteries, I've heard that they are in talks with a couple of Japanese car manufacturers to roll them out in new all electric premium models (I'd guess at Lexus and Nissan). There is also the new Sulphur-Lithium battery that will increase capacity by 40% and have ultra-fast charge times a very low degradation (no dendrite formation).
There are solutions coming for electric vehicles that will make them as competitive as petrol based cars in terms of convenience. In 5 years we should see 500 mile range cars with full recharge times of less than 90 minutes IMO, a 10 minute recharge should add 80-100 miles to the range.
Unfortunately those 'improved' figures are nowhere near enough for a tipping point change.
Time for country of origin labelling for forecourt hydrocarbons. In the same way previous generations could boycott South Africa, we need to be able to choose to not patronise the fundamentalist nations.
Putin, Trump or the Saudis.
Should speed up the sale of electric cars amongst liberals
It may be that the unpleasantness of fracking and Putin are transitional costs that we have to bear but we need to stop treating energy policy as just another economic problem and start treating it as a national defence issue. Only then can we really start to deal with the middle east.
Which is why I'm glad that Osborne is no longer selling our national security to China. There must be a lot of relieved people in Whitehall now that Hinkley Point C looks dead.
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Fine. But again, think through what you're implying. Are you advocating war on Saudi? And if you are, what happens after the West wins (assuming it does - not all wars go to plan).
On your second point, what do you do to UK citizens who worship a different faith? Religious courts?
Yes, it would be a huge undertaking - but then world war 2 was far larger an undertaking.
Germany already has some pretty severe laws against cults.
Any such laws would basically replace the word terrorism with blasphemy. Not a step I would relish but forced integration is better than forced expulsions.
Islam is not compatible with liberal secular democracy.
Tell that to Indonesia. Biggest population of Muslims in the world. Founding principles include 'Belief in God' - but not a particular one. Pretty liberal, definitely a democracy - no one has the remotest idea who the next President will be......unlike most of its neighbours.....
Indonesia is going backwards though. Unfortunately.
Two steps forward, one step back. Ahok (Mayor of Jakarta) is a breath of fresh air. President Jokowi has suffered from the Obama effect - people invested him with unrealistic expectations - but if he gets a second term I think he'll be judged a success. Rather be here than Manilla!
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed more discontent; better stating what *our* values are, and how they advantage everyone in our society, can only be positive.
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
By both historical and contemporary yardsticks, European countries bend over backwards to accommodate ethnic and religious minorities.
Even in secular France, no one faces a serious bar on practising their religion.
I'm sure it will be the usual "standing with France at this dreadful time..." response.
That said, after six years in the Home Office when she prevented many attacks (although not that on Lee Rigby), she has a greater understanding of the issue than anyone else in Government. I hope she is spending the time talking to our spooks and confirming they have the tools required to prevent such a thing happening here.
The worry is that she will be just too receptive to them pushing their luck on what extra powers they might get.
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Fine. But again, think through what you're implying. Are you advocating war on Saudi? And if you are, what happens after the West wins (assuming it does - not all wars go to plan).
On your second point, what do you do to UK citizens who worship a different faith? Religious courts?
Yes, it would be a huge undertaking - but then world war 2 was far larger an undertaking.
Germany already has some pretty severe laws against cults.
Any such laws would basically replace the word terrorism with blasphemy. Not a step I would relish but forced integration is better than forced expulsions.
Maybe we should stop admitting Muslims to the EU. It's possibly do-able to integrate the Muslims that are already here. But to add another gajillion every year makes the task hopeless. Merkel fucked up BIG time in her moment of 'compassion'. Islam is not compatible with liberal secular democracy.
That will just make decent, law-abiding Muslims who are already in Europe (the vast majority) feel like second class citizens. That will stoke up even more resentment in France.
We need to get the co-operation of the "good" Muslims to root out the "bad" Muslims.
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed more discontent; better stating what *our* values are, and how they advantage everyone in our society, can only be positive.
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
By both historical and contemporary yardsticks, European countries bend over backwards to accommodate ethnic and religious minorities.
Even in secular France, no one faces a serious bar on practising their religion.
Indeed. But my point is that there's more to it than that.
To attack the freedom to practice religion within the law is as much an attack on our values as what took place in Nice. However, it's also the case that if there is sufficient sympathy or tolerance within a population for those who would subvert it then that population as a whole cannot stand. The toleration of intolerance is a mark of a civilised society and so it normally should be - it is usually better to have intolerant voices in the public domain both because it's easier to keep tabs on them and because they provide the warning of safety valves. But there also comes a point where the sheer scale of intolerance is incompatible with a civilised society. There is no easy place to draw the line but then simple solutions are for simple people - and simple people shouldn't be let near the levers of power.
Then we consider somewhere in excess of 4000 British citizens have gone to fight in the war in Syria, and a third of them have already returned home.
That is a sobering thought.
Isn't there now a law enabling the withdrawal of UK citizenship from people who take up arms?
Only if foreign born or dual citizens, if British born its not possible, it's a power of the Home Secretary.
As I understand it, it is also illegal in international law to make someone 'stateless' so a person with single state citizenship cannot have their citizenship taken away from them.
Such is their refinement, they make petrol cars feel like obsolete tractors.
Was initially sceptical, but they are the future.
Let me know when I can recharge one in a garage in five minutes or carry a small battery from the garage to my car stranded half a mile away having run out of battery.
It's coming. The new Sony phones have super-fast recharge batteries, I've heard that they are in talks with a couple of Japanese car manufacturers to roll them out in new all electric premium models (I'd guess at Lexus and Nissan). There is also the new Sulphur-Lithium battery that will increase capacity by 40% and have ultra-fast charge times a very low degradation (no dendrite formation).
There are solutions coming for electric vehicles that will make them as competitive as petrol based cars in terms of convenience. In 5 years we should see 500 mile range cars with full recharge times of less than 90 minutes IMO, a 10 minute recharge should add 80-100 miles to the range.
Unfortunately those 'improved' figures are nowhere near enough for a tipping point change.
No, but enough for people like me to buy one instead of a petrol car. If Nissan do an all electric version of the GTR, I'd buy that over the petrol version when I'm ready to buy one!
That will just make decent, law-abiding Muslims who are already in Europe (the vast majority) feel like second class citizens. That will stoke up even more resentment in France.
We need to get the co-operation of the "good" Muslims to root out the "bad" Muslims.
That we do not already have that co-operation is the most troubling aspect.
Two steps forward, one step back. Ahok (Mayor of Jakarta) is a breath of fresh air. President Jokowi has suffered from the Obama effect - people invested him with unrealistic expectations - but if he gets a second term I think he'll be judged a success. Rather be here than Manilla!
Dirty Harry seems to have done a good job in Davao in terms of bringing crime down. His hard line stance has a lot of admirers across Asia.
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Unless this sort of thing stops, the kinds of 'solutions' used by Ferdinand and Isabella or in the Reformation (to deal with Catholics) are going to become serious possibilities.
For the first time in my life I am beginning to understand why rational educated people during the reformation years (on all sides) felt they had no alternative to the brutality of a spanish or Walsingham inquisition
There were always rational political arguments for religious persecution -as well as the theological arguments.
You can promote an alternative, rather than persecute the undesirable, too.
An evangelical christian revival in the UK could be a good thing.
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Fine. But again, think through what you're implying. Are you advocating war on Saudi? And if you are, what happens after the West wins (assuming it does - not all wars go to plan).
On your second point, what do you do to UK citizens who worship a different faith? Religious courts?
Yes, it would be a huge undertaking - but then world war 2 was far larger an undertaking.
Germany already has some pretty severe laws against cults.
Any such laws would basically replace the word terrorism with blasphemy. Not a step I would relish but forced integration is better than forced expulsions.
Maybe we should stop admitting Muslims to the EU. It's possibly do-able to integrate the Muslims that are already here. But to add another gajillion every year makes the task hopeless. Merkel fucked up BIG time in her moment of 'compassion'. Islam is not compatible with liberal secular democracy.
That will just make decent, law-abiding Muslims who are already in Europe (the vast majority) feel like second class citizens. That will stoke up even more resentment in France.
We need to get the co-operation of the "good" Muslims to root out the "bad" Muslims.
Nevertheless, I think European countries have reached saturation point, in terms of permitting immigration from failed States.
Such is their refinement, they make petrol cars feel like obsolete tractors.
Was initially sceptical, but they are the future.
Let me know when I can recharge one in a garage in five minutes or carry a small battery from the garage to my car stranded half a mile away having run out of battery.
Let me know when I can fill up an ICE car on my drive at a fifth of the cost of my EV while I have a pleasant evening watching re-runs of David Steele at the Liberal Assembly telling delegates to prepare for government.
Such is their refinement, they make petrol cars feel like obsolete tractors.
Was initially sceptical, but they are the future.
Agree completely even though I'm a liberal. I got a Toyota hybrid a year ago and I just love the quietness and the feeling of calm they give you. This replaced a diesel which contributes to the huge death toll from respiratory diseases that we see each year. They should be banned.
Rather than ban diesils - I would just announce a massive racking up of the taxes on them at a rising rate each year, so that potential new purchasers just go away and existing owners know that they need to plan an exit. Can also cut some of the petrol tax at the same time.
We need to get the co-operation of the "good" Muslims to root out the "bad" Muslims.
Can't see it happening.
I have no doubt they exist in great numbers, but the proportion of bad eggs, or at least those who tacitly support bad eggs is too large to risk sticking their head over the parapet. We saw this week bricks being thrown through MPs windows because people disagreed with their political views, how much more at risk do you think people who consider speaking out about their more extreme coreligionists feel. Especially in a culture which largely venerates the views of the old, and its is in the old that the most conservative views are held.
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Unless this sort of thing stops, the kinds of 'solutions' used by Ferdinand and Isabella or in the Reformation (to deal with Catholics) are going to become serious possibilities.
For the first time in my life I am beginning to understand why rational educated people during the reformation years (on all sides) felt they had no alternative to the brutality of a spanish or Walsingham inquisition
There were always rational political arguments for religious persecution -as well as the theological arguments.
You can promote an alternative, rather than persecute the undesirable, too.
Oh indeed, 16th century Spain shows how you can enter a vicious cycle. Prohibition of Islam led Muslim Spanish to turn traitor, leading to harsher repression, leading to revolt, and then expulsion.
Mr. Jessop, it's the fundamentalism. Islam is almost 100% fundamentalist, and it's a smaller step from that to extremism than it would be if there were a majority of liberal or conservative views.
When you think a god's on your side, it justifies anything, and when you think the anything gets you into a paradise afterlife it removes the fear of death.
Whilst it's depressing the way things are going, hopefully we'll one day return to a world where Middle Eastern and North African leaders take the piss out of puritanical groups who want to impose their views on everyone else, and do so to laughter and applause.
Nasser mocked the Muslim Brotherhood for their first request being to make it mandatory for Egyptian women to wear hijab, but now in Egypt 90%+ women wear hijab and the niqab is increasing in popularity. So in the end on this issue you could say victory to the Muslim Brotherhood, no?
To attack the freedom to practice religion within the law is as much an attack on our values as what took place in Nice. However, it's also the case that if there is sufficient sympathy or tolerance within a population for those who would subvert it then that population as a whole cannot stand. The toleration of intolerance is a mark of a civilised society and so it normally should be - it is usually better to have intolerant voices in the public domain both because it's easier to keep tabs on them and because they provide the warning of safety valves. But there also comes a point where the sheer scale of intolerance is incompatible with a civilised society. There is no easy place to draw the line but then simple solutions are for simple people - and simple people shouldn't be let near the levers of power.
Then we consider somewhere in excess of 4000 British citizens have gone to fight in the war in Syria, and a third of them have already returned home.
That is a sobering thought.
Isn't there now a law enabling the withdrawal of UK citizenship from people who take up arms?
Only if foreign born or dual citizens, if British born its not possible, it's a power of the Home Secretary.
As I understand it, it is also illegal in international law to make someone 'stateless' so a person with single state citizenship cannot have their citizenship taken away from them.
If you are born in a foreign country in almost all cases you have the right to resume citizenship of that country on simple application so that is why the law is applicable to those people, dual citizens clearly can revert to their "other" citizenship.
Schengen should be dead. The EU needs not just national but regional borders and road blocks. Mandatory passports. Routine searches.
Much like the rest of the world in other words.
WAKE UP EUROPE before more innocent people die
You do not defend liberty by crushing it. Sensible precautions at high-profile or large-scale public events such as in Nice, however, are a different matter.
You can though take the sad decision to exclude from liberty those who decide to associate themselves with a dangerous cult.
Be specific. That proposal as you've written it could be taken to mean anything from an irrelevance to a gigantic internment of half or more of the population.
You could posit that the root of it is Wahabbism and deal with Saudi in the way that we (western allies) dealt with Nazi Germany, in the years before and after 1945.
It might also be worth considering making Ahmadism the established Islamic faith in the UK and the only one permitted to organise.
Unless this sort of thing stops, the kinds of 'solutions' used by Ferdinand and Isabella or in the Reformation (to deal with Catholics) are going to become serious possibilities.
For the first time in my life I am beginning to understand why rational educated people during the reformation years (on all sides) felt they had no alternative to the brutality of a spanish or Walsingham inquisition
There were always rational political arguments for religious persecution -as well as the theological arguments.
You can promote an alternative, rather than persecute the undesirable, too.
Oh indeed, 16th century Spain shows how you can enter a vicious cycle. Prohibition of Islam led Muslim Spanish to turn traitor, leading to harsher repression, leading to revolt, and then expulsion.
Such is their refinement, they make petrol cars feel like obsolete tractors.
Was initially sceptical, but they are the future.
Agree completely even though I'm a liberal. I got a Toyota hybrid a year ago and I just love the quietness and the feeling of calm they give you. This replaced a diesel which contributes to the huge death toll from respiratory diseases that we see each year. They should be banned.
Rather than ban diesils - I would just announce a massive racking up of the taxes on them at a rising rate each year, so that potential new purchasers just go away and existing owners know that they need to plan an exit. Can also cut some of the petrol tax at the same time.
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed more discontent; better stating what *our* values are, and how they advantage everyone in our society, can only be positive.
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
By both historical and contemporary yardsticks, European countries bend over backwards to accommodate ethnic and religious minorities.
Even in secular France, no one faces a serious bar on practising their religion.
How can you say that when they have banned the niqab?
Mr. Jessop, it's the fundamentalism. Islam is almost 100% fundamentalist, and it's a smaller step from that to extremism than it would be if there were a majority of liberal or conservative views.
When you think a god's on your side, it justifies anything, and when you think the anything gets you into a paradise afterlife it removes the fear of death.
Whilst it's depressing the way things are going, hopefully we'll one day return to a world where Middle Eastern and North African leaders take the piss out of puritanical groups who want to impose their views on everyone else, and do so to laughter and applause.
Nasser mocked the Muslim Brotherhood for their first request being to make it mandatory for Egyptian women to wear hijab, but now in Egypt 90%+ women wear hijab and the niqab is increasing in popularity. So in the end on this issue you could say victory to the Muslim Brotherhood, no?
You seem to love the niqab and the hijab, can you tell us why?
Such is their refinement, they make petrol cars feel like obsolete tractors.
Was initially sceptical, but they are the future.
Let me know when I can recharge one in a garage in five minutes or carry a small battery from the garage to my car stranded half a mile away having run out of battery.
It's coming. The new Sony phones have super-fast recharge batteries, I've heard that they are in talks with a couple of Japanese car manufacturers to roll them out in new all electric premium models (I'd guess at Lexus and Nissan). There is also the new Sulphur-Lithium battery that will increase capacity by 40% and have ultra-fast charge times a very low degradation (no dendrite formation).
There are solutions coming for electric vehicles that will make them as competitive as petrol based cars in terms of convenience. In 5 years we should see 500 mile range cars with full recharge times of less than 90 minutes IMO, a 10 minute recharge should add 80-100 miles to the range.
Unfortunately those 'improved' figures are nowhere near enough for a tipping point change.
There’s still the question of basic cost, though. I’ve just bought a new Skode Fabia.... cost approc £13,500. The Nissan Leaf, which is comparable, is £21,500. Even at £50 a tankful it would taken me a long time to “save” £8k. At the mileage we do, it would take us almost three years. (Unless the back of my envelope has an error!)
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed more discontent; better stating what *our* values are, and how they advantage everyone in our society, can only be positive.
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
By both historical and contemporary yardsticks, European countries bend over backwards to accommodate ethnic and religious minorities.
Even in secular France, no one faces a serious bar on practising their religion.
How can you say that when they have banned the niqab?
'Nasser mocked the Muslim Brotherhood for their first request being to make it mandatory for Egyptian women to wear hijab, but now in Egypt 90%+ women wear hijab and the niqab is increasing in popularity. So in the end on this issue you could say victory to the Muslim Brotherhood, no?'
A victory for bullying & intimidation plus the your not a good muslim crap
Such is their refinement, they make petrol cars feel like obsolete tractors.
Was initially sceptical, but they are the future.
Let me know when I can recharge one in a garage in five minutes or carry a small battery from the garage to my car stranded half a mile away having run out of battery.
It's coming. The new Sony phones have super-fast recharge batteries, I've heard that they are in talks with a couple of Japanese car manufacturers to roll them out in new all electric premium models (I'd guess at Lexus and Nissan). There is also the new Sulphur-Lithium battery that will increase capacity by 40% and have ultra-fast charge times a very low degradation (no dendrite formation).
There are solutions coming for electric vehicles that will make them as competitive as petrol based cars in terms of convenience. In 5 years we should see 500 mile range cars with full recharge times of less than 90 minutes IMO, a 10 minute recharge should add 80-100 miles to the range.
Unfortunately those 'improved' figures are nowhere near enough for a tipping point change.
10 minutes to top up 100 miles seems a tipping point for me. Currently anyway even in a petrol car I follow the advice of stopping every 2 hours for a 15 minute rest. Typically stretch legs, grab a coffee and go to the toilet etc before going back on the road. If that rest period could add 150 miles back to a battery then essentially the range would be nearly full again despite having driven for two hours.
Except that would require most if not all services parking spaces to come with a battery charger if we were all relying upon it.
Agree completely even though I'm a liberal ........ This contributes to the huge death toll from diseases that we see each year ......They should be banned.
My internet connection is a little unstable presently so not all of your post came through but I think your comment is a little drastic ....
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed more discontent; better stating what *our* values are, and how they advantage everyone in our society, can only be positive.
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
By both historical and contemporary yardsticks, European countries bend over backwards to accommodate ethnic and religious minorities.
Even in secular France, no one faces a serious bar on practising their religion.
How can you say that when they have banned the niqab?
That is as maybe but surely the lesson of Iraq and Libya (not Syria so much, which was an internally- rather than externally-collapsed state), is that failure to plan and execute a post-intervention strategy produced a worse outcome than doing nothing.
And leaving aside questions of legality, practicality and judgement, if we were to cut off the Saudi head (which would be a lot harder than you make it sound), who do you put in place to run things afterwards? If push came to shove, would you be prepared to station Western troops in Mecca? And how many billions would you be prepared to spend on the venture?
That really depends on your goal. If your goal is to (in the medium term) end the threat to the West then you don't have to do anything militarily, leave it as a war torn hell hole for decades, backed by economic embargo. Without money, there is no ability to project terror into the West.
Clearly there are certain humanitarian concerns about such a policy and it depends how willing an individual is to detach themselves from that sort of consideration.
It is a stark choice. Accept that the West will be victims of escalating incidence of Islamic terrorism, or send Saudia Arabia back to the stone in age in terms of military and economy to match its insipid medieval religion.
Edit - actually there is an intermediate position. Destroy the Saudi military, embargo it economically, and leave enough of the ruling class to (just) maintain their grip on power. Effectively turn Saudi Arabia into 1990-2003 Iraq - a toothless, meaningless, impotent factor.
I remember once misusing the word 'insipid' too in relation to a brutal, repressive regime. I actually meant 'insidious'; what did you mean?
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed more discontent; better stating what *our* values are, and how they advantage everyone in our society, can only be positive.
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
By both historical and contemporary yardsticks, European countries bend over backwards to accommodate ethnic and religious minorities.
Even in secular France, no one faces a serious bar on practising their religion.
How can you say that when they have banned the niqab?
Mr. Jessop, it's the fundamentalism. Islam is almost 100% fundamentalist, and it's a smaller step from that to extremism than it would be if there were a majority of liberal or conservative views.
When you think a god's on your side, it justifies anything, and when you think the anything gets you into a paradise afterlife it removes the fear of death.
Whilst it's depressing the way things are going, hopefully we'll one day return to a world where Middle Eastern and North African leaders take the piss out of puritanical groups who want to impose their views on everyone else, and do so to laughter and applause.
Nasser mocked the Muslim Brotherhood for their first request being to make it mandatory for Egyptian women to wear hijab, but now in Egypt 90%+ women wear hijab and the niqab is increasing in popularity. So in the end on this issue you could say victory to the Muslim Brotherhood, no?
I regularly beat the fuck out of my wife and make her cover up, even when she is indoors.
I think it's disgusting that women think they are equal to men.
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
By both historical and contemporary yardsticks, European countries bend over backwards to accommodate ethnic and religious minorities.
Even in secular France, no one faces a serious bar on practising their religion.
How can you say that when they have banned the niqab?
The niqab is not mandated by religion.
A cultural thing then? Makes sense, quite a few 'religious' rules about hair or food seem like the sorts of things that were cultural practices that have over time been conflated with religion.
Comments
To a Wahhabist, the cold blooded murder of a non-Muslim is not murder, the victim is not even a human.
The tragedy of Labour's time in office is that most of the things they were trying to achieve were worthwhile, but often the way they went about it proved counter-productive. In politics, particularly, my view has always been that the way you go about things is as important as the intended objective. Yet, even in its moderate days, Labour has always been renowned for 'machine politics', a lot of this culture originating from the trade unions.
Now we have a civil war within Labour where both sides feel their desired outcome is the "right" one and more or less any means are justified to achieve it. At national level this evidences through attempts, on both sides, to 'stitch up' the result, legal action over the rules, decisions to deny voting rights even from people earlier promised them. And a nationwide ban on any and all local meetings! And at individual level there are clearly many who think the strength of their cause justifies all manner of unpleasant or violent behaviour. What is on display to the outsider is a contempt both for democracy and for the individuals' right to have their own view and a say.
And whilst this is most obvious from the threatening behaviour of what appear mostly to be local corbynites, the same attitude is on show from the rebel MPs who clearly will use any procedural trick or bend any rule in order to remove Corbyn from office, regardless of what their members actually want. Harris's guardian article fingers a lot of this very well.
On your second point, what do you do to UK citizens who worship a different faith? Religious courts?
Then we consider somewhere in excess of 4000 British citizens have gone to fight in the war in Syria, and a third of them have already returned home.
Clearly there are certain humanitarian concerns about such a policy and it depends how willing an individual is to detach themselves from that sort of consideration.
It is a stark choice. Accept that the West will be victims of escalating incidence of Islamic terrorism, or send Saudia Arabia back to the stone in age in terms of military and economy to match its insipid medieval religion.
Edit - actually there is an intermediate position. Destroy the Saudi military, embargo it economically, and leave enough of the ruling class to (just) maintain their grip on power. Effectively turn Saudi Arabia into 1990-2003 Iraq - a toothless, meaningless, impotent factor.
I agree with this sentiment. However it is legitimate to consider if we should alter our law to accommodate religious practices that require actions that are outside our normal parameters of acceptability. All animals slaughtered for meat should be killed in the ethical way we believe causes them the minimum harm. Other means of slaughter to appease Jews, Muslims or any other religious order should not be acceptable to us.
The burqa? Let it be worn in daily life, but we should retain the right to have school uniform if we so desire or faces on view in court if we so desire. The choice of your religion and your freedom to practice it does not exempt you from abiding by the rules laid down by the society you live in.
How do we combat the pent up rage and murderous intent of some extremists? By turning the majority of their peers against them may be the best way.
Should speed up the sale of electric cars amongst liberals
Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab was someone who called for Islam to purify itself and rid itself of the bidah (innovations) and shirk (associating partners with Allah) that had crept into the religion over time.
If it's in the Quran, the Sunnah and the ahadiths of the Prophet it's not wahhabism it's Islam.
Such is their refinement, they make petrol cars feel like obsolete tractors.
Was initially sceptical, but they are the future.
Germany already has some pretty severe laws against cults.
Any such laws would basically replace the word terrorism with blasphemy. Not a step I would relish but forced integration is better than forced expulsions.
When law and order breaks down or is largely absent (no rozzers in the 13th century, of course), support for strict measures and harsh treatment rises.
But we live in a different age, of mass transport and internet communications. Harsh treatment risks provocation of strong retaliation, and a vicious circle.
I don't envy politicians trying to deal with this.
Isn't there now a law enabling the withdrawal of UK citizenship from people who take up arms?
Not to mention it'd instantly make every Muslim in the EU feel persecuted at worst, or suspect at best.
I agree entirely about Merkel's madness (the site, pretty much as one, said so immediately after her deranged pronouncement was made).
IMO the problem is having large numbers of disillusioned people with one or more common links - religion, race, culture, even politics - in a relatively small area. For some, the problems they face cannot be *their* fault, so must be the fault of others. In some cases they will be right. And they see similar people facing the same problems all around them.
People tell them: "It isn't your fault you're unemployed", "it's not your fault the police stopped and searched you for the fifth time this year", "it's not your fault someone shouted racist comments at you / your sister / your friend."
It's *their* fault, meaning people outside that religion/race/culture. It's the others.
In this case, we are the others.
In addition, many people want to feel as though they belong to something bigger. A cause they can be part of. For most of us it might be a political party; it might be a social club. In extreme situations it might be left- or right- wing groups that foment hatred. With the Internet, it doesn't even have to be a group they're physically in contact with. When you think society has cast you out, you might try to find a place to belong elsewhere. Somewhere you are not marginalised, somewhere you can feel 'safe'. Somewhere people feel the same way you do.
Then there is the way the rather medieval aspects of the religion they are taught from birth clash with modern, often secular western civilisation. This is a division that is at the core of these problems, and is made worse by both foreign funding and the accessibility of information on the Internet.
The solutions? Trying to reduce the discontentment and disillusionment people feel might play a part, as might giving them other ways to focus such feelings away from extreme religion. Restricting rights to practice religion would probably make matters worse as that would just breed more discontent; better stating what *our* values are, and how they advantage everyone in our society, can only be positive.
Make people feel as if they belong to our society, rather than apart from it.
But fundamentally we'll never stop this sort of thing totally - there will always be the lone aggrieved nutter. We can only try to reduce their numbers, detect them, and to reduce the damage they can do.
By our reckoning, Labour’s leadership contest is going to be decided, for the most part, by less than 400,000 mainly middle-class university graduates. Nearly half of these members – unlike many of Labour’s voters – live in London and the South of England. Some 75 per cent of Labour members are ABC1 voters, and 57 per cent of them have a degree. Around 15 per cent live in London and 32 per cent live in other parts of the South of England. Only 28 per cent live in the party’s northern heartlands and 20 per cent in Wales and the Midlands, where (think, Nuneaton) any party wanting to win a general election desperately needs to win over voters.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/middle-class-university-graduates-will-decide-future-labour-party
You pick your moments to get on a hobby horse mate
Perhaps if you actually read my post you might start to consider *why* some don't feel part of our society.
There are solutions coming for electric vehicles that will make them as competitive as petrol based cars in terms of convenience. In 5 years we should see 500 mile range cars with full recharge times of less than 90 minutes IMO, a 10 minute recharge should add 80-100 miles to the range.
When you think a god's on your side, it justifies anything, and when you think the anything gets you into a paradise afterlife it removes the fear of death.
Posted this before, but it's still worth enjoying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZIqdrFeFBk
Whilst it's depressing the way things are going, hopefully we'll one day return to a world where Middle Eastern and North African leaders take the piss out of puritanical groups who want to impose their views on everyone else, and do so to laughter and applause.
Even in secular France, no one faces a serious bar on practising their religion.
That said, after six years in the Home Office when she prevented many attacks (although not that on Lee Rigby), she has a greater understanding of the issue than anyone else in Government. I hope she is spending the time talking to our spooks and confirming they have the tools required to prevent such a thing happening here.
The worry is that she will be just too receptive to them pushing their luck on what extra powers they might get.
We need to get the co-operation of the "good" Muslims to root out the "bad" Muslims.
An evangelical christian revival in the UK could be a good thing.
So it's Boris time to shine...
I have no doubt they exist in great numbers, but the proportion of bad eggs, or at least those who tacitly support bad eggs is too large to risk sticking their head over the parapet. We saw this week bricks being thrown through MPs windows because people disagreed with their political views, how much more at risk do you think people who consider speaking out about their more extreme coreligionists feel. Especially in a culture which largely venerates the views of the old, and its is in the old that the most conservative views are held.
Nasser mocked the Muslim Brotherhood for their first request being to make it mandatory for Egyptian women to wear hijab, but now in Egypt 90%+ women wear hijab and the niqab is increasing in popularity. So in the end on this issue you could say victory to the Muslim Brotherhood, no?
How can you say that when they have banned the niqab?
And I did say things had gone backwards. But that's not inevitable.
'Nasser mocked the Muslim Brotherhood for their first request being to make it mandatory for Egyptian women to wear hijab, but now in Egypt 90%+ women wear hijab and the niqab is increasing in popularity. So in the end on this issue you could say victory to the Muslim Brotherhood, no?'
A victory for bullying & intimidation plus the your not a good muslim crap
Except that would require most if not all services parking spaces to come with a battery charger if we were all relying upon it.
Only a little mind you ....
I think it's disgusting that women think they are equal to men.