The point I'm trying to make is not only do I think the UK have already done enough and an influx or more would not only increase security risk, but even more strain on resources and hostility between communities in our large cities.
There should be pressure on these Arab states to do more. It's shouldn't be just left to developed European countries and countries under enormous strain already.
Im not sure what I think any more. The country clearly benefits from immigration, and that includes refugees as a whole (there are of course plenty of people who suffer as a result of it, from wage depression lack of access to services for example). Also, the chances of someone being killed in the UK any given year are in the millions. You are more likely to die of a car crash and countless other causes. So its not worth worrying about it, hard as that is to say (I have very distant relatives who have died as a result of car accidents and terrorism). Living in fear hands the advantage to the terrorists. Fuck em.
I just think it's no suprise when something tragic like this happens in Europe that sections of its people think you know what enough is enough now. We have helped, our governments give aid and our people have tried to be understanding... Why is it us that's being questioned if we are doing enough, when you have rich islamic countries that do fuck all to help their fellow muslim brothers and sisters.
In what way does listing what other countries have done indicate that the UK has done enough? If your point were that the emirate states aren't doing enough, then your stats demonstrate this perfectly. But that doesn't abrogate any moral duty that the UK may have to help in a humanitarian crisis.
Country,Number of first time asylum applicants 2015 Germany,73120 Hungary,32810 Italy,15245 France,14770 Sweden,11415 Austria,9705 United Kingdom,7335 Belgium,3440 Bulgaria,3190 Greece,2610 Netherlands,2425 Spain,2035 Denmark,1505 Poland,1440 Finland,960 Ireland,625 Cyprus,430 Czech Republic,355 Malta,345 Romania,335
People keep on like we take the "burden" Germany have taken ten times what we have.
Completely missing the point. In fact you've only gotta look at the current mood of many sections of the German public to realise bringing more in while others do nothing is not the greatest idea.
Saudi Arabia and their promotion of wahabbism is an elephant in the room in all the rhetoric churned out by Western governments after these sort of atrocities.
Lived in the country for a couple of years as a kid and even then knew it was warped and barbaric. Who is funding and arming ISIS?
The tip toeing the UK and US do around them is nothing short of disgusting.
The point I'm trying to make is not only do I think the UK have already done enough and an influx or more would not only increase security risk, but even more strain on resources and hostility between communities in our large cities.
There should be pressure on these Arab states to do more. It's shouldn't be just left to developed European countries and countries under enormous strain already.
Fortunately the current UK government consider Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc to be close friends. If your local MP is part of the government I suggest that you contact him/her to get his/her colleagues to put pressure on these states to take on more refugees.
I can understand the "knee jerk" reaction posts even though I cannot agree with some of them. What has happened in Paris is almost beyond the comprehension of normal people like all of us that post on this forum.
What we must not lose sight of is that normality and humanity that makes us who we are. Retreating behind a wall of fear and suspicion is not the way forward. It plays into the hands of the terrorists.
Our enemy is not the peaceful Muslim population in this country or the refugees fleeing to where they can live safely. Our enemy is the radical arm of Islam wherever that is found.
It is our libertarian way of life and beliefs that makes us an easy target for those that wish to do us harm but that alone is not reason enough to become a fearful, suspicious, uncaring nation hiding behind high walls with reduced freedoms for all.
It is a sad fact but the western powers must now begin to formulate a plan that takes the fight to to our enemy in their power bases wherever that is. IS must be defeated and that will require deployment of soldiers on the ground in Syria and Iraq. Even a military victory might alone not be enough. It is likely that a western presence will be required for years to provide stability in those regions.
It will be essential that middle eastern countries play their part in this transition. Unless they are on board the chances of long term success are poor.
We must not fall into the trap being layer by IS and Al Queda. They want us to take the road of hatred and suspicion. Don't let that happen.
Country,Number of first time asylum applicants 2015 Germany,73120 Hungary,32810 Italy,15245 France,14770 Sweden,11415 Austria,9705 United Kingdom,7335 Belgium,3440 Bulgaria,3190 Greece,2610 Netherlands,2425 Spain,2035 Denmark,1505 Poland,1440 Finland,960 Ireland,625 Cyprus,430 Czech Republic,355 Malta,345 Romania,335
People keep on like we take the "burden" Germany have taken ten times what we have.
Germany, Hungary and Italy have plenty of room .. they all wiped out millions of untermench and foreigners, gypsies and Jews before and during WW II .. Merkel and her 'partners' seem to want to assuage German guilt over past atrocities and manifold sins by letting in anyone claiming to be a refugee from a war zone and to drag every other European country into the confession booth along with her .. if Germany wants to allow hundreds of thousands of 'refugees' in, so be it .. BUT Merkel has misjudged the mood of the German electorate and has pulled back from her St Theresa stance .. European borders and strict immigration controls are being re-introduced and enforced right now
I presume many of the rich Arab Muslim states, with endless resources and plenty of space have changed their mind on allowing fellow muslim refugees into their country?
Refugee population by country or territory of asylum 2011-2015
Kuwait - 611 Oman - 151 Qatar - 133 Saudi Arabia - 534 UAE - 417 UK - 117,100
I think you'll find that a number of those states were involved in various ways in the initial funding and establishment of ISIS - as described in the article below by Patrick Cockburn, one of the best informed journalists on the region.
And references to 'fellow muslims' fails to understand the deep and murderous divisions between Sunni and Shia muslims, as the article also describes.
However, the UK and other western governments continue to maintain 'cordial' (particularly business) relationships with these states with little or no mention of their role in fomenting and supporting the murderous conflicts in the region which are spilling over onto the streets of Europe:
@IAgree, I keep seeing you pop up on this thread. You haven't had much to say but you're certainly throwing those flags around. There's been very little that I would describe as abusive on this thread, so my question is why do you feel it's appropriate to try to censor posts that you don't like? If you disagree with people then fine, tell them, but just calling people abusive because they don't agree with you and staying quiet otherwise isn't very conducive to a debate
Sorry but I feel proudly uncomfortable with posters advocating;
"Then the security services can deal with those here already and cleanse them from the houses, flats estates and roads we all live on and once we are back in control of who is here deal with the fallout of closing the doors"
Making reference to "cleansing people" is not helpful and is chilling frankly.
Talking about putting bullets in Muslims heads is equally unacceptable
I haven't posted (and I am not usually backwards in coming forwards!) as I don't think it is respectful to those who have died.
I am disturbed that anyone who fails to engage in a rabid, hate filled rant or tries to push for a more balanced and considered response, which does not include ethnic cleansing, blaming an entire religious group comprising of many millions, or responding with knee jerk postings linking to frankly inflammatory sites "educating " us about Islam (interesting that certain of the posters seem so au fait with this material as to be able to pop it on the site at a moments notice) is branded an apologist!
I loathe ISIS and Islamism and think that they should be fought in every way available which doesn't compromise our freedom and democracy - I find the events in Paris abhorrent and shocking - I strongly advocate combatting hate preachers or mosques which allow such and all forms of promoting hatred and inspiring terrorism - I am not an apologist.
However certain posters have sought to use this tragedy to peddle fear and hatred and inflammatory and hate inspired material. I loathe seeing extreme Islamists on the street shouting abuse at passers by as much, as seeing cloth capped members of Britain First trying to intimidate Muslims. Both extremes add fuel to the fire - both need to be challenged vigorously - hence my flags.
Frankly I could search the web and get a dozen hate filled Islamist links and a dozen Islanphobic links within minutes - Neither are acceptable and neither should be posted on this site. Neither say anything about either most Muslims or most British , or most British Muslims.
Some of the assumptions made about those posters who have not worked themselves into a hate filled lather are pathetic! I am not brain dead, I loathe George Galloway (as opposed to loving him!) and because I can see a hate inspired link for what it is does not mean I am incapable of debate!
The link to the " book" put up by one poster for example, even the man who wrote it and runs the website says his friends and family don't want to have anything to do with him.
The link the the angry late middle aged white guy ranting on was equally offensive and hate filled.
Our enemy is not the peaceful Muslim population in this country or the refugees fleeing to where they can live safely. Our enemy is the radical arm of Islam wherever that is found.
Jason Manford posted this on Facebook and Twitter. It was taken down from FB apparently; can't understand why. Couldn't put it any better myself.
I don't care what anyone says - there are 1.6billion followers of Islam in the world. We have an evil proportion within that - but to tar that many people with one brush (even based on the attacks we have had) is ludicrous.
People like those who carried out the atrocities last night have zilch to do with 99 percent of Muslims worldwide.
If we start attacking a religion that a quarter of the world belong to then you will create even more division.
The evil bastards from last night represent Islam as much as a hooligan from abroad represents Charlton Athletic.
I can't disagree with these sentiments as far as they go, but I think it is more complicated. Of course the vast majority of muslims are at least as caring, non-violent and concerned as you or I but the question is whether they are like that because of or despite their religion.
Islam teaches its followers that there is no law above God's law, that its followers are righteous and non-muslims are sinners, and that the punishment for apostasy is death. Like all religions, but to a greater extent than most, it encourages a 'them and us' attitude, isolating muslims from secular society. Islam deems it wrong, not only for muslims to depict images of Mohammed, but for anyone to do so, whatever their beliefs. This doesn't make every muslim evil, but it provides a context for those who are to flourish.
Islam needs to go through the same transition as Christianity did to accommodate the secular world view. And Islam's leaders have a responsibility to lead that transition. Something they appear unable or unwilling to do.
Actually, ValleyGary has a point. My Muslim work colleague - Algerian by birth and lived outside Paris before here - made the same argument yesterday. According to him, apparently the Kuwaiti government stated that they, " Don't take in people with trauma in their lives". I think the figures in the table above are misleading. It's not about how many each country take in, more that other Middle Eastern countries refuse to take any immigrants at all.
Country,Number of first time asylum applicants 2015 Germany,73120 Hungary,32810 Italy,15245 France,14770 Sweden,11415 Austria,9705 United Kingdom,7335 Belgium,3440 Bulgaria,3190 Greece,2610 Netherlands,2425 Spain,2035 Denmark,1505 Poland,1440 Finland,960 Ireland,625 Cyprus,430 Czech Republic,355 Malta,345 Romania,335
People keep on like we take the "burden" Germany have taken ten times what we have.
Germany, Hungary and Italy have plenty of room .. they all wiped out millions of untermench and foreigners, gypsies and Jews before and during WW II .. Merkel and her 'partners' seem to want to assuage German guilt over past atrocities and manifold sins by letting in anyone claiming to be a refugee from a war zone and to drag every other European country into the confession booth along with her .. if Germany wants to allow hundreds of thousands of 'refugees' in, so be it .. BUT Merkel has misjudged the mood of the German electorate and has pulled back from her St Theresa stance .. European borders and strict immigration controls are being re-introduced and enforced right now
How are these people not refugees? They're running from the exact type of people who performed this terrorist attack.
I'm sure you're the type of person who would've shrugged your shoulders at nazi Germany and the holocaust saying "not my problem".
@IAgree, I keep seeing you pop up on this thread. You haven't had much to say but you're certainly throwing those flags around. There's been very little that I would describe as abusive on this thread, so my question is why do you feel it's appropriate to try to censor posts that you don't like? If you disagree with people then fine, tell them, but just calling people abusive because they don't agree with you and staying quiet otherwise isn't very conducive to a debate
Sorry but I feel proudly uncomfortable with posters advocating;
"Then the security services can deal with those here already and cleanse them from the houses, flats estates and roads we all live on and once we are back in control of who is here deal with the fallout of closing the doors"
Making reference to "cleansing people" is not helpful and is chilling frankly.
Talking about putting bullets in Muslims heads is equally unacceptable
I haven't posted (and I am not usually backwards in coming forwards!) as I don't think it is respectful to those who have died.
I am disturbed that anyone who fails to engage in a rabid, hate filled rant or tries to push for a more balanced and considered response, which does not include ethnic cleansing, blaming an entire religious group comprising of many millions, or responding with knee jerk postings linking to frankly inflammatory sites "educating " us about Islam (interesting that certain of the posters seem so au fait with this material as to be able to pop it on the site at a moments notice) is branded an apologist!
I loathe ISIS and Islamism and think that they should be fought in every way available which doesn't compromise our freedom and democracy - I find the events in Paris abhorrent and shocking - I strongly advocate combatting hate preachers or mosques which allow such and all forms of promoting hatred and inspiring terrorism - I am not an apologist.
However certain posters have sought to use this tragedy to peddle fear and hatred and inflammatory and hate inspired material. I loathe seeing extreme Islamists on the street shouting abuse at passers by as much, as seeing cloth capped members of Britain First trying to intimidate Muslims. Both extremes add fuel to the fire - both need to be challenged vigorously - hence my flags.
Frankly I could search the web and get a dozen hate filled Islamist links and a dozen Islanphobic links within minutes - Neither are acceptable and neither should be posted on this site. Neither say anything about either most Muslims or most British , or most British Muslims.
Some of the assumptions made about those posters who have not worked themselves into a hate filled lather are pathetic! I am not brain dead, I loathe George Galloway (as opposed to loving him!) and because I can see a hate inspired link for what it is does not mean I am incapable of debate!
The link to the " book" put up by one poster for example, even the man who wrote it and runs the website says his friends and family don't want to have anything to do with him.
The link the the angry late middle aged white guy ranting on was equally offensive and hate filled.
Nuff said.
'Nuff said'. Except that's the first thing you've said in pages and pages and pages of posts. Between that you've thrown a huge number of flags around. That post you've just laid out is interesting and well-written. Accusing people of being abusive from a distance is not.
nla, quite a reasonable poster generally wrote the following:
'Too right pal, I would rather the exact opposite if none of these scum terrorists get in, and other genuine refugees can't because of it, tough shit I say,
Then the security services can deal with those here already and cleanse them from the houses, flats estates and roads we all live on and once we are back in control of who is here deal with the fallout of closing the doors'
That's an opinion. A strong one, but still an opinion. Instead of saying what you don't agree with, you just flagged it as abusive. That's pathetic. There's nothing in there that needs censoring and you're only harming all the effort you're putting in trying to appear liberal by flagging it. As for the links that have been posted, they exist. They offer an opinion. I don't agree with them and I'm intelligent enough to use my words to say that. You've just tried to get them taken down because you don't like them. I dread to think of the amount of time AFKA has spent labouring through all the posts you want taken down because you don't agree with them.
You've said 'Both extremes add fuel to the fire - both need to be challenged vigorously - hence my flags'. Except you've profoundly got it wrong. You're not challenging anything! You're not challenging the extremist Islamists and you're not challenging the right wing nutjobs either. If you were I imagine you'd be too busy protesting them on the streets to go round scrutinising every single post on this thread. What you are attempting to do is censor individual posters who acknowledge that this information exists. These people add a viewpoint to the debate and you want it removed because you don't like it. That's not how debate works. That video still exists, that book is still accessible and you haven't done a single thing to stop that fact, but you have attempted to stop someone adding their voice to the debate. I think yours and my views on the situation itself probably align, but the difference is I recognise that everyone has a right to speak and merely linking content - which while I don't like it it is hardly illegal - doesn't mean you should have your input removed. There's no debate then. You just win because you're the only voice left in the fight. Congratulations.
Stop flagging and start debating, or do neither and duck out of this thread. Either way, stop trying to tell people they don't get a say
Saudi Arabia and their promotion of wahabbism is an elephant in the room in all the rhetoric churned out by Western governments after these sort of atrocities.
Lived in the country for a couple of years as a kid and even then knew it was warped and barbaric. Who is funding and arming ISIS?
The tip toeing the UK and US do around them is nothing short of disgusting.
This. Nobody is suggesting there are easy solutions out there, but is there anyone seriously suggesting the Gulf States are doing all they can to help the situation?
I guess the problem is that ultimately the whole region is a basket case, when you really look at it. Any attempt to 'force' moderation and modernisation on places like Saudi will please ISIS no end, as it will further demonstrate in their eyes that places like Saudi are not run by 'true' Muslims, and are being corrupted by infidels. So it has to come (or be seen to come) from within...well good luck with that one.
I'm no expert on The Koran, but i'm reading enough about ISIS and it's goals/views from authoritative sources (e.g. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/) that makes me despair, really... a sense that while we might regard ISIS' interpretations as 'warped', we might be doing so because it makes us feel better and allows many peaceful Muslims to reject views they regard as abhorrent.
BUT (from the The Atlantic): But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.” I feel we need to confront this issue once and for all, which really does mean a proper, public, discussion.
If people like Google and Amazon can be hauled before a committee of MPs and asked to explain themselves, could we not have a group of senior scholars and religious figures come forward and come to a view on this as best we can? If it really all does come down to a matter of interpretation (of The Koran) and opinion, that may not make us any safer but it may expose the 'warped' myth once and for all, and possibly drive a firmer path of reformation, at least in the UK.. We might, for example, get to a point where 'Reformed' mosques are supported/encouraged, but any other kind actually has to be banned outright, with no grey area in between. ISIS won't mind that (they want to get rid of the grey area it seems, and force everyone to be their version of a True Believer), but personally i'd welcome some clarity in all this...
@IAgree, I keep seeing you pop up on this thread. You haven't had much to say but you're certainly throwing those flags around. There's been very little that I would describe as abusive on this thread, so my question is why do you feel it's appropriate to try to censor posts that you don't like? If you disagree with people then fine, tell them, but just calling people abusive because they don't agree with you and staying quiet otherwise isn't very conducive to a debate
Sorry but I feel proudly uncomfortable with posters advocating;
"Then the security services can deal with those here already and cleanse them from the houses, flats estates and roads we all live on and once we are back in control of who is here deal with the fallout of closing the doors"
Making reference to "cleansing people" is not helpful and is chilling frankly.
Talking about putting bullets in Muslims heads is equally unacceptable
I haven't posted (and I am not usually backwards in coming forwards!) as I don't think it is respectful to those who have died.
I am disturbed that anyone who fails to engage in a rabid, hate filled rant or tries to push for a more balanced and considered response, which does not include ethnic cleansing, blaming an entire religious group comprising of many millions, or responding with knee jerk postings linking to frankly inflammatory sites "educating " us about Islam (interesting that certain of the posters seem so au fait with this material as to be able to pop it on the site at a moments notice) is branded an apologist!
I loathe ISIS and Islamism and think that they should be fought in every way available which doesn't compromise our freedom and democracy - I find the events in Paris abhorrent and shocking - I strongly advocate combatting hate preachers or mosques which allow such and all forms of promoting hatred and inspiring terrorism - I am not an apologist.
However certain posters have sought to use this tragedy to peddle fear and hatred and inflammatory and hate inspired material. I loathe seeing extreme Islamists on the street shouting abuse at passers by as much, as seeing cloth capped members of Britain First trying to intimidate Muslims. Both extremes add fuel to the fire - both need to be challenged vigorously - hence my flags.
Frankly I could search the web and get a dozen hate filled Islamist links and a dozen Islanphobic links within minutes - Neither are acceptable and neither should be posted on this site. Neither say anything about either most Muslims or most British , or most British Muslims.
Some of the assumptions made about those posters who have not worked themselves into a hate filled lather are pathetic! I am not brain dead, I loathe George Galloway (as opposed to loving him!) and because I can see a hate inspired link for what it is does not mean I am incapable of debate!
The link to the " book" put up by one poster for example, even the man who wrote it and runs the website says his friends and family don't want to have anything to do with him.
The link the the angry late middle aged white guy ranting on was equally offensive and hate filled.
Nuff said.
'Nuff said'. Except that's the first thing you've said in pages and pages and pages of posts. Between that you've thrown a huge number of flags around. That post you've just laid out is interesting and well-written. Accusing people of being abusive from a distance is not.
nla, quite a reasonable poster generally wrote the following:
'Too right pal, I would rather the exact opposite if none of these scum terrorists get in, and other genuine refugees can't because of it, tough shit I say,
Then the security services can deal with those here already and cleanse them from the houses, flats estates and roads we all live on and once we are back in control of who is here deal with the fallout of closing the doors'
That's an opinion. A strong one, but still an opinion. Instead of saying what you don't agree with, you just flagged it as abusive. That's pathetic. There's nothing in there that needs censoring and you're only harming all the effort you're putting in trying to appear liberal by flagging it. As for the links that have been posted, they exist. They offer an opinion. I don't agree with them and I'm intelligent enough to use my words to say that. You've just tried to get them taken down because you don't like them. I dread to think of the amount of time AFKA has spent labouring through all the posts you want taken down because you don't agree with them.
You've said 'Both extremes add fuel to the fire - both need to be challenged vigorously - hence my flags'. Except you've profoundly got it wrong. You're not challenging anything! You're not challenging the extremist Islamists and you're not challenging the right wing nutjobs either. If you were I imagine you'd be too busy protesting them on the streets to go round scrutinising every single post on this thread. What you are attempting to do is censor individual posters who acknowledge that this information exists. These people add a viewpoint to the debate and you want it removed because you don't like it. That's not how debate works. That video still exists, that book is still accessible and you haven't done a single thing to stop that fact, but you have attempted to stop someone adding their voice to the debate. I think yours and my views on the situation itself probably align, but the difference is I recognise that everyone has a right to speak and merely linking content - which while I don't like it it is hardly illegal - doesn't mean you should have your input removed. There's no debate then. You just win because you're the only voice left in the fight. Congratulations.
Stop flagging and start debating, or do neither and duck out of this thread. Either way, stop trying to tell people they don't get a say
Fantastic post at one I think that is relevant when any discussions on similar topics come up.
I can understand the "knee jerk" reaction posts even though I cannot agree with some of them. What has happened in Paris is almost beyond the comprehension of normal people like all of us that post on this forum.
What we must not lose sight of is that normality and humanity that makes us who we are. Retreating behind a wall of fear and suspicion is not the way forward. It plays into the hands of the terrorists.
Our enemy is not the peaceful Muslim population in this country or the refugees fleeing to where they can live safely. Our enemy is the radical arm of Islam wherever that is found.
It is our libertarian way of life and beliefs that makes us an easy target for those that wish to do us harm but that alone is not reason enough to become a fearful, suspicious, uncaring nation hiding behind high walls with reduced freedoms for all.
It is a sad fact but the western powers must now begin to formulate a plan that takes the fight to to our enemy in their power bases wherever that is. IS must be defeated and that will require deployment of soldiers on the ground in Syria and Iraq. Even a military victory might alone not be enough. It is likely that a western presence will be required for years to provide stability in those regions.
It will be essential that middle eastern countries play their part in this transition. Unless they are on board the chances of long term success are poor.
We must not fall into the trap being layer by IS and Al Queda. They want us to take the road of hatred and suspicion. Don't let that happen.
My first & probably last post on this thread but SHG's words are those that make most sense to me.
The apologists on this site make me sick. People who would clearly consider themselves to be liberal and progressive have a massive blind spot when it comes to conservative Islam for fear of being seen as racist. It's time the zealoted defenders of intolerance asked themselves some hard questions.
Santa this really isn't helpful.
An apologist would be someone who defends or excuses what these murderers did.
I've read through this thread and posted on it once before and I haven't read anything that in any way tried to defend or excuse these barbarous attacks. If you believe otherwise then I think you owe to the rest of us to 'out' these apologists by finding and posting what they said.
If you can't do that then - because this is a very emotive and serious subject - I suggest you think more carefully and responsibly before you post.
I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities. I will of course limit all future comments to the narrow range of views you find acceptable.
From which I take it that you're unable or unwilling to try to produce any evidence (names/quotes) for your original assertion that 'apologists' for the Paris murderers have posted on this thread (“The apologists on this site make me sick”) - so instead you resort to cheap sarcasm.
But this isn't about differing 'views' – 'narrow' or otherwise – but about specific accusations by you that other posters (who you don't identify) are “apologists” for the Paris attackers and “zealoted defenders of intolerance”, for which you haven't offered a shred of evidence.
The sad fact is there are people on this site who would rather put the Human rights of suspected terrorists above the safety of normal law abiding citizens. That fact is clearly demonstrated in this thread which now makes chilling reading:
In their perfect little world, those terrorists in France could not have been locked up merely for being "suspected", you know "innocent until proved guilty" and all that. Therefore such attacks are unpreventable, but thankfully those terrorists went to paradise with their Human Rights intact, even if their bodies were not.
That thread was about imprisonment for so long without trial. Not chilling reading, but people promoting British or western values. I really do get the notion of 'suspected' but do we now have a blanket sweep of all Muslims, and close all Mosques because we suspect stuff? It is unworkable isn't it? The IRA were very effective terrorists, and were able to continue for years because by it's nature terrorism is concealed amongst the innocent. It was however possible to negotiate a settlement with Republican forces, which does not look possible with ISIS, and essentially it was the terrorists themselves who stopped, not because they were stopped by force, or by internment without trial. Lifers who wrote on the thread you quoted, saying imprisonment without trial was wrong are not apologists or supporters of terror, but people who want to maintain the values many fight for, fight against terrorism for.
I am not at all sure how we beat terror, it may take many years to do it, but it is about the mindset of a person who will sacrifice their own lives along with their victims. We have to keep on keeping on using technology and the power of finance to tackle this terrible problem, but there will always exist such people, even like right wingers such as Brevik as much as Islamic terrorists and they must be denied the means to do what they do.
As the news continues to emerge from Paris it is difficult to keep a cool head, and maybe an impassioned response is somehow appropriate. The horror in Paris or Pakistan, or Beirut, or London is almost too much to endure, but it won't stop until the thinking processes of the terrorists is changed because they can't all be locked up.
Chilling because I said that if intelligence exists, these people cannot, and must not, be given the benefit of doubt, or innocent people will get slaughtered. That has now played out, yet again. You Seth, dismissed the intelligence against Aamer that I presented, out of hand, and you, your daughter and Chizz were more concerned about any violation of his human rights, and that he should be well compensated, than you were about any potential risk that he posed in light of that intelligence information. It is like you are all in denial. Chizz stated yesterday that we are not at war, despite the fact that world leaders including Hollande are now admitting that it is war. In war, you do not appease your enemy, you take them out of the equation by locking them up or killing them. They certainly have no qualms about killing us. Until such time that you acknowledge the fact that we are at war, our lands will continue to be occupied, our way of life diminished, our laws and values trashed. That is exactly what Mohammed advocates in the Koran, ISIS are now following his teachings to the letter. Sharia law already exists in the UK. How have we allowed our judicial system to be hijacked in such away? How can we allow Muslims to stand on our streets openly admitting that they don't recognise our laws and refuse to abide by them? People first need to educate themselves about Mohammed and the origins of Islam, and not just accept the false assertion that Islam is the religion of peace, it's not. Mohammed was a violent man and many of his teachings advocate violence, including striking off the heads of infidels, wife beating etc. If "moderate" muslims want to live peacefully amongst us, they are most welcome. But they must live according to OUR laws and close down their Sharia courts immediately. And if they are serious about their hatred of ISIS, they will come together and issue a FATWA against them, and then set about reforming their religion so that it is no longer a magnet for these extremist nutters. In the meantime I want to see anyone found to have close associations with ISIS locked up and I don't care if they throw away the key, so long as innocent people are kept safe. Don't want to be locked up? Then live a good clean life and stay well away from other terrorists, that's not difficult.
Our enemy is not the peaceful Muslim population in this country or the refugees fleeing to where they can live safely. Our enemy is the radical arm of Islam wherever that is found.
Jason Manford posted this on Facebook and Twitter. It was taken down from FB apparently; can't understand why. Couldn't put it any better myself.
I don't care what anyone says - there are 1.6billion followers of Islam in the world. We have an evil proportion within that - but to tar that many people with one brush (even based on the attacks we have had) is ludicrous.
People like those who carried out the atrocities last night have zilch to do with 99 percent of Muslims worldwide.
If we start attacking a religion that a quarter of the world belong to then you will create even more division.
The evil bastards from last night represent Islam as much as a hooligan from abroad represents Charlton Athletic.
I can't disagree with these sentiments as far as they go, but I think it is more complicated. Of course the vast majority of muslims are at least as caring, non-violent and concerned as you or I but the question is whether they are like that because of or despite their religion.
Islam teaches its followers that there is no law above God's law, that its followers are righteous and non-muslims are sinners, and that the punishment for apostasy is death. Like all religions, but to a greater extent than most, it encourages a 'them and us' attitude, isolating muslims from secular society. Islam deems it wrong, not only for muslims to depict images of Mohammed, but for anyone to do so, whatever their beliefs. This doesn't make every muslim evil, but it provides a context for those who are to flourish.
Islam needs to go through the same transition as Christianity did to accommodate the secular world view. And Islam's leaders have a responsibility to lead that transition. Something they appear unable or unwilling to do.
I agree with your analysis regarding Islam, though I think you are a little soft on Christianity. Just because it isn't a problem in Britain at the moment doesn't mean that there aren't atrocities committed elsewhere in the name of that religion. Whilst the vast majority of Christians are thoroughly decent people (as are the vast majority of Muslims), the mere existence of these religions creates in and out groups that under certain circumstances can lead to crimes against humanity. The sooner people start living their lives by reason and logic instead of superstition and scripture the better. Sadly we are a long way off of that.
Country,Number of first time asylum applicants 2015 Germany,73120 Hungary,32810 Italy,15245 France,14770 Sweden,11415 Austria,9705 United Kingdom,7335 Belgium,3440 Bulgaria,3190 Greece,2610 Netherlands,2425 Spain,2035 Denmark,1505 Poland,1440 Finland,960 Ireland,625 Cyprus,430 Czech Republic,355 Malta,345 Romania,335
People keep on like we take the "burden" Germany have taken ten times what we have.
Germany, Hungary and Italy have plenty of room .. they all wiped out millions of untermench and foreigners, gypsies and Jews before and during WW II .. Merkel and her 'partners' seem to want to assuage German guilt over past atrocities and manifold sins by letting in anyone claiming to be a refugee from a war zone and to drag every other European country into the confession booth along with her .. if Germany wants to allow hundreds of thousands of 'refugees' in, so be it .. BUT Merkel has misjudged the mood of the German electorate and has pulled back from her St Theresa stance .. European borders and strict immigration controls are being re-introduced and enforced right now
How are these people not refugees? They're running from the exact type of people who performed this terrorist attack.
I'm sure you're the type of person who would've shrugged your shoulders at nazi Germany and the holocaust saying "not my problem".
you don't know me mush .. have never met me to my knowledge (I am sure I would have remembered a cretin like you) .. so KEEP YOUR SURE THINGS TO YOURSELF when it comes to my opinions and thoughts .. or perhaps you'd like to meet face to face and discuss my attitude towards Nazis ?
If the considerable comment about one of the terrorists being from Syria and coming through Greece as a refugee are proved to be correct, then goonerhater's numbers of 1 million at 1% being 10,000 (more) nutters in Europe causes some concern. Whether the numbers are correct or not they are not beyond possibility.
If people can't post and appreciate / accept / respond to others views in a civil manner, we will close the thread. It really is quite simple. Please don't post in a selfish way.
If people can't post and appreciate / accept / respond to others views in a civil manner, we will close the thread. It really is quite simple. Please don't post in a selfish way.
I prefer Pilchard on another thread to Mush on this one.
I would imagine, like the rest of us, she is greatly saddened about what is going on and feeling for the people killed and their friends and families.
If you are trying to link the large influx of migrants into Europe with people who are terrorists and murderers then that is plain wrong. We can discuss and argue and disagree about the rights and wrongs of migration policy. And we can argue about whether those people are being forced to move due to poverty and danger or for economic reasons. But to equate them with murderous thugs is stupid.
I wasn't wrong was I? It's already happening, more to come I'm sure
No. You are wrong. But I don't think you understand my point.
Interesting, if I'm wrong please explain why.
Also can you explain how the the Syrian terrorist posing as a refugee, who Greek officials have confirmed passed through Greece in October has no link to the large influx of migrants into Europe?
My point is IS extremists are manipulating the migrant crisis to get into Europe and Merkel was mad to encourage them.
I would rather have a handful of extremists getting in among thousands and thousands of refugees who find safety, than block them and send those thousands to their inevitable deaths.
And there has been massacre after massacre on a scale we couldn't even begin to imagine in Syria.
I don't know whether people just don't get it or have been so influenced by right wing ideology that they don't care. But a Syrian life is of no less value than a Briton's.
If you're ever in doubt about that, go look up the picture of the two year old refugee washed up on a beach, it brings it closer to home than most of us would find comfortable, and then try to justify otherwise.
Goodness me, haven't you liberal lot not exploited that photo enough already?
On Friday night we saw what a handful of extremists could do, so who's to say hundreds if not thousands aren't exploiting the migrant criss and if so, imagine the carnage.
I'm sorry if you think I'm racist or whatever else for valuing my families life and fellow countrymen/women life's ahead of unaccountable refugees.
I truly hope the genuine refugees can find a safe heaven somewhere, but I'm not prepared to take the risk.
Comments
There should be pressure on these Arab states to do more. It's shouldn't be just left to developed European countries and countries under enormous strain already.
Germany,73120
Hungary,32810
Italy,15245
France,14770
Sweden,11415
Austria,9705
United Kingdom,7335
Belgium,3440
Bulgaria,3190
Greece,2610
Netherlands,2425
Spain,2035
Denmark,1505
Poland,1440
Finland,960
Ireland,625
Cyprus,430
Czech Republic,355
Malta,345
Romania,335
People keep on like we take the "burden" Germany have taken ten times what we have.
Lived in the country for a couple of years as a kid and even then knew it was warped and barbaric. Who is funding and arming ISIS?
The tip toeing the UK and US do around them is nothing short of disgusting.
And when the same happens here, it'll be the usual faces moaning that dick heads like Nigel Farage and his crew are becoming more popular.
I'm not for one minute saying we shouldn't help, but that other countries should be questioned and pressured before we are.
What we must not lose sight of is that normality and humanity that makes us who we are. Retreating behind a wall of fear and suspicion is not the way forward. It plays into the hands of the terrorists.
Our enemy is not the peaceful Muslim population in this country or the refugees fleeing to where they can live safely. Our enemy is the radical arm of Islam wherever that is found.
It is our libertarian way of life and beliefs that makes us an easy target for those that wish to do us harm but that alone is not reason enough to become a fearful, suspicious, uncaring nation hiding behind high walls with reduced freedoms for all.
It is a sad fact but the western powers must now begin to formulate a plan that takes the fight to to our enemy in their power bases wherever that is. IS must be defeated and that will require deployment of soldiers on the ground in Syria and Iraq. Even a military victory might alone not be enough. It is likely that a western presence will be required for years to provide stability in those regions.
It will be essential that middle eastern countries play their part in this transition. Unless they are on board the chances of long term success are poor.
We must not fall into the trap being layer by IS and Al Queda. They want us to take the road of hatred and suspicion. Don't let that happen.
Merkel and her 'partners' seem to want to assuage German guilt over past atrocities and manifold sins by letting in anyone claiming to be a refugee from a war zone and to drag every other European country into the confession booth along with her
.. if Germany wants to allow hundreds of thousands of 'refugees' in, so be it .. BUT Merkel has misjudged the mood of the German electorate and has pulled back from her St Theresa stance .. European borders and strict immigration controls are being re-introduced and enforced right now
And references to 'fellow muslims' fails to understand the deep and murderous divisions between Sunni and Shia muslims, as the article also describes.
However, the UK and other western governments continue to maintain 'cordial' (particularly business) relationships with these states with little or no mention of their role in fomenting and supporting the murderous conflicts in the region which are spilling over onto the streets of Europe:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html
"Then the security services can deal with those here already and cleanse them from the houses, flats estates and roads we all live on and once we are back in control of who is here deal with the fallout of closing the doors"
Making reference to "cleansing people" is not helpful and is chilling frankly.
Talking about putting bullets in Muslims heads is equally unacceptable
I haven't posted (and I am not usually backwards in coming forwards!) as I don't think it is respectful to those who have died.
I am disturbed that anyone who fails to engage in a rabid, hate filled rant or tries to push for a more balanced and considered response, which does not include ethnic cleansing, blaming an entire religious group comprising of many millions, or responding with knee jerk postings linking to frankly inflammatory sites "educating " us about Islam (interesting that certain of the posters seem so au fait with this material as to be able to pop it on the site at a moments notice) is branded an apologist!
I loathe ISIS and Islamism and think that they should be fought in every way available which doesn't compromise our freedom and democracy - I find the events in Paris abhorrent and shocking - I strongly advocate combatting hate preachers or mosques which allow such and all forms of promoting hatred and inspiring terrorism - I am not an apologist.
However certain posters have sought to use this tragedy to peddle fear and hatred and inflammatory and hate inspired material. I loathe seeing extreme Islamists on the street shouting abuse at passers by as much, as seeing cloth capped members of Britain First trying to intimidate Muslims. Both extremes add fuel to the fire - both need to be challenged vigorously - hence my flags.
Frankly I could search the web and get a dozen hate filled Islamist links and a dozen Islanphobic links within minutes - Neither are acceptable and neither should be posted on this site. Neither say anything about either most Muslims or most British , or most British Muslims.
Some of the assumptions made about those posters who have not worked themselves into a hate filled lather are pathetic! I am not brain dead, I loathe George Galloway (as opposed to loving him!) and because I can see a hate inspired link for what it is does not mean I am incapable of debate!
The link to the " book" put up by one poster for example, even the man who wrote it and runs the website says his friends and family don't want to have anything to do with him.
The link the the angry late middle aged white guy ranting on was equally offensive and hate filled.
Nuff said.
Islam teaches its followers that there is no law above God's law, that its followers are righteous and non-muslims are sinners, and that the punishment for apostasy is death. Like all religions, but to a greater extent than most, it encourages a 'them and us' attitude, isolating muslims from secular society. Islam deems it wrong, not only for muslims to depict images of Mohammed, but for anyone to do so, whatever their beliefs. This doesn't make every muslim evil, but it provides a context for those who are to flourish.
Islam needs to go through the same transition as Christianity did to accommodate the secular world view. And Islam's leaders have a responsibility to lead that transition. Something they appear unable or unwilling to do.
According to him, apparently the Kuwaiti government stated that they, " Don't take in people with trauma in their lives".
I think the figures in the table above are misleading. It's not about how many each country take in, more that other Middle Eastern countries refuse to take any immigrants at all.
I'm sure you're the type of person who would've shrugged your shoulders at nazi Germany and the holocaust saying "not my problem".
nla, quite a reasonable poster generally wrote the following:
'Too right pal, I would rather the exact opposite if none of these scum terrorists get in, and other genuine refugees can't because of it, tough shit I say,
Then the security services can deal with those here already and cleanse them from the houses, flats estates and roads we all live on and once we are back in control of who is here deal with the fallout of closing the doors'
That's an opinion. A strong one, but still an opinion. Instead of saying what you don't agree with, you just flagged it as abusive. That's pathetic. There's nothing in there that needs censoring and you're only harming all the effort you're putting in trying to appear liberal by flagging it. As for the links that have been posted, they exist. They offer an opinion. I don't agree with them and I'm intelligent enough to use my words to say that. You've just tried to get them taken down because you don't like them. I dread to think of the amount of time AFKA has spent labouring through all the posts you want taken down because you don't agree with them.
You've said 'Both extremes add fuel to the fire - both need to be challenged vigorously - hence my flags'. Except you've profoundly got it wrong. You're not challenging anything! You're not challenging the extremist Islamists and you're not challenging the right wing nutjobs either. If you were I imagine you'd be too busy protesting them on the streets to go round scrutinising every single post on this thread. What you are attempting to do is censor individual posters who acknowledge that this information exists. These people add a viewpoint to the debate and you want it removed because you don't like it. That's not how debate works. That video still exists, that book is still accessible and you haven't done a single thing to stop that fact, but you have attempted to stop someone adding their voice to the debate. I think yours and my views on the situation itself probably align, but the difference is I recognise that everyone has a right to speak and merely linking content - which while I don't like it it is hardly illegal - doesn't mean you should have your input removed. There's no debate then. You just win because you're the only voice left in the fight. Congratulations.
Stop flagging and start debating, or do neither and duck out of this thread. Either way, stop trying to tell people they don't get a say
I guess the problem is that ultimately the whole region is a basket case, when you really look at it. Any attempt to 'force' moderation and modernisation on places like Saudi will please ISIS no end, as it will further demonstrate in their eyes that places like Saudi are not run by 'true' Muslims, and are being corrupted by infidels. So it has to come (or be seen to come) from within...well good luck with that one.
I'm no expert on The Koran, but i'm reading enough about ISIS and it's goals/views from authoritative sources (e.g. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/) that makes me despair, really... a sense that while we might regard ISIS' interpretations as 'warped', we might be doing so because it makes us feel better and allows many peaceful Muslims to reject views they regard as abhorrent.
BUT (from the The Atlantic): But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.” I feel we need to confront this issue once and for all, which really does mean a proper, public, discussion.
If people like Google and Amazon can be hauled before a committee of MPs and asked to explain themselves, could we not have a group of senior scholars and religious figures come forward and come to a view on this as best we can? If it really all does come down to a matter of interpretation (of The Koran) and opinion, that may not make us any safer but it may expose the 'warped' myth once and for all, and possibly drive a firmer path of reformation, at least in the UK.. We might, for example, get to a point where 'Reformed' mosques are supported/encouraged, but any other kind actually has to be banned outright, with no grey area in between. ISIS won't mind that (they want to get rid of the grey area it seems, and force everyone to be their version of a True Believer), but personally i'd welcome some clarity in all this...
You Seth, dismissed the intelligence against Aamer that I presented, out of hand, and you, your daughter and Chizz were more concerned about any violation of his human rights, and that he should be well compensated, than you were about any potential risk that he posed in light of that intelligence information.
It is like you are all in denial. Chizz stated yesterday that we are not at war, despite the fact that world leaders including Hollande are now admitting that it is war. In war, you do not appease your enemy, you take them out of the equation by locking them up or killing them. They certainly have no qualms about killing us.
Until such time that you acknowledge the fact that we are at war, our lands will continue to be occupied, our way of life diminished, our laws and values trashed.
That is exactly what Mohammed advocates in the Koran, ISIS are now following his teachings to the letter. Sharia law already exists in the UK. How have we allowed our judicial system to be hijacked in such away? How can we allow Muslims to stand on our streets openly admitting that they don't recognise our laws and refuse to abide by them?
People first need to educate themselves about Mohammed and the origins of Islam, and not just accept the false assertion that Islam is the religion of peace, it's not. Mohammed was a violent man and many of his teachings advocate violence, including striking off the heads of infidels, wife beating etc.
If "moderate" muslims want to live peacefully amongst us, they are most welcome. But they must live according to OUR laws and close down their Sharia courts immediately. And if they are serious about their hatred of ISIS, they will come together and issue a FATWA against them, and then set about reforming their religion so that it is no longer a magnet for these extremist nutters.
In the meantime I want to see anyone found to have close associations with ISIS locked up and I don't care if they throw away the key, so long as innocent people are kept safe. Don't want to be locked up? Then live a good clean life and stay well away from other terrorists, that's not difficult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Goodness me, haven't you liberal lot not exploited that photo enough already?
On Friday night we saw what a handful of extremists could do, so who's to say hundreds if not thousands aren't exploiting the migrant criss and if so, imagine the carnage.
I'm sorry if you think I'm racist or whatever else for valuing my families life and fellow countrymen/women life's ahead of unaccountable refugees.
I truly hope the genuine refugees can find a safe heaven somewhere, but I'm not prepared to take the risk.