Forum menu
..but Iraq was held together through brutality, are you suggesting the occupiers should have continued that policy?
Do you only target brown people who download dodgy videos from the internet, or do you also execute white people who say something a bit racist on Facebook?
Eh? what's skin colour got to do with religion?
Understood - they simply ceased terrorist operations. That, effectively, is the result surely most people wanted?gobuchul - Member
The IRA were not "defeated". They didn't "win" but they never "lost" either.
I realise the whole process was not actually this simple - I have spent time there myself, so I am aware of the complexities - but the main point is that whatever happens now and in the future will hopefully be peaceful.
It's a very fragile religion which cannot accept a little criticism and satire, which Islam (or at least many of its followers) does not seem to be able to do.
That was the point made by the guy I quoted. Unless I totally misunderstood, he was a Muslim and saw this as a fundamental flaw in their interpretation and/or continued belief in an outdated text.
..but Iraq was held together through brutality, are you suggesting the occupiers should have continued that policy?
No, I'm suggesting that a) we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, and b) we should at least have had some kind of plan (the Americans have admitted that they didn't and that they assumed it would all be fine)
The way Britain was led into war with Iraq 10 years ago was "wholly irresponsible" and the lack of intelligence on the country a national disgrace, senior military figures have told the Guardian.Though they direct their fire principally at the Bush administration, they make clear the Blair government must share a lot of the blame.
"It was absolutely irresponsible to go in without thinking of the consequences", said Lord Guthrie, former chief of defence staff and head of the army. He added: "War is dangerous, difficult, and dirty, but usually cheaper and shorter and easier than what can happen after the fighting stops."
Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary at the time, had a "lot to answer for", Guthrie added, referring to the way Rumsfeld, notorious for his "stuff happens" description of widespread looting in Baghdad, allowed Paul Bremer, the US chief administrator – in effect the US governor of Iraq after the invasion – to ban the Ba'ath party and dismantle the Iraqi army.
They should have got rid of the top people but "clasped the army to their bosom", and say to them: 'Help us rebuild Iraq'", Guthrie told the Guardian.
"Why did Bremer squash any sense of the Iraqi people taking any role in their own destiny?" asked Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge, commander of British forces in Iraq at the time of the invasion. "That defies logic."
General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the army at the time, described Rumsfeld and Bremer as "intellectually bankrupt". With other British defence chiefs, he expected and wanted Iraqi military units, including Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard, to remain in place and help maintain law and order in Iraq after the invasion.
diggaI realise the whole process was not actually this simple - I have spent time there myself, so I am aware of the complexities -
You clearly aren't. You haven't a ****ing clue actually.
The Saudi government works very closely with the US, the US has numerous military bases and personnel inside Saudi. There are undoubtedly those inside Saudi who fund terrorism but it's not a state level activity unlike Iran. As such sanctions against Saudi make no sense unlike those in place against Iran.
@digga you mention Palestine, the French are one of Europe's most pro Palestine governments so that would make them an unlikely target, no ? One of the suspects has fantasied about attacking Jews, the returning jihadist fighter who killed the Jews at the Belgian museum was French. The terrorists you saw yesterday, they are representative of those in Government in Gaza. That is why the Israeli's control that border to prevent the sort of attack yesterday in Paris occurring on the streets of Tel Aviv. In the French press there is coverage of Palestinian officials congratulating those responsible for yesterdays attacks. Israels responce to the Palestinians may not sit well with many in the West but they are dealing with this threat day in and day out. Yesterday Israel sentenced the third of the three Hamas members who kidnapped and murdered the three teenagers. In August the leader of Hamas (resident in Qatar) finally admitted that all three responsible where Hamas operatives.
Another police officer just been shot and killed in Paris. just been reported on 5live.
And who unleashed that sectarian violence in Iraq? Was it a major problem during Saddam's reign?
Yes the sectarian violence existed during Saddam's reign, it was institutionalized and part of his form of control. The Sunni and Shia unleashed the violence on each other when we withdrew prematurely.
Who do you think creates the conditions that foment terrorism? It's a serious question. I realise you have no problem with the fact that we can knock out a few of them by knocking out lots and accepting the innocent ones as collateral damage...I recall you justifying this quite a lot on another thread. Do you think terrorism is born solely as a result of the religious beliefs of a large chunk of the population of the middle east (and stretching over to Afghanistan & ****stan). Why do we have jihadism in Western Europe? Why is there little or negligible jihadism in, say Eastern Europe or, say, South America (two very very Christian areas)? How do you think nationalism in Northern Ireland led to republicanism and consequently thirty or forty odd years of mindless violence on both (well, three actually) sides?
supposed 'moderate' viewpoint didn't look like any definition of 'moderate' that I'd recognise.
Are we describing their views or yours?
Failing to act now essentially condemns many more innocents to become collateral damage of a failed strategy.
Not sure I agree this will happen but sending out death squads will only lead to more terrorists and fuel the impressionable youths view of us. it will condem more to death as collateral damage. You are like them tbh the way to win is to be lkill the most.
Eh? what's skin colour got to do with religion?
Absolutely nothing at all - and that's my point, that a policy of "disappearing" people who might be a bit dodgy is bound to use stereotypes like that. Just look at the stop and search statistics regarding race.
who fund terrorism but it's not a state level activity unlike Iran
Like the US funds Israel that sort of thing?
They execute [ literally] state sponsored assassinations by MOSAD on foreign soil. What would Jam say if Iran did this and will you condemn Israel as vociferously for this terrorism?
I am going for you ignore it or just tell me how bad somewhere else is and how some Muslim group are worse
Just ban religion full stop. The amount of death and suffering caused by one group claiming their version of a story is more true than anyone else's is abhorrent.
I've crossed the border between Ireland and the UK loads of times, including during the troubles when I'd be interrogated - back then I had to give my occupation as "Industrial Chemist". So, I [i]know[/i] how it feels to be suspected of terrorism. 😉
Years ago I took an electric bike battery back to Germany in my hand baggage - on X-ray it's a lot of cylinders wired up to a circuit board. So I know how it feels to be suspected of terrorism too 😉
Then there was the time US security thought I was a terrorist because I was wearing a bike event t-shirt with the sponsor's name on it - they thought Scottish Power was like Black Power...
I see that the two suspects being sought were previously involved in sending impressionable young indoctrinees to fight for IS.
Given that they exhibited thorough and trained professionalism during the hit, it looks like the worries about returning jihadis engaging in further violence in their countries of residence, are becoming true.
Just ban religion full stop
Indeed what coudl possibly gow wrong with a strategy of persecuting those you disagree with
Not only that it is really simple and effective to end and kill an idea by just simply outlawing it.
I dont agree with religion but you are either a western tolerant liberal who agrees with freedom of choice and respects the right of others to make choices you disagree with or you are an extremist who would persecute others who disagree with you...now who does the later remind you of ?
Absolutely nothing at all - and that's my point, that a policy of "disappearing" people who might be a bit dodgy is bound to use stereotypes like that.
I don't think it would be 'bound' to use stereotypes like that at all
The KGB and CIA didn't just go around just randomly killing white people in the Cold War did they?
The surest way to guarantee the spread of something is to ban it.
There you go with the feeble ad hom's again. Incapable of rational, objective debate.jimjam - Member
digga
I realise the whole process was not actually this simple - I have spent time there myself, so I am aware of the complexities -You clearly aren't. You haven't a ****ing clue actually
As it happens my own experience is not extensive, but I do know a fair bit. However, I know a man who really does know and, if you don't mind, I'll take his opinion over yours.
you aint wrong Wopppit,
that must be why everyone is calling for a ban on western liberal tolerance.
I don't think it would be 'bound' to use stereotypes like that at all
We're speculating about how some theoretical security service would kidnap and murder its own citizens - I don't think it's possible to make any assumptions under that kind of situation.
I know a man who really does know
How lucky you can do an appeal to authority with an un named and unknown source. I cannot speak for others but yes I am convinced.
The surest way to guarantee the spread of something is to ban it.
That's been shown to work really well over the years. Let's see, alcohol prohibition, drug use, they even managed to change the religion of the whole of Ireland when they tried to stamp out Catholicism a few hundred years ago before we could even have a Twitter rage about things. They all worked really well.
(Apologies if you were being sarcastic...I haven't switched on my meter yet this morning.)
diggaI realise the whole process was not actually this simple - I have spent time there myself, so I am aware of the complexities -
digga
As it happens my own experience is not extensive
However, I know a man who really does know
Yes I'm sure you do. Whenever your mate Barry from the pub, who's read even more Andy McNabb books than you decides to post let me know.
digga
if you don't mind, I'll take his opinion over yours.
I don't mind at all. I didn't even read that one page on the BBC website that neatly summarised the troubles for the hard of thinking. Tat's how badly misinformed I am.
Just ban religion full stop.
That's the ticket. So what we need right now is another Joe Stalin?
You can't ban something out of existence.
Unless you are a moderator 😉
Barry down the pub though...he knows about the boathouse at Hereford.
As an aside, why do we immediately resort to the jerked knee in this country?
Anders Breivik. Norway has the most liberal prison system in the world (rehabilitation through priveledges and education and so on) and also the lowest re-offending rates.
Perhaps we should reconsider our time-honoured way of ensuring failure?
Perhaps we should reconsider our time-honoured way of ensuring failure?
Well, I suppose we should consider our concept of failure first shouldn't we? Creating failed states means we get re-building contracts, sell lots of arms and the private military make a fortune providing close protection & security. That's just for starters...
@deadlarcy, I think the age old factors of power and control are major elements in fermenting terrorism. ISIS has recruited large numbers of people by paying them well and promising them a "glamourous" life/eternal life
Like the US funds Israel that sort of thing?
They execute [ literally] state sponsored assassinations by MOSAD on foreign soil. What would Jam say if Iran did this and will you condemn Israel as vociferously for this terrorism?I am going for you ignore it or just tell me how bad somewhere else is and how some Muslim group are worse
The US gives close to $750m pa to Palestine, $250m via UNHCR which is 99.6% Palestinain.
The Israeli's are used to dealing with terrorists, either at home in Israel or abroad. The US use drones, the Israeli's use agents on the ground. Iran does exactly as you suggest, sending fighters to Syria and missiles to Gaza. Basically it's a war and one which is fought in various locations.
- I don't think it's possible to make any assumptions under that kind of situation.
Isn't 'making an assumption' exactly what you did when you said they were 'bound' to use racial stereotypes Ben?
I was thinking of the level of crime (including terrorist incidents) and stuffed prisons that we have, not the GDP.
@Woppit, fairy nuff. Apologies for misunderstanding.
Suspects allegedly seen on French motorway North of Paris.
Slightly surreal but after they ran over a pedestrian yesterday they where forced to change cars. Forced an old guy out of his car who refused to let them drive off until he had got his dog out of the back seats.
has recruited large numbers of people by paying them well and promising them a "glamourous" life/eternal life
So no mention of an enemy then?
So you did both.
So when Israel kills a terrorists its " war" but if these people respond its not "war" but " terrorism". Is Iran at "war" then when Israel wages "war" against it or on its soil or is it still state sponsored terrorism when they do the same thing as the Israelis?
A very principled stance you have there Jam , very principled indeed.
So in essence you wont condemn Israel for doing it ...who could have guessed
Just ban religion full stop.
The French taxi driver interviewed last night said it should be about faith and not religion. I liked where he was coming from.
if Israel kills a terrorists its " war" but if these people respond its not "war" but " terrorism"....makes sense to me.
Perfect sense
The deliberate targeting of and killing of enemy combatants or facilities, even if in the process you inadvertently cause civilian casualties is a legal and justifiable act of war
The deliberate targeting of and killing of civilians who are not directly connected to the enemy war effort would not be.
I think it's us in the West that write those rules. Which allows people to spout that kind of hogwash.
but why let definitions get in the way of ill informed argument.
@Woppit Taking Norway example, they may have a liberal prison system, but they have a non nonsense approach to deportation and also a clear problem with radical Muslims - some of whom are purportedly key ISIS members - a record number of deportations in 2014:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/04/norways-islamic-extremism-problem/
With all the talk of Freedom of Speech, [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9 ]this[/url] is interesting:
His article and cartoons in the magazine Charlie Hebdo relating to Jean Sarkozy's marriage to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress, touched off a controversy, after journalist Claude Askolovitch described them as anti-Semitic.[3] The magazine's editor, Phillipe Val, ordered Siné to write a letter of apology or face termination. The cartoonist said he would rather "cut his own balls off", and was promptly fired.[4] Both sides subsequently filed lawsuits, and in December 2010, Siné won a 40,000-euro court judgment against his former publisher for wrongful termination.[5][b]Maurice Sinet also reported a death threat posted on a site run by the Jewish Defence League. The text said "20 centimeters of stainless steel in the gut, that should teach the bastard to stop and think[/b]".
"20 centimeters of stainless steel in the gut, that should teach the bastard to stop and think".
Proctoscopies can often yield worrying results.