If there wasn’t ISIS, we’d still have al quaeda!
People will always play in this game of thrones, which is simply based around tilting the odds in their favour. Who might have been in place if not Saddam? Look at Iran, Syria etc. The mistake was going in the first place, it didn’t need doing and in any case, radical islamic terrorism predates western involvement in Iraq by some period. I hope that I am very wrong here, but there seems to be inconsolable differences between free western and hard-line religious cultures. Personally, I can’t see an end to it.

But we wouldn’t have an Al-Qaeda if MI6 (along wth the CIA and many others) hadn’t armed the Mujahadeen via a UK trained Saudi Prince:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0B0LFd5oPQ[/video]

Strange the same resources have never been dedicated to curbing the Saudi funded and distributed wahhabist ideology that is at the heart of Islamic Extremism

Overall (using data and stuff)…it’s never been more peaceful, more people die because they’ve eaten too much food, than die because of war. This has almost never happened before. It’s never been safer than it is now.

Then why all the hype and closing of borders?

Mass media and the fact that borders have actually become a thing.

Not too long ago it was much easier to be an illegal, borders used to be much more porous.

Singletrack Mountain Bike Magazine
search
Chat Forum

How much does your household spend on war each year?
45 posts & 24 voices | Started 2 hours ago by jivehoneyjive | Latest reply from Tom_W1987
Add this topic to your favorites (?)
Tags:No tags yet.
Pages:
« Previous
1
2
mos – Member
£500 is probably less than I end up giving to billionaires like Besos and Gates each year.

POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
jivehoneyjive – Member
Is that a voluntary contribution, or an enforced one?

POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
ads678 – Member
I pay my taxes, I understand that some of that goes towards the armed forces.
I don’t have a problem with that. They generally do a good job but some of the things they are involved in, I don’t agree with.
I’d rather have an army than not though.

POSTED 41 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
jivehoneyjive – Member
Appreciate it’s tricky… I’ve been mates with plenty of squaddies over the years and they’re all good folks, but it’s not really about personality, or ensuring jobs for the boys, or protecting our little island against anyone crazy enough to invade it for whatever reason (why would anyone invade anyway?) it’s more about the damaging impact of weapons of mass destruction, which our taxes just happen to pay for.

The sad fact is, if Her Majesty’s government hadn’t played a significant role in arming Saddam (via a subsidized industry) in the 1st place there wouldn’t have been an invasion of Iraq and there wouldn’t have been ISIS and the people that died yesterday, wouldn’t have died.

POSTED 28 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
P-Jay – Member
Allowing taxpayers to pick and choose what taxes they pay wont end well.

Or is it more of “oh we won’t spend YOUR taxes on Guns, we’ll only spend yours on Fluffy Kittens and Wurhers Original for Old Ladies – but you still have to pay the same”. Then go right ahead, if it lets people sleep better at night.

I’d like to opt out of paying for new prison building, the war on drugs and the 3rd Heathrow Runway please.

POSTED 22 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
wrecker – Member
If there wasn’t ISIS, we’d still have al quaeda!
People will always play in this game of thrones, which is simply based around tilting the odds in their favour. Who might have been in place if not Saddam? Look at Iran, Syria etc. The mistake was going in the first place, it didn’t need doing and in any case, radical islamic terrorism predates western involvement in Iraq by some period. I hope that I am very wrong here, but there seems to be inconsolable differences between free western and hard-line religious cultures. Personally, I can’t see an end to it.

Ending it is not the goal, keeping the region destabilised is the goal.

But we wouldn’t have an Al-Qaeda if MI6 (along wth the CIA and many others) hadn’t armed the Mujahadeen via a UK trained Saudi Prince:

Not strictly true. The muj and AQ were not the same. In afg, the locals called AQ “the foreigners”. The muj were more warlords, with some notable exceptions (also mostly foreign to afg) who were there for a spot of good old jihad more than defending their homeland. It’s fair to say these people were probably inclined towards violence before the russians turned up.

Strange the same resources have never been dedicated to curbing the Saudi funded and distributed wahhabist ideology that is at the heart of Islamic Extremism

Is it strange? I’d say that (even if it is distasteful in the extreme) it makes sense not to piss off your biggest mates in the whole area, who quite coincidentally are also a source of revenue.

Ending it is not the goal, keeping the region destabilised is the goal.

oookaaaayyy

How long before it’s illegal for UK citizens to work in (or perhaps even visit) countries that we previously had full access to, because of scaremongering built up via a narrative involving immigration and refugees fleeing wars that were paid for by our taxes?

F*** knows. We have not paid for any wars currently occurring. There may have been a level of support, but it is support. The rebels are not on HMG’s payroll.

Support ain’t free though…

Neither is training, arming etc, or the ministerial involvement in arms being sold to Saudi to use in Yemen

jivehoneyjive – Member
How long before it’s illegal for UK citizens to work in (or perhaps even visit) countries that we previously had full access to, because of scaremongering built up via a narrative involving immigration and refugees fleeing wars that were paid for by our taxes?

{Irony alarm going full tilt}

You can’t train and/or arm a scarecrow though!
The west aren’t doing the heavy lifting.
I do agree that it’s shit, don’t get me wrong.

I’m not scaremongering… there was a terrorist attack yesterday, that was a result of ideologies that are on the increase due to radicalization fueled by taxpayer funded conflict.

And shortly after Katie Hopkins bought up refugees fleeing war in the Mediterranean, much of the media jumped on it in the run up to the EU referendum

due to radicalization fueled by taxpayer funded conflict.

In part. There’s a bit (lot) more to it than that IMHO.

oookaaaayyy

Can you honestly not see that many countries have a financial interest in keeping the middle east unstable?

In part. There’s a bit (lot) more to it than that IMHO.

No doubt, like the wahhabist faith, spread without challenge by allies Saudi Arabia (just don’t mention 9/11)

jivehoneyjive – Member
I’m not scaremongering… there was a terrorist attack yesterday, that was a result of ideologies that are on the increase due to radicalization fueled by taxpayer funded conflict.

And shortly after Katie Hopkins bought up refugees fleeing war in the Mediterranean, much of the media jumped on it in the run up to the EU referendum

Islamic fundamentalism has steadily grown since the 50’s. The internet and social media has aided their ability to organise and improved communication, so rather than relying on the printed word, they can collectively share ideas and indoctrinate followers.

Yes, you can continue to blame western intervention as justification for this, just like owning nice stuff is the reason for getting burgled. It’s always a good idea to continue to make excuses for others abhorrent behaviour…

But since western intervention has so obvious an impact on global events, just why is it that the (well funded by the taxpayer) intelligence services don’t intervene in the root causes that bring about such a degree of column filling horror?

You cannot defeat and ideology that has no real roots and no real viable aim apart from jihad. Fighting this is like trying to wrestle a well oiled midget.

No real roots?

estimates “Saudi spending on religious causes abroad as between $2bn [£960m] and $3bn per year since 1975 (comparing favourably with what was the annual Soviet propaganda budget of $1bn), which has been spent on 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centres and dozens of Muslim academies and schools”.

More than that they have flooded the Islamic book market with cheap well-produced Wahhabi literature whose print runs, Birt says, “can be five to 10 times that of any other British-based sectarian publication, aggressively targeted for a global English-speaking audience.” This has had the effect of forcing non-Wahhabi publishers across the Muslim world to close. It has put out of business smaller bookshops catering for a more mainstream Muslim market.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wahhabism-a-deadly-scripture-398516.html

Dude, random links or quotes on the internet, whatever. You have an axe to grind with the Saudis, thats clear. So unless you’re advocating an all out war with them, I don’t see the point you’re constantly trying to make.

You’re being silly for silly’s sake…

Here’s a random quote I found on the internet:

It’s always a good idea to continue to make excuses for others abhorrent behaviour…

and another:

Dude,

whatever

Not in the slightest. All you do is post links and others opinion. What is yours? War with Saudi Arabia to hole them account for it? C’mon, tell us, put your cards on the table.

Of course not war… accountability, sanctions, halting arms trade and military support for their campaign in Yemen etc…

But being as Her Majesty’s goverment is so tied up with them by the Al Yamamah arms deal, the main thing to do for the time being is raise awareness 😉

Tick tock old chap…

Everyone is aware, and any sanctions or accountability put in place will be labelled as an attack on Islam and Muslims. So plan B?

Everyone is aware

Cool, tell me more about Al Yamamah…

What, BAE and it’s dodgy deals for oil?

Which have been investigated and just gone away after ‘Intervention’?

Good, keep going…

I can’t be arsed. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, but it still doesn’t solve the issue does it? Bring Saudi to heal and all those complicit; you honestly think it’s going to stop the sociopaths and their minions perpetrating attacks against those they deem infidels?

I’m not advocating that you forgot that the Saudis aren’t clean, they’re dirtier than Jimmy Saville at an under-age gang-bang, but these are, like it or not separate issues. The horse has bolted and no amount of kicking the stablehand in the goolies is going to get that bastard back in the pen.

More than that they have flooded the Islamic book market with cheap well-produced Wahhabi literature whose print runs,

As an answer to what, d’you think? Many people think it was a response to this

Grand Mosque Seizure

read the the section on aftermath and policies, particularly