If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News0 min ago
Looks Like The Rop Is Hard At It...
25 Answers
http://
How is the civilised world going to adress this ever growing problem?
No doubt the "Friends Of Jihad" - will be along in a mo to tell us that they are marvellous chaps who are just a little misunderstood...
How is the civilised world going to adress this ever growing problem?
No doubt the "Friends Of Jihad" - will be along in a mo to tell us that they are marvellous chaps who are just a little misunderstood...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Why do you want TTT to name people? You know very well if he does he will be banned - or is that your purpose.
The Religion Of Peace is, of course, nothing like. Stuck in the 15th Century with a modern world around it I suspect they feel like a cornered animal and so are lashing out for survival.
One of the problems in the West are the ROP sympathizers, the FoJ as TTT most succinctly puts it. Whilst trying to be right-on they actually exasperate the problem by not dealing with it head on in short sharp shock, but then the liberals always have this notion everyone listens to them. Chamberlain (yes not just liberals) demonstrated the cost of not dealing with a problem quickly, Governments of the West are not Guilty of the same.
The Religion Of Peace is, of course, nothing like. Stuck in the 15th Century with a modern world around it I suspect they feel like a cornered animal and so are lashing out for survival.
One of the problems in the West are the ROP sympathizers, the FoJ as TTT most succinctly puts it. Whilst trying to be right-on they actually exasperate the problem by not dealing with it head on in short sharp shock, but then the liberals always have this notion everyone listens to them. Chamberlain (yes not just liberals) demonstrated the cost of not dealing with a problem quickly, Governments of the West are not Guilty of the same.
To be fair to Gromit he has clearly advocated a tough stance against them many time on her TTT.
As for right wingers getting fingers burnt in Iraq and Afghanistan, wasn't that Uncle Tony that took us in there? And overall I am not sure that fingers were burnt in Afghanistan if you look at unemotionally.
Ignoring the political side though, you are right, the public lost appetite for a fight, the only problem being that the fight will of course get bigger and have to be fought eventually. As history continually tells us.
As for right wingers getting fingers burnt in Iraq and Afghanistan, wasn't that Uncle Tony that took us in there? And overall I am not sure that fingers were burnt in Afghanistan if you look at unemotionally.
Ignoring the political side though, you are right, the public lost appetite for a fight, the only problem being that the fight will of course get bigger and have to be fought eventually. As history continually tells us.
Yes Gromit, go back the where you got thatt and you'll also see something like this...
The reason I am against action is that we won't do a proper job because the handwringers in Islington will be whinning into their mochchocclattedoodas. So we'll sacrifice troops for no result like we have up to now. This needs to be treated like WW2 DDay, the west needs to put millions of men on the ground with all the associated support. We both know the west won't do that so it's pointless. Hence my "don't bother" default postition.
well cherry picked but I sipport massive world wide action from the civilised world but in the absence of that, let them kill each other.
I assume you therefore support massive action gromit??
The reason I am against action is that we won't do a proper job because the handwringers in Islington will be whinning into their mochchocclattedoodas. So we'll sacrifice troops for no result like we have up to now. This needs to be treated like WW2 DDay, the west needs to put millions of men on the ground with all the associated support. We both know the west won't do that so it's pointless. Hence my "don't bother" default postition.
well cherry picked but I sipport massive world wide action from the civilised world but in the absence of that, let them kill each other.
I assume you therefore support massive action gromit??
Hmmm TTT.
Personally I would prefer SAS style action, much like we are today but better (without the yanks or French or at least no in front of them)
Couple this with:
1. internment of suspected supporters in our own country. i.e. your friends of Jihad (This does not mean all Muslims before the chattering classes start)
2. Lock down our borders.
Deport anyone no supposed to be here, especially from a Muslim country.
Do not allow anyone with the Muslim faith or from a Muslim country into Britain until it is sorted out.
3. Deep sanctions on countries like Pakistan that support it, and yes this includes some Saudi's. It will be very painful for us but not as painful as the alternative,
4. Leave the EU and ECHR - or we will never get the job done.
Personally I would prefer SAS style action, much like we are today but better (without the yanks or French or at least no in front of them)
Couple this with:
1. internment of suspected supporters in our own country. i.e. your friends of Jihad (This does not mean all Muslims before the chattering classes start)
2. Lock down our borders.
Deport anyone no supposed to be here, especially from a Muslim country.
Do not allow anyone with the Muslim faith or from a Muslim country into Britain until it is sorted out.
3. Deep sanctions on countries like Pakistan that support it, and yes this includes some Saudi's. It will be very painful for us but not as painful as the alternative,
4. Leave the EU and ECHR - or we will never get the job done.
Tora, you wrote...
// I have said many times I agree with not doing anything. But I just find it a little distasteful the way you have used this whole thing to score political points. I think this transcends politics. //
09:21 Sun 01st Sep 2013
That was when you were upset that the Government had lost the vote to arm the Syrian Rebels (also known as IS, alqaeda).
// Yes Gromit, go back the where you got that and you'll also see something like this... //
I have, and done a search, and cannot find anything remotely like that. Because you never wrote that. You have got your head out of the sand.
// I have said many times I agree with not doing anything. But I just find it a little distasteful the way you have used this whole thing to score political points. I think this transcends politics. //
09:21 Sun 01st Sep 2013
That was when you were upset that the Government had lost the vote to arm the Syrian Rebels (also known as IS, alqaeda).
// Yes Gromit, go back the where you got that and you'll also see something like this... //
I have, and done a search, and cannot find anything remotely like that. Because you never wrote that. You have got your head out of the sand.
// 3. Deep sanctions on countries like Pakistan that support it, and yes this includes some Saudi's. It will be very painful for us but not as painful as the alternative, //
I am wondering if we are currently witnessing a bit of a power shift. The US no longer needs Saudi, or not as much as they once did. The US has gone from a net importer of oil, to a net exporter. The is now over production. Saudi (and the OPEC countries) could lessen production, but they haven't. This is because low oil prices will bankrupt the US oil produces (the new fracking ones) before it does any harm on Saudi finances.
Coupled with that, Iran is now sending sorties of planes to bomb IS, alongside the US and British planes.
I am wondering if we are currently witnessing a bit of a power shift. The US no longer needs Saudi, or not as much as they once did. The US has gone from a net importer of oil, to a net exporter. The is now over production. Saudi (and the OPEC countries) could lessen production, but they haven't. This is because low oil prices will bankrupt the US oil produces (the new fracking ones) before it does any harm on Saudi finances.
Coupled with that, Iran is now sending sorties of planes to bomb IS, alongside the US and British planes.
"I have, and done a search, and cannot find anything remotely like that. Because you never wrote that. You have got your head out of the sand. "
well gromit you didn't do a very good search did you, see my answer here
http://
answer no 20 at 15:10 on 5/11
I still hold that opinion, if we are not going to do it properly then do nothing at all and let them kill each other.
well gromit you didn't do a very good search did you, see my answer here
http://
answer no 20 at 15:10 on 5/11
I still hold that opinion, if we are not going to do it properly then do nothing at all and let them kill each other.
Agree 100%, 3Ts.
The West is never going to tackle this problem in the any way that will succeed. In the meantime it will make hopeless forays into current hotspots and UK military lives will be at risk and almost certainly lost. Our interferences in the most affected regions in recent years have all ended in abject failure (and I include, unconditionally, Afghanistan, where more than 450 lives were lost for no good reason whatsoever). Iraq was better controlled under Saddam Hussein; the "Arab Spring" simply sprung a number of countries into violent instability.
Nations which are inhabited mostly by Muslims are often unstable. Their religion precludes them not only from tolerating and engaging with those of other faiths (or of none) but also from tolerating others of different factions within the same faith. Hence you see the prevalence of “tribal warfare” (which is effectively religious civil war).
The way to keep the UK safe is to keep the religion strictly controlled here, prevent further immigration from the effected areas and strengthen our borders and domestic security arrangements by using the funds and personnel currently wasted in overseas hell holes. And as you say, just let them carry on killing each other and refuse to become involved in “humanitarian” exercises (which inevitably means taking sides in disputes we neither understand nor should care about).
The West is never going to tackle this problem in the any way that will succeed. In the meantime it will make hopeless forays into current hotspots and UK military lives will be at risk and almost certainly lost. Our interferences in the most affected regions in recent years have all ended in abject failure (and I include, unconditionally, Afghanistan, where more than 450 lives were lost for no good reason whatsoever). Iraq was better controlled under Saddam Hussein; the "Arab Spring" simply sprung a number of countries into violent instability.
Nations which are inhabited mostly by Muslims are often unstable. Their religion precludes them not only from tolerating and engaging with those of other faiths (or of none) but also from tolerating others of different factions within the same faith. Hence you see the prevalence of “tribal warfare” (which is effectively religious civil war).
The way to keep the UK safe is to keep the religion strictly controlled here, prevent further immigration from the effected areas and strengthen our borders and domestic security arrangements by using the funds and personnel currently wasted in overseas hell holes. And as you say, just let them carry on killing each other and refuse to become involved in “humanitarian” exercises (which inevitably means taking sides in disputes we neither understand nor should care about).
It is extremely foolish to ignore IS and hope they go away. They won't. The longer we leave them, the harder it will be to eradicate them.
This is a different mission than Afghanistan and Iraq. Those missions had no real aim. Afghanistan was revenge for 9/11 and Iraq was settling old scores from the Gulf war. They were foolish wars without much objective and without an exit strategy.
A war again IS is different. IS are expansionists who are trying to steal land and establish a State. From that State they will attack us. Stopping them, foiling their attempt at Statehood is a real cause with real rewards, if we are successful.
This is a different mission than Afghanistan and Iraq. Those missions had no real aim. Afghanistan was revenge for 9/11 and Iraq was settling old scores from the Gulf war. They were foolish wars without much objective and without an exit strategy.
A war again IS is different. IS are expansionists who are trying to steal land and establish a State. From that State they will attack us. Stopping them, foiling their attempt at Statehood is a real cause with real rewards, if we are successful.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.