Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
I'm all up for rational debate EOB but that doesn't include you acting out some "Gears of War II" fetish in an attempt to deride a serious question.
|
I'll start, if I may by being slightly flipant and say, I've never played "Gears of War II". So I could hardly be acting out said fetich for same....
Quote:
|
There are other things about Norn Iron that we should also remember - none more so than the fact that terrorists are now in Government despite the fact that the British Government brought its military might to bear on a bunch of several hundred republicans and loyalists. It was unable to defeat them militarily and had to concede places in Government was the only way forward - a perfect example of deradicalization working in a mainstream terrorist environment - have you forgotten that?
|
Indeed former terrorists are now in government in Norn Iron, and if you'll forgive me opinion, all of the parties at Stormont are doing a urine poor job of it too. You only have to look back at the last 6 - 12 months of sectarian based politics, particularly over the devolution of Policing and Justice to see Orange v's Green v's Orange politics at its worst. With regard to your point to Britains military might being unable to defeat republican and loyalist terrorism. Please ! Lets get a bit of perspective on what the British Army was, and was not allowed to do. I don't know if you where in, or served in Norn Iron, but I'd suggest that you go have a look at the Rules of Engagement under which the army had to work. I'll remind you that soldiers breaking those RoE could face criminal prosecution for murder. I'll add one more thing. I have no knowlage wether its widely know or not, but after the Brighton Bombing, Margret Thatcher wanted to ship all uncommited Sabre Squadrons to NI. Their remit was to have been to hunt down PIRA and INLA ASU's, and full stop them whenever possible. It was the Whitehall Mandrins that told Thatcher she couldn't do that, as it would have a serious impact on the UK's relationship with the US. Which did supply in excess of $5 million a year to the republican cause. I think you are making a mistake equating Irish Repubican/Loyalist terrorism in NI, to the sort of terrorism that to a number of people is based on mostly on religious idology. the PIRA/INLA (religion) wanted a 32 county, socialist republic (politics) without the interferance of Britain. The Loyalist (religion) terrorists wanted to remain in control in NI, and part of the Union (politics). On the other hand, what do the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and similar Islamic groups want ? The reinstatement of the Califate, the Dar al-Islam, and the destruction of the state of Isreal ? Can any of these, and I'm sure many other demands be met via diplocacy ?
Quote:
|
We are talking hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of radical muslims who are prepared to fight for their religion. Derisory comments and off the cuff insults do little to further the debate.
|
I agree that derisory comments and insults do nothing to further the debate. Then again, when those angry, radical muslims, or their spokesmen at the very least, call western women whores for dressing as they please. I find that to be bloody insulting. Add in the spokesmen for those angry muslims happily tell those angry muslims that the western women are to be treated as the spoils of war (I'll let others draw their own inference to that), and what do you have?
On the other hand, how do we address the anger of muslims? Anger about what exactly? American troops based in Saudi? I think they where invited to stay after the first Gulf War, and I have a sneaking suspicion that those American troops based in Saudi would prefer to be based in the continental US, or perhaps Eupore (close to their homes and families). Angry about the continued existance of the State of Isreal ? Well.... Europe has a 2000 year history of rabid anti-semitism, so at least there is common ground with all those muslims angry about Palestine. Both the christian's and the muslims are labouring under religiously dogmatic jew hating. So we aren't going to fix the running sore that is Isreal and Palestinian self-determination unless religion is taken out of the equasion. And thats about as likely as me riding a winged horse....
On the other hand, if the angry muslims want us to stop interfearing in the afairs of muslims, lets try that. How many muslims around the 3rd world receive aid from western nations, that help keep them alive ? It's not exactly our fault (the Wests) that a great many muslims live in parts of the world with few or no sellable natural resourses. Or natural resourses of any kind.... Then again, if we stopped sending aid to dirt poor muslim countries, they'd just get angry about the rise in mortality due to the kafir not supporting them any more. So we'd just end up with more angry muslims.... It seems to me, we (the west) are in a no-win situation. If we get involved, we anger more muslims, if we don't get involved, we anger more muslims....
Quote:
|
These people are doing exactly what you would prefer them to do. My question was "who is facilitating it and what, if anything, are the security forces doing to prevent it?"
|
I can't answer that question with any authority, but I could certainly hazard the guess that there is a network with ethnic communities that allows contacts to be made. Is it beyond the realms of posibility that muslims of Pakistani decent, who have family still in Pakistan, can point angry young men in the direction of Islamic Militants in Pakistan. The same could be said of British muslims of Sudanese and Somali decent.
In reply to your second question above.... What can the security services do ? They cant watch everyone, they cant go kicking in doors and arresting everyone they think may be a radical. So I guess all they can do is watch, listen and hope to crack the real threats as they are evolving....
Quote:
|
Effectively the UK appears to be exporting trained terrorists to current theatres and developing new ones. Whilst you might find this marginally more acceptable than the somewhat outlandish (even by Ladbrooks standards) "explosive waistcoat, and turn our streets into charnel houses" analogy the fact remains that Britains allies will not tolerate this if / when these UK exported militants begin to take a toll on their forces.
|
In reply, I'd say that Britain is uniquely placed to be a breeding ground for international islamic terrorists. It comes from having had the largest empire in recorded history. People from all over the empire immigrated to the UK, and brought their own cultural and religious values with them. The fact that many of those ethnic groups have strong ties back to their fathers (and grandfathers) countries, means that as "the old country" gets radicalised, then so to do a proportion of that group in the UK.
Quote:
|
That you deign to term the countries involved as "third world toilets" is of no value to the equation and says more about your lack of understanding of their circumstances, both culturally and historically, than it does about them.
|
Or perhaps I do understand something of the historical circumstances of countries like Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, but refuse to play the game of Cultural Relativism. As i've stated before in at least one other thread, I do not believe that everything is equal, in a perfect world everything would be. But this is quite obviously an imperfect world, and some things are most definately worth more than others. In my book at least....
Quote:
|
I fear we are drifting off topic - another thread perhaps?
|
Quite likely we have Angry, but hopefully the mods are too busy policing the forum for political threads to get brassed of at a couple of OT posts here.
