If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The 'war on terror' is going well then
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Apparently we are now the number one target for AQ and other groups, nice to see that what ever we've done since 11th of September and the 7th July is working well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6065460.stm
Any ideas?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6065460.stm
Any ideas?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Removing the army from Iraq would be a start.
Improving relations with the Muslim community would be another, though saying that, they have to be willing to talk also which they quite clearly are not at the moment.
Yeah Blair and Jack Straw are doing a great job of that recently...
I don't think it's got anything to do with Blair and Straw. I'm talking about grass root relations, how many people do you know have a wide range of multi ethnic friends? The ole "Oh I have a black/asian friend" is a little bit outdated, they live in their world and we live in ours. Simple as.
I should say that most of the Muslims I call my friends drink like fishes and the women amongst them wear Western clothes. I cannot say I really have any friends amongst the more conservative/religious branch of Muslims, but then I could say exactly the same of conservative/religious white native Christians.
Some people from a certain background/race/religion keep themselves to themselves, and some others, while having perhaps a majority of friends amongst their own circle, mingle with others and have friends from other backgrounds.
Its going as well as an Army fighting a Guerilla war can be expected to go. Poorly.
actually if it's a war on good english, it's very well won with terms like 'extraordinary rendition' and 'war on terror'
it's also a very good war on people's basic freedoms
both 'sides' like it at the moment, the actual violent people get willing recruits, and the governments get extra powers, the only people who get hurt are those in the middle like us, and those poor people in Iraq - yes most people in america honestly believe saddam hussein was partially behind 9-11
frankly i just wish the idiots who run the show and who listen to both sides would kill eachother, then we'd be alright for a while
Of everybody I have spoken to regarding the war I cannot recall anybody more supportive of it than a devoutly Muslim Iraqi at my old school who came to Britain as a refugee. I haven't spoken to him since he left for uni so I don't know if he has changed his mind but he claimed that most Iraqis in Britain supported the war.
That isn't true. At the UN Britain has sometimes sided with the EU against Israel. And by being part of the EU which has even funded terrorism against Israel I don't think Britain is a particularly strong supporter of Israel.
But, as Liam Fox told Conservative Friends of Israel -
Anyway Israel is an obsession of the European left more than anything. Kashmir and US troops in Saudi Arabia are [generally] bigger gripes for Muslims.
LOL. If by 'against Israel' you mean condemning murder, collective punishment and appalling abuse of an entire people, then yes, Britain is guilty as charged :rolleyes: .
They are also 'against Palestine' incidentally, having condemned Palestinian atrocities just as often as Israeli ones.
It's no longer balanced anyway. Since Blair came into power we have swtiched to the 'Israel can do no wrong' policy favoured by our masters in Washington DC.
You think?
You haven't spoken to many Muslims have you?
In the Muslim world certainly there has been traditionally little concern for the Palestinians; they're a useful tool to use against Israel but not much else. Some of the populist Islamists like Ahmadinejad seem interested in Israel - or bringing about her destruction rather, but the traditional Arab regimes have never cared particularly much. Many British Muslims being of Pakistani origin are naturally more concerned about the 'injustice' of Kashmir, indeed there are far more British Muslims from that region than there are the Palestinian territories. As for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda one of the most striking aspects has been the relatively little emphasis that Israel is given. The focus seems to be more on the 'war' against 'crusading Christians' and US influence on Saudi Arabia.
As for British Muslims campaigning against Israel well the most active Muslim group on this front would seem to be MPACUK, and given their discredited anti-Semitic agenda it would seem that for some Muslims at least criticism of Israel is merely a cloak for anti-Semitism.
... because AQ's first attack came after that invasion, didn't it?
It's not the "community" that's a problem, but extremists.
We, in the "west" have a problem with neo-cons. In the east it is the extremists, if we really want to help then it is our own community which we need to challenge, whilst helping the Mulisms attack their and vice versa.
This is all about control, about restricting freedom and reducing the liberal attitudes and appraches which were prevalent between the late fifties and seventies. It has nothing to do with any wars in Iraq/Afghanistan or Chechnya, those are just symptoms.
To equate the problem of Islamic extremism with neoconservatism is absurd. And neoconservatism is not a 'problem.' The less enlightened should read "Neoconservatism: Why We Need It" by Douglas Murray.
You should read some Kim il Sung.
In the UK, yes. AQ attacked America because of it's stance as the world hegemon and no one liked that. The UK's involvement in Iraq was a substantial motive for 7/7, the bombers even admited it in their video.
Oh and neo-con foreign policy isn't about instituting their ideals on the world, in itself restricting the rights of the people. Did anyone ask the Iraqi people did they want Sadam removed, no, we just went in and did what we wanted to do.
If that is not the definition of a 'problem' Disillusioned, you tell me that is.
No, but their first attack on the U.K. did.
Frankly, anyone who thinks that the slaughter of innocents in Iraq hasn't furthered and fueled the terrorist cause, is quite simply barking.
There is nothing explicitly neoconservative about questioning the climate change lobby or indeed adopting a 'selfish' attitude towards the environment.
That would be a form of nationalism. Neoconservatism is about promoting free trade, opposition to communism, support for liberal democracies - hence the support for Israel and Taiwan and opposition to sponsors of terrorism.
I saw a book by Oliver Kamm in Foyles, Anti -Totalitarianism A Left-wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy; reading Christopher Hitchens and Nick Cohen too I can't help but notice that the best arguments for hawkish neoconservatism seem to come from the left...
There might be a few people who choose to deny the overwhelming evidence of global warming who are not neocons, but they are certainly a minority in that flatearthers' fraternity.
LOL. You can be so naive sometimes Disillusioned.
China? India? I don't know if they can be classified as sceptics or not but there's a lot more research going on in the US regarding the climate change theory than there is in China or India. China and India haven't done much about 'global warming' - in the US, California seems to be with the Europeans on climate change...
In practice that might not always be the case but they are the basic principles.
No doubt a few other countries also have little respect for the environment... but at least they keep quiet about their selfishness rather than actually telling the world there's no such thing as global warming.
I'd rather judge them by their actions. It has always been a US government policy, specially when Republicans/neocons have been in power, to destablise or even attack countries with a geopolitical interest to the US.
It doesn't get much more neocon than the PNAC. And have you had a look at what they have to say and what they think the US should do to 'protect its interests'?
It's as disturbing a read as you'll ever find.
Comedy genius!
Yes, you are right. I should have linked it to the Christian Right.
I'd hardly define Israel as a "liberal" democracy.
Such as the US?
No it didn't. It's because it is a symbol of everything which AQ hate.
Do you really believe that? It's an excuse, the motive for the whole AQ approach has little to do with the invasions of Afhganistan or Iraq, they just try to use them as excuses for their actions or as recruitment. If it wasn't that, then it would be something else - how do you think that they recruited the WTC attackers, or those who attacked the USS Cole, or the embassies in Kenya...?
Well, in fact we did ask some - i.e. those who had already escaped - and I think that views were pretty obvious given the uprising after Gulf War 1
Perhaps we should ask another question. Did anyone ask if they wanted Saddam in power in the first place, or to remain...?
I do, however, agree that the neo-con/christian rights are trying to force their views on others - which is precisely what AQ are trying to achieve. Each will use whatever excuse is available.
You're evidently ignorant of the term.
Wikipedia.
I already said, because of America's position as the world hegemon which is why they hate everything we stand for. Didn't know you were that naive, although other factors must be considered the war in Iraq and more importantly our involvment has had a massive influence on 7/7 and why we're seen as the number one target now.
Two wrongs don't make a right.