Attacks in Paris

1164814158-nohope.b.jpg
 
KenTheLandlord said:
However, in a poll conducted by YouGov in March 2011 on behalf of the BHA, when asked the census question ‘What is your religion?’, 61% of people in England and Wales ticked a religious box (53.48% Christian and 7.22% other) while 39% ticked ‘No religion’. When the same sample was asked the follow-up question ‘Are you religious?’, only 29% of the same people said ‘Yes’ while 65% said ‘No’, meaning over half of those whom the census would count as having a religion said they were not religious.

Half the Muslims in England and Wales were born there and almost three-quarters (73%) identify themselves as British. Two-thirds of Muslims are ethnically Asian and 8% are white.
The analysis, which aims to provide a comprehensive picture of Muslim demographics in England and Wales, is the first of its kind. It was made possible because 92% of respondents completed a voluntary question on religion in the 2011 census. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/11/muslim-population-england-wales-nearly-doubles-10-years

It is indeed all blurred lines.
Click to expand...
Nail on the head here KTL. I remember saying to my (recently departed RIP) Father in Law, himself a devout Methodist, that IMO Britain would be a secular society by 2025 - he was outraged. I believe there is a real sense of disengagement from religion in the world today and many who state their allegiance don't really know why, or have 100% genuine belief, perhaps it's more to do with collective identity and belonging to a pack?
Humans show human instincts, namely a basic Maslow type of attitude, part of which means a need to belong to a society and in have traits in common with others, tribalism at it's most basic.
I found it fascinating and revealing how, when leaving the stadium in Paris last night the people broke into a spontaneous rendition of their National anthem, all very heart warming and brilliant sound bite material for our insatiable media, but why?
Us v them is the most powerful and dangerous thinking in the world today, especially when we don't know who is us and who is them
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I think people are getting fed up with your relentless personal attacks on Corbyn, which are predictable, tedious and just serve to derail threads as well as encourage abuse. So it would be nice if you could practice what you preach regarding personal abuse. And that's me saying it, who's a friend.

No one is stopping you disagreeing with people's ideas, as that's what a forum is for but I'd prefer that you make some positive and constructive contribution to these threads in terms of presenting some ideas of your own.
Click to expand...

If ISIS was a recognised military establishment or political party then I'd suggest diplomacy, but they are a cult, like something from Mad Max but worse. You can't wave a white flag and meet for talks, there's no option. If talks were to be attempted it gives ISIS recognition which it does not deserve in any way. I don't think there is one way of defeating ISIS, I think it will take a number of tactics.

One obvious and easy answer is to drone strike ISIS strongholds which we know of but then there's the risk of civilian casualties. I also don't know how much of an impact it will be, there are several ngative possible outcomes. This may kick the hornet's nest and provoke ISIS to carry out further civilian attacks in Europe. It may anger members further giving them the best recruitment tool they need. Learning from recent conflicts in the Middle East whilst ISIS can be destroyed it will probably be replaced with a similar cult.

In an ideal world and what I'd love to see is ISIS being toppled with minimal casualties to innocent civilians and for a democratic regime to be set up in Syria. However, learning from our lessons in Iraq, this will not work. I am not going to be Mr popular with this thought but I think the only realistic solution is to carry out airstrikes and fund local militia to defeat ISIS. Once ISIS has been defeated then for a strong leader to be put in place. I don't agree with the principle but the Middle East is massively different from Europe, there are so many conflicting tribes and wings of Islam. The locals have grown up under leaders who have ruled with an iron rod. I am not suggesting that this should be the future in fact I think the ME should be as democratic and liberal as the West, I just think it will take a century for this to happen.

I do not have an obsession with Corbyn and I don't read the Daily Mail, I can work out from my own findings that he is a danger the national security. I actually watched his interview on the BBC earlier which prompted my comments about him. Today the UK government has given the go ahead for Special Forces and the Police to shoot to kill which I think is a reasonable and realistic tactic to prevent a terror attack. Whilst there's the risk of another Jean Charles de Menezes incident occurring, I don't think there's any other rational approach of tackling a gunman or suicide bomber. Corbyn's approach would involve casualties to innocent citizens, something he doesn't seem too concerned about. He seems awfully concerned over the welfare of ISIS members rather than the safety of our nation.
 
TCIB said:
Starting to get pretty sick of the clamour to show how sad they are at the events. Some pillock has drove his Piano 400 miles to play "imagine" ffs, could he not have just borrowed one ?
Is it just me that finds this stuff uncouth ? Ok light your candle and make sure the BBC cameras see you Mr arseface but come on.

One fella putting a candle down saw a camera was there when he was getting up and he stopped and got back down and started to stick his bottom lip out.
He was defo getting ready to go before noticing the press camera.

Dunno where i am going with this, just wanted to note my distaste at this type of thing.
Click to expand...
c_30_us.png

Mate its unreal, the clamor for their 2 stinkin' minutes of fame winds me up..it even winds me up with ice bucket challenge and the like, just go and give the charity the cash, quietly and without fuss,oh and without showing the world that you are such a good soul..look at me look at me please just look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee:(
 
Ducado said:
Not a bad explanation

Click to expand...


As good an explanation as any I have heard elsewhere. The conclusion I would draw from that would be for Cameron rather than push to join in the bombing would be better off keeping us out of the action. That would then leave the UK free from IS sponsored attack? Of course if the theory was flawed he could then have an excuse to try and get involved on the basis that IS were only attacking those who attacked them?
 
bluethrunthru said:
As good an explanation as any I have heard elsewhere. The conclusion I would draw from that would be for Cameron rather than push to join in the bombing would be better off keeping us out of the action. That would then leave the UK free from IS sponsored attack? Of course if the theory was flawed he could then have an excuse to try and get involved on the basis that IS were only attacking those who attacked them?
Click to expand...
How do you distract the people from noticing you are shit at governing? Cameron wants his Falklands moment. Sadly he's too thick to realise the effect it will have.
 
bluethrunthru said:
As good an explanation as any I have heard elsewhere. The conclusion I would draw from that would be for Cameron rather than push to join in the bombing would be better off keeping us out of the action. That would then leave the UK free from IS sponsored attack? Of course if the theory was flawed he could then have an excuse to try and get involved on the basis that IS were only attacking those who attacked them?
Click to expand...

I'd suggest we have them on the back foot.... push on, take our chances early and deal with any retribution where possible

if that video is to be believed then they are hurting... if we can get to their funding in parallel then that will undermine them yet further
 
mat said:
How do you distract the people from noticing you are shit at governing? Cameron wants his Falklands moment. Sadly he's too thick to realise the effect it will have.
Click to expand...

HA HA HA - Good point - they never learn either do they? I mean its not as if the successful intervention in Iraq has dogged Tony Bliar since he left office is it? As for the effect well don't forget we are all in this together. Dave will be just as much at risk behind the Downing Street security fences surrounded by secret servicemen as you will be down the pub.......... honest
 
Bluemanc100 said:
I'd suggest we have them on the back foot.... push on, take our chances early and deal with any retribution where possible

if that video is to be believed then they are hurting... if we can get to their funding in parallel then that will undermine them yet further
Click to expand...


Brilliant - I promote to to Chief of Staff HM Forces - please implement your plan without delay - should be easy peasy reading that.
 
bluethrunthru said:
As good an explanation as any I have heard elsewhere. The conclusion I would draw from that would be for Cameron rather than push to join in the bombing would be better off keeping us out of the action. That would then leave the UK free from IS sponsored attack? Of course if the theory was flawed he could then have an excuse to try and get involved on the basis that IS were only attacking those who attacked them?
Click to expand...
We are axtive in Iraq
 
grim up north said:
Active
Click to expand...

ha ha - thought you were going to say both.

The ISIS threat seems directly linked to Syria though - district in Beirut is loyal to Hazbollah who are supporting Assad and they get a suicide bombing - the Russians bomb in Syria and their airliner gets downed - the French bomb Syria and Friday night happens. We are not active in Syria.
 
KenTheLandlord said:
There was an interesting talk about some research on recent wars.

Understanding non-state armed groups is key to solving most ongoing conflict, because war has changed. It used to be a contest between states. No longer. It is now a conflict between states and non-state actors. For example, of the 216 peace agreements signed between 1975 and 2011, 196 of them were between a state and a non-state actor. So we need to understand these groups; we need to either engage them or defeat them in any conflict resolution process that has to be successful.

So how do we do that? We need to know what makes these organizations tick. We know a lot about how they fight, why they fight, but no one looks at what they're doing when they're not fighting. Yet, armed struggle and unarmed politics are related. It is all part of the same organization. We cannot understand these groups, let alone defeat them, if we don't have the full picture.

And armed groups today are complex organizations. Take the Lebanese Hezbollah, known for its violent confrontation against Israel. But since its creation in the early 1980s, Hezbollah has also set up a political party, a social-service network, and a military apparatus. Similarly, the Palestinian Hamas, known for its suicide attacks against Israel, also runs the Gaza Strip since 2007. So these groups do way more than just shoot. They multi-task. They set up complex communication machines -- radio stations, TV channels, Internet websites and social media strategies. An ISIS magazine, printed in English and published to recruit. Armed groups also invest in complex fund-raising -- not looting, but setting up profitable businesses; for example, construction companies. Now, these activities are keys. They allow these groups to increase their strength, increase their funds, to better recruit and to build their brand.

Armed groups also do something else: they build stronger bonds with the population by investing in social services. They build schools, they run hospitals, they set up vocational-training programs or micro-loan programs. Hezbollah offers all of these services and more. Armed groups also seek to win the population over by offering something that the state is not providing: safety and security. The initial rise of the Taliban in war-torn Afghanistan, or even the beginning of the ascent of ISIS, can be understood also by looking at these groups' efforts to provide security. Now, unfortunately, in these cases, the provision of security came at an unbearably high price for the population. But in general, providing social services fills a gap, a governance gap left by the government, and allows these groups to increase their strengthand their power. For example, the 2006 electoral victory of the Palestinian Hamas cannot be understood without acknowledging the group's social work.

This is a really complex picture, yet in the West, when we look at armed groups, we only think of the violent side. But that's not enough to understand these groups' strength, strategy or long-term vision.These groups are hybrid. They rise because they fill a gap left by the government, and they emerge to be both armed and political, engage in violent struggle and provide governance.

And the more these organizations are complex and sophisticated, the less we can think of them as the opposite of a state. Now, what do you call a group like Hezbollah? They run part of a territory, they administer all their functions, they pick up the garbage, they run the sewage system. Is this a state? Is it a rebel group? Or maybe something else, something different and new? And what about ISIS? The lines are blurred. We live in a world of states, non-states, and in-between, and the more states are weak, like in the Middle East today, the more non-state actors step in and fill that gap. This matters for governments, because to counter these groups, they will have to invest more in non-military tools. Filling that governance gap has to be at the center of any sustainable approach. This also matters very much for peacemaking and peacebuilding. If we better understand armed groups, we will better know what incentives to offer to encourage the transition from violence to nonviolence.

So in this new contest between states and non-states, military power can win some battles, but it will not give us peace nor stability. To achieve these objectives, what we need is a long-term investment in filling that security gap, in filling that governance gap that allowed these groups to thrive in the first place.
Click to expand...

"...and then we fucked up the end game." Charlie Wilson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top