Shooting outside the House of Commons

It's not remotely defeatist at all.

What Fumble is saying is that no amount of power to the security services (whilst giving up civil liberties) can stop a lone **** flap running 20 people over in a car.

Is he? You've read a lot into the single sentence then.

My point is this, the guy didn't just get up in the morning and decided to it was a good day for a suicide pact. It's obvious you can never prevent a lone individual from repeating an attack, but to suggest that we 'just have to live with it' is to totally ignore the motivation. He had specific intentions and these were obviously gained through other sources, be it online or elsewhere. The security services are currently trying to stop radicalisation at it's root, and thank fuck both the security services and the and our military lads don't expect us to 'just have to live with it'.
 
Is he? You've read a lot into the single sentence then.

My point is this, the guy didn't just get up in the morning and decided to it was a good day for a suicide pact. It's obvious you can never prevent a lone individual from repeating an attack, but to suggest that we 'just have to live with it' is to totally ignore the motivation. He had specific intentions and these were obviously gained through other sources, be it online or elsewhere. The security services are currently trying to stop radicalisation at it's root, and thank fuck both the security services and the and our military lads don't expect us to 'just have to live with it'.

That's not really what there saying - we know we have very good intelligence services and police who are thwarting attacks on a regular basis - as for us folk who dont work in these services, yes we just have to live with it and get on with our lives.
 
There's nothing defeatist about it. This is not a conventional war and it won't be won by conventional means.
I think you'll find I've never suggested this is a war that can be won, by conventional or other means. That doesn't mean that measures can't be taken to improve the situation though. It's not by fluke that a number of potential attacks have already been thwarted within the last year.
 
Would there be outrage if they closed down mosques where people were being radicalised? Finsbury park mosque was allowed to stay open even though they knew they were radicalising people there. Why?
 
It' not the building itself that's the problem, it's the people preaching and working there.

So shut it down until such time that decent preachers are found, put a bit of the onus back on the people who run these places.
 
Would there be outrage if they closed down mosques where people were being radicalised? Finsbury park mosque was allowed to stay open even though they knew they were radicalising people there. Why?
The Coppers used to like keeping rough trouble pubs open, because, errr thats where the troublemakers would be.
 
It' not the building itself that's the problem, it's the people preaching and working there.

It's a real problem. There are thousands of mosques, and although I would expect the vast majority of them to be perfectly fine, any monitoring is probably extremely difficult. I'm not sure if/how they have inspections, but if they're given a time for inspection I would expect it to be fairly easy for a rogue preacher to change preaching methods. I guess it's also difficult to enforce too many measures without appearing to be Islamophobic.
 
The Saudis and Iranians are actually competing for influence within the region so there's little prospect of them working together. It's a Sunni v Shia conflict at its most simplistic.

Thats why I brought Pakistan into the equation, around 1974 or so they amended their constitution to define what is a Muslim and picked a side that is not compatible with western values and never will be.

Politicisation, militarisation and polarisation

Pakistan’s internal diversity within Islam led to sectarian contests over who was and was not a Muslim. As early as the 1950s, there were anti-Ahmadi riots spearheaded by Deobandi groups, in particular the Jamaat-i-Islami and Majlis-e-Ahrar.

In 1974, however, the Deobandi ideology prevailed in parliament. Only a year after the Constitution of 1973 came into force, the legislature passed an amendment to the Constitution, declaring that people who believe in prophets after Prophet Muhammad are not Muslim. One sectarian version of Islam had thus managed to impose its world view on the constitutional order. Because Pakistan’s president and prime minister must be Muslims, Ahmadis have since been excluded from these offices.

Things got much worse when, in 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq toppled the civilian government in a coup and suspended the Constitution. Soon after, with the start of the Afghan war in 1979, billions of dollars worth of military aid began pouring into Pakistan from the USA and Saudi Arabia. The goal was to resist the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. In the process, Zia set the country on a “jihadist” path.

Deobandi and Salafi Madrassahs (religious seminaries) proliferated and became more radical. They were sponsored by the state and benefited from Saudi money in particular. These Madrassahs were integrated into mainstream education to train, recruit and mobilise Islamic fighters called the “mujahideen”, who joined the insurgents in Afghanistan. The military regime’s policies facilitated an arms and drugs trade across the border, and silenced the opposition at home through despotic laws and harsh repression.

To more firmly establish his power, moreover, Zia “islamised” various laws in a way that reflected an extreme and rigid version of Deobandi doctrine. All Muslims who did not subscribe to rigid religious fundamentalism – the majority – were thus legally reduced to a minority status. Moderate Sunnis as well as non-Sunnis had no choice but to be regulated by these harsh laws. The only exceptions were “personal laws” concerning private matters like inheritance, marriage and divorce et cetera. All religious groups, whether Muslim or not, were allowed to apply their traditional rules to these matters.

............................................................



You can see that this poses a serious threat to the west and the UK in particular given the amount of immigrants we not only allowed into the country from that area, but the practice of their returning "Home" or sending their children for extended visits.
So while the common belief is this problem remains from the middle east its far more complex.
 
Just seen the footage of May been whisked away, looked very unprofessional to me, they didn't have the car keys, went to the wrong car, if that was POTUS, he'd have bee surrounded and bundled into a car almost carried into it, looking at a May she looked like she'd come out the Trafford centre and forgot where she had parked.
I always laugh when I see the PM riding around in a 4-seater
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.