UK ISIS/IS Fighters

mr_goo

Well, because of the ineptitude and wrist wringing that has gone on in parliament for years over a certain element of the population, we are now waiting for a possible atrocity to happen on these shores, once more. According to BBC journalist Frank Gardner, over half of the British Jihadis have now returned. That must be a few hundred ticking time bombs now in the UK. We must be looked upon as a pathetic weak country to allow these b4st4rds to come and go as they please. To keep implementing programs to stop radicalisation is a complete waste of time. Now is the time to get heavy handed and sort them out.

ballysmate

These murdering bastards are intent on destroying our way of life. The irony is that to deal with them we may need to pass laws and take actions that we find tear at the fabric of the way of life we are trying to defend. But that is the crossroads at which we now find ourselves.
Whatever it takes.

mamba80

Apparently 100s are already back in the UK and the gov is backing down from even moderate restrictions, let alone any plans to renounce citizenship, we don't even know how many have gone, official numbers are a few 100 but some Police officers say up to 1500.
Meanwhile, another poor American is beheaded by an alleged british jihadist, who will no doubt be signing back on in a few weeks or months time.

We do not have the means or will to Police our own boarders, despite being an Island nation, so the original question is pointless, I m afraid.

fast as fupp

how would you sort them out Mr. Goo?

would you be the strong leader that our good Christian nation is crying out for?

do tell!

RideOnTime

At least the villages are Sunny...

mangetout_rodney

Mr Goo wrote:

Well, because of the ineptitude and wrist wringing that has gone on in parliament for years over a certain element of the population, we are now waiting for a possible atrocity to happen on these shores, once more. According to BBC journalist Frank Gardner, over half of the British Jihadis have now returned. That must be a few hundred ticking time bombs now in the UK. We must be looked upon as a pathetic weak country to allow these b4st4rds to come and go as they please. To keep implementing programs to stop radicalisation is a complete waste of time. Now is the time to get heavy handed and sort them out.

A significant number of them come back disillusioned with jihad.
They go to Syria or Iraq and find out that the holy war isn't a noble quest for glory but actually is mostly sitting around in a very hot place with virtually nothing to do other than avoid being killed.
They come back very unhappy and disinterested in going back and actively discourage others from going.

You don't see this reported in the news because it isn't politically useful.

DeVlaeminck

How do you know that ? I mean even if someone has managed to track a decent sample of them down are they likely to say yeah I'm planning on continuing the jihad back in the UK ? Maybe one or two have reformed and are now trying to stop others travelling the same path, bravo for them, I don't see how we can know how common this is and even if it is a significant number what about the rest ?

mangetout_rodney

DeVlaeminck wrote:

How do you know that ? I mean even if someone has managed to track a decent sample of them down are they likely to say yeah I'm planning on continuing the jihad back in the UK ? Maybe one or two have reformed and are now trying to stop others travelling the same path, bravo for them, I don't see how we can know how common this is and even if it is a significant number what about the rest ?

Are you asking how is it known to be true and how did I, personally, hear about this?
To the former, it is known because considerable intelligence has been gained as to the movements of people who come back.
They are put under a degree of surveillance when they return, they can be interviewed etc.
You can also see the work that is done in muslim communities by these people.
The evidence is that considerably more do this than just one or two.

How did I hear about it?
I don't recall exactly the first story- it could have been in the Economist, or one of the few news reports (it was actually mentioned in passing on BBC news this morning, it will be on iPlayer) or several online articles.
Also I live in around the corner from the mosque in Acton from which Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed escaped his ankle tracker in November 2013.
I have moderate Muslim neighbours and friends and it is a frequent topic of discussion- I'm not Muslim but I'm fairly aware of the culture.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be repercussions for people who go over and fight- being aware of Islamic culture doesn't mean I tacitly agree with extremist views.

DeVlaeminck

Well as I say bravo for people who realise they have been following an abhorrent ideology and then try and dissuade others from making the same mistake but I doubt that significant numbers of returnees are doing much to stop others going over there.

edit - Is this story in the Economist you refer to - because I can't see how that backs up what you say.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-ea ... t-here-mum

It does mention Lee Rigby and at least one of his killers had been abroad to fight for these kind of causes - so even if some can be useful in stopping others going out clearly some are a danger to our society. Personally if someone goes out to fight jihad I don't want them back here - they've turned their back on this society and present a risk to us on their return.

ai_1

Mr Goo wrote:

Well, because of the ineptitude and wrist wringing that has gone on in parliament for years over a certain element of the population, we are now waiting for a possible atrocity to happen on these shores, once more. According to BBC journalist Frank Gardner, over half of the British Jihadis have now returned. That must be a few hundred ticking time bombs now in the UK. We must be looked upon as a pathetic weak country to allow these b4st4rds to come and go as they please. To keep implementing programs to stop radicalisation is a complete waste of time. Now is the time to get heavy handed and sort them out.

Yep, heavy handed sorting out is always a great solution with no unforseen consequences.
When has the EVER worked as a long term solution to anything? There might be an example, I just can't think of one myself.
Everyone who picks the easy, reactionist, emotional answer always seems to think it's obvious and everyone else is a weak idiot. Your approach is not so different from that of the guys you're condemning. Sure, you're objectives are different but your attitude is the same. As soon as you view any conflict as a case of good guys versus bad guys you become part of teh problem. People, in general, are not evil, as the films, religions and plenty politicians would like us to believe. People get scared and confused and they're easily led. You appear to be a good example. Are you evil? Anyone taking a hard line appears evil to their opposing counterparts and just propogates these conflicts.

I don't know what programmes are being implemented in the UK to stop radicalisation but in the long term, that's an approach that might help.
Do you really think the better solution is to try and control a conflict rather than to eliminate the perceived reasons for it's existence?

mangetout_rodney

DeVlaeminck wrote:

edit - Is this story in the Economist you refer to - because I can't see how that backs up what you say.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-ea ... t-here-mum

No, the article I read was quite a while ago, that one is fairly recently.
I'll have a look in the bog (where I do so much reading) and see if I can find it.

mangetout_rodney

Ai_1 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Everyone who picks the easy, reactionist, emotional answer always seems to think it's obvious and everyone else is a weak idiot. Your approach is not so different from that of the guys you're condemning. Sure, you're objectives are different but your attitude is the same. As soon as you view any conflict as a case of good guys versus bad guys you become part of teh problem.

Bravo.

ai_1

Ballysmate wrote:

These murdering bastards are intent on destroying our way of life. The irony is that to deal with them we may need to pass laws and take actions that we find tear at the fabric of the way of life we are trying to defend. But that is the crossroads at which we now find ourselves.
Whatever it takes.

So basically you're saying exactly what all leaders of violent regimes say!

"Look, those guys are out to get us!"
"They hate us and want to destroy our way of life!"
"We have to protect ourselves!"
"Whatever it takes!"

See my previous post above.
You help perpetuate the illusion that there's good guys and bad guys while doing exactly the things that you say make "them" the bad guys.
The same argument you make to justify your position can equally be used by your opponent to attempt to justify theirs, and to be honest, I think the balance of probability is that the west will destroy their way of life, not the other way around.
Regardless, the argument you are making is massively flawed and will never produce a solution. It leads only to escalation and subverts the empathy and self examination needed to actually achieve a real solution.
Have you ever tried to use your imagination and allowed yourself to try and understand your "enemies". You don't have to agree with someone to try and understand them. I despise the activities and attitudes of those inflicting misery, fear and violence but I see it on both sides. Why can't you? If you do realise that, then why are you condeming one side and supporting the other? Is it just your own short-term self interest that you're worried about?

laurentian

Any kind of military intervention will only go to paint the "west" in exactly the way that ISIS want it to be painted - the bad guys.

As soon as "The West" attacks, or even reacts, it only reinforces the ISIS view that they are enduring a war against Islam and Muslim People.

Perhaps it's my propagandised Western viewpoint or perhaps it's my own interpretation of the situation, but I don't believe that to be the case. I don't believe that the West is in, or wants to be in, any kind of War against Muslims or Islam. From what I see, these people are terrorising Muslims as much as anyone from any another religion (I do not begin to understand the Sunni/Shia differences but, in order to get some perspective, I would like to)
The problem that we have as "The West" is that it is easy for ISIS and their ilk to claim a war against Islam when there are so few loud Muslim voices backing the alternative position. If the only Muslim voices the Facebook generation hear are those of these barbarous maniacs - that is the view of Islam that they will form. Their view of the faith being as twisted as the extremist's interpretation.

There is, of course, the other side whereby anyone from right of middle to neo nazi politicians in this country try portray Islam as a threat to our way of life and propose their own way forward. Fortunately, there are enough, loud voices of the sensible, moderate, free thinking people this country (and, I hope, the West in general) to shout the right wing down.

When I use the word "loud" I don't necessarily mean it in terms of volume. I mean "loud" as in obvious, "loud" as in on the radio, "loud" as in on Facebook, in the newspapers, local news, "Loud" as in documentaries about this moderate, "proper" side of Islam.

I really, really want to believe, more importantly I want others to believe, that Islam is not represented by the nutcases, the people who have to use violence to give their life some kind of twisted purpose.
If the voice of moderate, peaceful, free thinking Islam could just be louder than that of the radicals, in the same way that the mainstream in this country can shout down the far right, perhaps the most attractive option for a disaffected, disenfranchised Muslim youth would not be to join ISIS in bloodlust and murder but to defend his Faith for what it is.

Moderate Islam needs to shout and scream, to preach, it needs YouTube videos and social media campaigns decrying the murderers and hate preachers. It needs to convince the rest of the world that they do not see ISIS as representing their faith. It needs to show these people up for what they are, invaders and power hungry lunatics and not allow them to do it in the name of Islam.

Moderate Islam needs to get a voice louder than I have heard so far.

StillGoing

You will never win a war with an enemy that has little to no value for human life, until the very last one of them is dead. Personally, if these arseholes want to revert to living in the dark ages, then let's build a great wall around the whole region and keep them all locked together until the last man is standing. There are alternatives to the internal combustion engine, so lets use them and stuff the oil.

rick_chasey

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/s ... -terrorism

I back his opinion over all yours.

mamba80

philthy3 wrote:

You will never win a war with an enemy that has little to no value for human life, until the very last one of them is dead. Personally, if these arseholes want to revert to living in the dark ages, then let's build a great wall around the whole region and keep them all locked together until the last man is standing. There are alternatives to the internal combustion engine, so lets use them and stuff the oil.

ah reasoned debate!

there was no IS before we destroyed Sadam, we are the ones that have shown we have little respect for human life I am afraid.
We are directly responsible for 100 s and 1000s of deaths in Iraq and Libya, IS no matter how obscene their methods are no where near these numbers.
killing is killing whether it is delivered via a "smart bomb" and the subsequent horrific injuries (that wont be treated even with basic pain relief) or by a knife.

DeVlaeminck

As far as ISIS fighters coming back to the UK it "may" be that some can help dissuade others from going, however as we have seen with Lee Rigby they may also pose a threat on their return. I would suggest the prudent thing to do would be allow some to return, a number that can be monitored, and see what the result is rather than taking someone's word for it just because they happen to work for the intelligence services - in most debates it's easy enough to find an expert who happens to agree with your own view.

ai_1

philthy3 wrote:

You will never win a war with an enemy that has little to no value for human life, until the very last one of them is dead. Personally, if these arseholes want to revert to living in the dark ages, then let's build a great wall around the whole region and keep them all locked together until the last man is standing. There are alternatives to the internal combustion engine, so lets use them and stuff the oil.

Who says "they" place little to no value on human life? Who are "they" the tiny minority running these organisations or the populations they are trying to dominate? What makes you think western governments place more value on human life? What makes the release of a video of guys with knives killing a man so much less acceptable than releasing a video of rockets hitting a target and killing perhaps hundreds. Why do we get to build a wall around them and not the other way around? You're locked into your own self centred universe.

I'm a little worried and confused about your own position regarding the value of human life.
You start off with:

You will never win a war with an enemy that has little to no value for human life

And then you suggest:

...let's build a great wall around the whole region and keep them all locked together until the last man is standing

So, are you suggesting that we should place no value on human life and thereby "win a war"?
That, in my humble opinion, makes you as much of an "arsehole" as them.

I hope you haven't thought this out properly and on reflection realise how horrific your attitude is. If you have given it some thought and came out with this opinion then you're as bad as any of "them". If you just haven't thought it through and you're being a reactionist fool then you're still as bad as most of "them". Most violent organisations consist of reactionist fools from the latter category following leaders from the former.

Mikey23

I dont buy this 'they dont value human life' guff either. I think they value human life highly. The problem for the west is that they do not value the life of the godless infidel ie you and me. Which has been the problem as i understand it in rotherham and other places where teenage girls in their mini skirts, drunkenness and atheism are regarded as having no worth and being treated as prostitutes.

But go back a few years to the age of empire, to the slave trade, the crusades etc, whereby in our own selfish interests we had little regard for different cultures, ethnicity and religious persuasion. What goes around comes around...

ai_1

I largely agree with Mikey

In my last post I said "What makes you think western governments place more value on human life?"

Just to clarify:

Western governments do place value on western human life.
Let your own population or people that your population can identify with die and you loose popularity. Your own population starts asking questions. You stand to lose support internally and also risk strategic military and trade relationships with other wealthy western states.
However, western governments have made it very obvious in recent years that they don't place the same value on all human life. Their assessment of value is incredibly heavily influenced by ethnicity, nationality, age, sex, geography, visibility and wealth.
The death of few white children or women from middle class American or European families in a major American or European locality with uncontrolled video footage and/or photographs, would be covered widely in the media and anyone involved in causing it would be utterly vilified.
The death, far away, of a few hundred indian, asian or black men from say a little known farming region with only verbal or written reports would do well to make the news....and is forgotten moments later.

It's our own fault that this is the case. Our leadership is responding to our own interests.
Which of the above scenarios bothers you the most?
There are two aspects to this. One is how you feel, the other is how you think.
Do you feel more appalled when you see someone, perhaps a little girl with a familiar accent, die than when you hear or read about a bunch of farmers on the ivory coast? I think most of us do. Why? Because we more easily imagine that little girl as someone who doesn't deserve it and who could as easily have been one of our family or friends.
If you think about it rationally you may equate the two events more closely but it's incredibly hard to get anyone to think rationally about the death of a little girl with a familiar accent......

Governments know this. Politicians are, as much as anything, in the marketing business.
Their decisions reflect this.

Why should we expect leadership of other countries or organisations to be so different?

Mikey23

And if anyone should dare to try to get out of that situation and come over here where life is all fluffy and comfy ... They cant because weve pulled up the drawbridge and have a big moat...

arran77

Mikey23 wrote:

And if anyone should dare to try to get out of that situation and come over here where life is all fluffy and comfy ... They cant because weve pulled up the drawbridge and have a big moat...

Maybe Scotland could have them?

StillGoing

Ai_1 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

You will never win a war with an enemy that has little to no value for human life, until the very last one of them is dead. Personally, if these arseholes want to revert to living in the dark ages, then let's build a great wall around the whole region and keep them all locked together until the last man is standing. There are alternatives to the internal combustion engine, so lets use them and stuff the oil.

Who says "they" place little to no value on human life? Who are "they" the tiny minority running these organisations or the populations they are trying to dominate? What makes you think western governments place more value on human life? What makes the release of a video of guys with knives killing a man so much less acceptable than releasing a video of rockets hitting a target and killing perhaps hundreds. Why do we get to build a wall around them and not the other way around? You're locked into your own self centred universe.

I'm a little worried and confused about your own position regarding the value of human life.
You start off with:

You will never win a war with an enemy that has little to no value for human life

And then you suggest:

...let's build a great wall around the whole region and keep them all locked together until the last man is standing

So, are you suggesting that we should place no value on human life and thereby "win a war"?
That, in my humble opinion, makes you as much of an "arsehole" as them.

I hope you haven't thought this out properly and on reflection realise how horrific your attitude is. If you have given it some thought and came out with this opinion then you're as bad as any of "them". If you just haven't thought it through and you're being a reactionist fool then you're still as bad as most of "them". Most violent organisations consist of reactionist fools from the latter category following leaders from the former.

In my previous dealings with sections of Muslims from Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bangladesh etc, I base my opinion on their views on life. Where taking the life of someone in order to have what they have is their way of life. Where evolution is heresy. Frankly I don't want that for my children or the blinkered ideology of the Guardian reading and Liberal voting minority of tree huggers.

ai_1

philthy3 wrote:

......
In my previous dealings with sections of Muslims from Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bangladesh etc, I base my opinion on their views on life. Where taking the life of someone in order to have what they have is their way of life. Where evolution is heresy. Frankly I don't want that for my children or the blinkered ideology of the Guardian reading and Liberal voting minority of tree huggers.

You see at first glance this sort of nonsense seems kinda reasonable. Nevertheless it's a pile of dangerous bull.
So, you've had dealings with sections of Muslim populations in a handlful of countries? Great, maybe you can give us some insight into society in these places. Oh, wait. "blinkered ideology of the Guardian reading and Liberal voting minority of tree huggers." I'm sorry, this reductionist, moronic nonsense makes anything you have to say completely untrustworthy since you are clearly massively prejudiced. If you're that enthusiastic to label and stereotype your neighbours I can hardly trust your judgement of those further afield who you no doubt understand even less and categorise even more ignorantly.
My earlier observations seem to be borne out. You're obsessed with making this all into a childish them and us scenario.

One other point if I may? Your opinion or wishes are not made more valid or more moral because you have kids. Those you're condemning have kids too. You have no problem condemning them in the name of your own offspring.


P.S. I've never read the Guardian - I live in Ireland and I'm not even certain what Guardian reading implies! Pretty certain I've never hugged a tree. My ideaology is anything but blinkered (but see that's just an opinion the other two are facts). I don't import my opinions en masse from other members of some minority grouping. I make my own mind up on a case by case basis. Yes I'm a minority. A minority of one. On some subjects I may agree with big chunks of the population, on others I may not. Try fitting me into a category all you like. What's that going to achieve? All it does is allow you to comfort yourself that I'm one of "them" and my opinions can therefore be ignored or ridiculed. You're only fooling yourself.

mr_goo

So long as there is a Pontiff sitting in the splendour of St Peters, with a treasure trove worth billions that could ease the suffering of those that donated it.

So long as there are men that nod and pray to a brick wall in a dusty city in Israel and defend themselves with fly by wire fighter jets against their stone throwing neighbours.

So long as there are millions who get down on their knees morning, noon and night and make it their life ambition to walk around a black cube in the middle of the Arabian desert.

So long as there are people in this world that believe in the lunacy of religion then the human race will not even reach first base as a civilisation.

ballysmate

I know this is from Wiki

The Islamic State (IS) (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية‎ ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/; Arabic acronym: داعش Dāʿish) or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/),[a] is a Sunni jihadist group in the Middle East. In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims across the world[65] and aspires to bring most of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control[66] beginning with Iraq,

They aim to do this through murder and torture, beheading and crucifying people of other religions and non believers.
How would people react if IS marched under a Swastika rather than a Crescent Moon and their ambition was a Reich and not a Caliphate?

I agree with Goo, religion is stain on mankind.
The Vatican hoarding wealth while preaching to their followers to help the poor.
Church of England sitting on vast land holdings.
All religions that preach peace and are used for the basis of waging war throughout the ages, including today.
I agree, religion is a lunacy.

bompington

Mr Goo wrote:

So long as there are people in this world that believe in the lunacy of religion then the human race will not even reach first base as a civilisation.

Yep, such a pity that sane, rational people like Stalin didn't succeed in their efforts to eradicate it.

ballysmate

bompington wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

So long as there are people in this world that believe in the lunacy of religion then the human race will not even reach first base as a civilisation.

Yep, such a pity that sane, rational people like Stalin didn't succeed in their efforts to eradicate it.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

ai_1

bompington wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

So long as there are people in this world that believe in the lunacy of religion then the human race will not even reach first base as a civilisation.

Yep, such a pity that sane, rational people like Stalin didn't succeed in their efforts to eradicate it.

Illogical attempt at a rebuttal....if that's your intention.
The fact that bad things have been done against religion doesn't make the criticism of religion invalid.

Religion poses as a refuge from doubt and fear. People crave meaning, hope and simple answers. That's what religions promise. It's a false promise though (at least I think it is). Followers are participating in mass delusion because it comforts them. It's not reasonable to expect that religion could ever be successfully forcibly suppressed. As with terrorism, aggression will be counterproductive. More fear = more desire for religion. We're all free to walk away from religion, at least mentally. Depending on the social or political environment where you live it may be less of an option to make disbelief public knowledge. You may have to play along or suffer severely. Unfortunately humans are herd animals! The majority view gets more credit than it deserves regardless how absurd it may be.