The plane may have been in Turkey airspace when the deadly blow was fired though!
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
The plane may have been in Turkey airspace when the deadly blow was fired though!
Apologies if this has already been posted but think article is worth a read
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1
It's on a report supposedly by the security service on radicalised Muslims.
Main findings (no doubt upsetting for some as it disagrees with their superior intellectual and evidenced position)
The main findings include:
• The majority are British nationals and the remainder, with a few exceptions, are here legally. Around half were born in the UK, with others migrating here later in life. Some of these fled traumatic experiences and oppressive regimes and claimed UK asylum, but more came to Britain to study or for family or economic reasons and became radicalised many years after arriving.
• Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.
Delete if repost or early April fools...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1
It's on a report supposedly by the security service on radicalised Muslims.
Main findings (no doubt upsetting for some as it disagrees with their superior intellectual and evidenced position)
The main findings include:
• The majority are British nationals and the remainder, with a few exceptions, are here legally. Around half were born in the UK, with others migrating here later in life. Some of these fled traumatic experiences and oppressive regimes and claimed UK asylum, but more came to Britain to study or for family or economic reasons and became radicalised many years after arriving.
• Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.
Delete if repost or early April fools...
Ey?
Urgh, digestives ? You need bombing for that suggestion. Hobnobs or nothing !!!
Hobnobs suck.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
The fastest way to defeat isis in Syria is to get assad in full control so that he isn't fighting on 3 fronts against isis and various rebel groups.
No single rebel group is going to be strong enough to run the country competently amd keep isis out.
Therefore the support for rebels by turkey, usa, uk is prolonging this war and causing continued civilian casualties and displacement as a result.
Turkey has done nothing but aid both rebels and isis. This should ne noted and understood.
No single rebel group is going to be strong enough to run the country competently amd keep isis out.
Therefore the support for rebels by turkey, usa, uk is prolonging this war and causing continued civilian casualties and displacement as a result.
Turkey has done nothing but aid both rebels and isis. This should ne noted and understood.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
What does the chart even show? Multiple lines with no loops or conclusion? Lines that start in the middle of nowhere?
and following the white plot who's airspace did the turkish fighter fly through?
Last edited:
take a look at the other thread - there are clearer maps in there
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Glad someone else can see this, every time we stick our noses into something, we just prolong the war, we increase the deaths and suffering, it just snow balls into a giant crap storm.
This has always been the case throughout the 20th century.
Just think how different the world would have been (And how much better a place) had we kept out of it in 1914!
lolololol - gonna need some proof of that.
Also we've been sticking our noses in it for a lot longer than just since the 20th century. You'll need to go as far back as the 11th Century and probably before that, too. Though it wasn't until the 15th Century that we really pulled our thumb out.
Also we've been sticking our noses in it for a lot longer than just since the 20th century. You'll need to go as far back as the 11th Century and probably before that, too. Though it wasn't until the 15th Century that we really pulled our thumb out.
Last edited:
It is difficult to create a whole centuries worth of alternative history on the basis of changing a single incident.
(the Longer the tree grows, the more branches you get!)
But the first decade or so is probably reasonably predictable.
Had we kept out of it in 1914 it is likely that the War really would have been over by Christmas.
Treaty's would have been made and a few lines on the map would have been moved and everybody would have got to go home.
Our involvement introduced just sufficient balance to generate a bloody and pointless stalemate and great hardship for millions of people.
A rapid defeat would have been humiliating for the Russians, but it is possible that there might well have been no Russian Revolution in 1917.
The devastating economic consequences of Germanys defeat (Well, Surrender anyway) in 1918 sewed the seeds for the rise of the Nazi party and WW2.
And so on....!
Whether the flow of the river of history would have led to other reasons for global conflict throughout the 20th century, I really do not know.
The longer we look into the future past the vaguer and less firm the predictions can be.
But considering alternative histories is always fun.
I would like to think that a British Empire, not bankrupted by two massive conflicts in quick succession, might have endured for at least another century and might have had a softer landing with the ex colonies (Particularly in Africa) now being more like India* or even Canada/Australia today.
(* India is far from perfect, but had there never been a British India then todays India would probably be more like Africa, Lots of little poor countries rather than one big one that, despite its problems, is actually doing quite well)
I doubt it would have changed much in the grand scheme of things. The US would have still become the top superpower sooner or later due to the rapid colonization and exploitation of the largest temperate climate landmass on the planet.
True enough, but I picked 1914 since it is (just ) within living memory.
(The Elizabethan era was an absolute hoot. Spain was like the USA, England was like the Somali pirates.
And every time the "USA" tried to take out the "Somalis", the "Somalis" pulled a rabbit out of the hat and beat the crap out of them with it!
)