London Bridge Incident

It would depend if you were related to one of the 200,000 dead civilians since the US/UK intervention or indeed on of the 16 dead at the Islamic State Terror attack in Iraq 2 days before London?

We've been over these nonsensical Saddam/Gaddafi arguments. Saddam's own people gleefully hanged him and Gaddafi's own people stabbed him up the anus. It's easy to say go back to a despotic regime when you don't have to live under it.
 
Question is if this kind of thing is allowed to take root and grow due to the mixture of political and social sensitivity to the wider subject (and some naivety from the general public) will down the road we end up with little option but to take action along the lines of that in Egypt, Iraq, etc. where they resorted to stamping it out violently with extreme prejudice?
Send his family back to Pakistani, it is irrelevant if his children were born here, send them back, this will send a strong message you cause problem you whole family gets sent back .
 
We've been over these nonsensical Saddam/Gaddafi arguments. Saddam's own people gleefully hanged him and Gaddafi's own people stabbed him up the anus. It's easy to say go back to a despotic regime when you don't have to live under it.

If you want a black and white argument look elsewhere!
You could try to consider the realistic possibility (based on the figures) that risk of dying at the hands of a violent idiot may have got worse not better since our involvement.

believe me, I would prefer it if smart bombs had rid Iraq of an evil dictator, the disparate people had unified under the banner of democratic process and become a model state for the whole Middle East. Unfortunately the evidence doesn't look that way, the fact that it's even debatable if it's got worse for the rank and file population in Iraq is an utter failure and the conditions for breeding ISIS were widely predicted should things go poorly!
 
If Saddam Hussein was still ruling IRAQ would ISIS have the influence they have today? Personally I think not, I do not even think Saddam would have allowed them to form in the first place...

Maybe, maybe not - in some ways it is just a brand name... before them Al Quaeda were the big boys. The people ideologically predisposed to supporting them would be there regardless, maybe they'd be fighting under a different name but so what? Syria also has a dictator, still in power, yet they're fighting a civil war at the moment - I'm not sure that Iraq would necessarily be too different or somehow immune from the same revolts that took place in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria... all under dictators.

I don't think the best solution to a problem is harking back to a time a genocidal maniac was ruling a country through fear with his criminal family.
It would depend if you were related to one of the 200,000 dead civilians since the US/UK intervention or indeed on of the 16 dead at the Islamic State Terror attack in Iraq 2 days before London?

Why would you assume that those dead civilians would support Saddam?

Shall we assume that dead French and Dutch civilians in WW2 would have preferred us to not fight Hitler?
 
Diplomatic ties....
That'll blow over, but hilarious that off the back of it Saudi are blaming Qatar for funding ISIS.

How many of you spend holidays in the region, how many fly on their airlines?
 
You've incorrectly interpreted what I've said, by assuming that I think we should allow ourselves to be conquered by terrorism which is ridiculous

I said that even if we went that far it wouldn't be enough. I don't assume you think we should go that far.

I'm saying we need a different strategy, because regardless of who you want to blame it on - the current strategy isn't working.

And I'm saying that there isn't a strategy that works.

We need a way of changing perception from the ground up - to me, it starts and ends with community cohesion.

That might work if there was one community. But there isn't and can't be. That's part of the problem.

If we have a divided community - us and them, we're going to have terrorism, it happened with the IRA, it's happening with Islam - and we're going through the same motions again, for decades, where we keep fighting fire with fire - any attempt to reason or try something different is written off as 'weak' or 'giving in' when in reality, it never gets solved until the issues in the community get solved, but that often generates a lot of discomfort because it requires input from both sides.

The IRA had a goal we could live with, weren't entirely devoted to death and didn't have large numbers. As a result, negotiation was possible. Very ugly moral compromises had to be made, but it was feasible. That's not true with Islamic fundamentalism or even with Islam in general (which inevitably includes Islamic fundamentalism).

If the IRA were devoutly committed to the destruction of civilisation and a global brutal theocratic tyranny that makes Hitler look moderate, the comparison would be valid. If the IRA had hundreds of millions of people who supported the same goals to some extent, the comparison would be valid. But they didn't and it isn't.

I don't believe that there isn't a workable long term solution, I think all you're really suggesting is a race to the bottom - giving up essentially, I think you could do better.

I think you're wrong and that your position is the race to the bottom. I think we can hold things as they are for a while and I think your approach would make them worse because it's naive and would be used against you (and the rest of us).
 
Last edited:
lol

America have a Military base in Qatar, and we too have strong links with them....

Eh IIRC we have like 2 RAF bases and port facilities in Qatar? and a defence pact just for lols.

Diplomatic ties....
That'll blow over, but hilarious that off the back of it Saudi are blaming Qatar for funding ISIS.

How many of you spend holidays in the region, how many fly on their airlines?

They are also pointing fingers at links to Iran/Hezbollah at the same time as accusing them of funding ISIS while ISIS and some rebel groups are complaining Qatar has been promising them aid but never delivering. What an absolute shambles.
 
Send his family back to Pakistani, it is irrelevant if his children were born here, send them back, this will send a strong message you cause problem you whole family gets sent back .

Putting aside that it's both retarded and a war crime do you honestly think these murderous criminals care about the family they have left behind :rolleyes:

lawl
 
I don't think the best solution to a problem is harking back to a time a genocidal maniac was ruling a country through fear with his criminal family.

I think it's a sign of how bad the problem is when that time was less bad.

Even if you ignore the rest of the world, things got worse for Iraqis - they got IS after Saddam Hussein. Without a lot of attacks by other countries (Russia, USA, etc) they'd still have IS ruling them and as soon as that military force is withdrawn they'll get the same again if not worse.
 
Too much fear of "racism" as above, too many people who still believe you can reach these people with dialogue, etc. we either nip it in the bud or should look to how it has unfolded in ME countries as to the kind of long term problem we will be dealing with requiring the gloves to actually come off in a way that I think will melt some people's brains here.


Its totally unacceptable, the whole world are now going to see this. New laws should be made, my view, get them rounded up early. No more walking around
 
Putting aside that it's both retarded and a war crime do you honestly think these murderous criminals care about the family they have left behind :rolleyes:

lawl

Actually in many cases yes they do - that disconnect in thinking is half the reason so far in this country the problem hasn't been tackled in the way that is needed.

People tend to blow themselves up or go on other suicidal attacks because they believe that in doing so they are doing something tangible towards making the world a better place for their family - however deluded their thinking might be.
 
You can't round people up that haven't committed a crime, unless you want the terrorists to remove our right to freedom of speech ?

More money needs investing in community projects in at risk areas and anti-terrorism intelligence/ surveillance


Actually in many cases yes they do - that disconnect in thinking is half the reason so far in this country the problem hasn't been tackled in the way that is needed.

People tend to blow themselves up or go on other suicidal attacks because they believe that in doing so they are doing something tangible towards making the world a better place for their family - however deluded their thinking might be.

I don't think punishing people for other peoples crimes or any type of collective punishment is the ''tackled the way that is needed'' solution!
As a matter of fact it would just increase the divide and give hate preachers more material to work with when radicalising young impressionable people!
 
Get real buddy. Skin colour has 'nothing' to do with it for goodness sake!

You're the one who referred to skin colour :rolleyes:

koolpc said:
Your pathetic view of letting them walk around freely is the type that makes this country an easy target. Try telling those that have lost loved ones that their bomber had a right to walk around freely!

Why should they have been detained before the bombing? Why should anyone be detained before they commit a crime?
 
I don't think punishing people for other peoples crimes or any type of collective punishment is the ''tackled the way that is needed'' solution!

Neither do I - but if we don't understand what motivates these people the problem will likely only become more complex and messy in the long term.
 
I think it's a sign of how bad the problem is when that time was less bad.

Even if you ignore the rest of the world, things got worse for Iraqis - they got IS after Saddam Hussein. Without a lot of attacks by other countries (Russia, USA, etc) they'd still have IS ruling them and as soon as that military force is withdrawn they'll get the same again if not worse.

Islamic State existed in 1999, before we even went there after 9/11. The problems with the aftermath of the Iraq war are well documented and there is more than enough blame to go around between the coalition, the dismantling of the old regime and Nouri al-Maliki. Raking up old graves doesn't solve anything though. Hypothetically any argument of 'we should have stuck with Saddam' can be countered with 'what if he had developed nuclear weapons?' It's a fruitless argument. We have to play the hand we are dealt.
 
Are you a troll,

No?

Arazi said:
You are happy to allow 100s of people who have been to war zones for no other reason than to learn to kill walk our streets?

Where did I say that?

Is warzone attendance the only thing that gets you on the watchlist? If so, fine, don't let them back in, but I suspect there are other things that can get you on there.

If we had reason to suspect they were conspiring to do something, then I'd be all for doing something about it, sure, but it appears we don't.

Arazi said:
You never actually give an answer\solution, you just pick apart other peoples opinions and try to ridicule them, but never actually provide a solution.
Greater minds than any posting on this forum, like those who are actually employed to do such a thing, don't appear to be able to provide a solution, so I don't feel too bad about finding it a bit of a challenge to come up with one myself. It's a hard problem. Next you'll be telling me off for struggling to come up with a cure for cancer or deducing a grand unified theory of physics.
 
Back
Top Bottom