Many dead as lorry hits crowd in Nice

[rjan]

Freight Dog:

Rjan:
How can they really help you, except by you listening to their criticising our foreign policy and changing its course by exercising your democratic rights including public protest and voting? You seem to think there is some third way of helping that doesn’t involve our foreign policy changing, or you doing anything active to resteer our political policy away from the rocks.

So you tell me this straight. Why are our Police spending time and energy searching relentlessly for leads on intelligence, endlessly chasing ghosts behind curtains, when a local Mum directly comes home to find her son discussing radical ideals with a friend, yet turns the other cheek? Why are our security services pouring themselves into the needle and haystack task of breaking into groups when a local Immam may have direct knowledge of some within his Mosque who harbour dangerous views, yet turns the other cheek?

You’re assuming that there is some sort of clear delineation between safe and dangerous views. Thomas Mair was probably no more overtly radical than some on here. I know people with finger-jabbing far-right views. Am I to dob them in, because there is some vanishingly small chance they may act? Am I to dob in everyone who complains about MPs?

The same is true in Islamic communities. It may be true in hindsight that almost every terrorist has radical views, but they are often not clearly more radical than the norm. And a terrorist is highly unlikely to discuss their plans with their mother! You attribute a degree of naivety to those who would act. Some may act suddenly on impulse, others with determined plans are likely to be more subtle to avoid their mother calling the police to save their lives!

And rather than ask themselves how they can help, the response is to wait for foreign policy change? So are we to believe with an overnight foreign policy change, radical Islam will go away and leave us alone?

No, but with a foreign policy change, what can happen overnight is that imams can start telling people that the fundamental problems are resolved, and they must let bygones be bygones. Like when Nelson Mandela told blacks to throw their weapons into the sea - it would not have been so credible a request, if he was still in Robben Island!

So cheek turned the other way a UK islamic parent listens, waiting for foreign policy to change whilst a little girl within her country has her arms blown off. Lovely. What a robust attitude to your immediate fellow man

But you misconceive the problem. Do you really think that things are being said openly in the Islamic community which are concealed from the intelligence services? Don’t you think they have their moles, their rats, and their bugs all over the place?

The best they will find out is that the temperature is high in some places. It does not tell them who is going to boil off or when (if ever), and if they disturb the cauldron while the heat is applied, they might disrupt the constraining factors and cause the boiling off to become runaway.

It’s like in the US with these police shootings in the past few weeks. Every black person there hates the police because of their conduct, and the temperature is extremely high - much higher I’d say than the Islamic community’s feelings about our foreign policy. But actually predicting which two people out of say a hundred million will boil off and attack the police at the cost of their own lives, is a virtually impossible task. It’s not just those who are negative about police policy, because that describes almost everyone who is black. It’s not those who are most vocally extreme - they are usually just loud mouths.

The only iron law we know is that high temperatures applied to an entire group, will eventually cause boiling and some individuals will change into steam (perhaps as much because of random stressful events in their own lives which cannot be predicted but which finally launch them into a terror strike).

[carryfast]

Rjan:
It’s like in the US with these police shootings in the past few weeks. Every black person there hates the police because of their conduct, and the temperature is extremely high - much higher I’d say than the Islamic community’s feelings about our foreign policy. But actually predicting which two people out of say a hundred million will boil off and attack the police at the cost of their own lives, is a virtually impossible task. It’s not just those who are negative about police policy, because that describes almost everyone who is black. It’s not those who are most vocally extreme - they are usually just loud mouths.

Ironically it was the ethnic African community who wanted integration and policing by White police.Now they’ve got it they want to differentiate.IE if colour isn’t supposed to matter who gives a zb what colour the police are and why ?.Or are you saying ( correctly ) that it would be better to have segregated ethnic African areas policed by only ethnic African police.

[rjan]

Freight Dog:

Rjan:
You did by tacitly supporting our politicians, or paying your taxes which support them, perhaps even by failing to educate yourself and protest about impending errors of foreign policy (or failing to tacitly support people like me who’ll do it on your behalf)

I’ve just noticed this unbelievable paragraph. I supported foreign policy by paying tax? Have you actually though about this rediculous statement? Do all UK Muslims evade tax then? Tax finances your health care, the fire service that rescues a mosque if it catches fire, the infrastructure of the very country you are dining from, If you evade tax it’s not foreign policy you’re changing. It’s robbing everyone of the fiscal support structure. What a cretinous comment.

Also, how do you know what I supported? I certainly wouldn’t support “people like” you. I have no idea who you are for one. If your ideals are to go by you seem to harbour views at complete odds with the welfare and safety of anyone else but a close proportion within the uk who would hold us all to ransom for their own motives.

We are in no different position to the German civil population during WW2. We bombed them because they played a key role in the creation and maintenance of the ■■■■ military. Many disagreed with the Nazis, many paid taxes they didn’t want to pay, many didn’t know the full horrors of the Nazis, but it makes no difference to the fact that they were the underlying support structure to the military, and so long as they went to work each day and continued paying taxes and sending their sons to the fronts, the ■■■■ war machine would rumble on.

Indeed, the terrorists would target me like anyone else. They wouldn’t say, oh that Rjan, he’s alright, he’s on our side. That doesn’t stop me acknowledging the simple truth that we all play a key role in the formation and expression of British foreign policy.

[evil8beezle]

Rjan:
We are in no different position to the German civil population during WW2. We bombed them because they played a key role in the creation and maintenance of the ■■■■ military. Many disagreed with the Nazis, many paid taxes they didn’t want to pay, many didn’t know the full horrors of the Nazis, but it makes no difference to the fact that they were the underlying support structure to the military, and so long as they went to work each day and continued paying taxes and sending their sons to the fronts, the ■■■■ war machine would rumble on.

We bombed them because we couldn’t hit a barn door with a banjo back then bellend!
We (the UK) also bombed at night, so it wasn’t exactly easy to a see was it?
But you leave that out pal as it doesn’t suit your argument!

[freight_dog]

Rjan:
No, but with a foreign policy change, what can happen overnight is that imams can start telling people that the fundamental problems are resolved, and they must let bygones be bygones. Like when Nelson Mandela told blacks to throw their weapons into the sea

You know, I was mulling over how to deconstruct your vague veneered points into a tangible frame work, when. Well well. what can I say. The above little kernel revealed itself.

And what a fine kernel it is. This drives a dart through the heart doesn’t it? Dont you think so? All the leafy camouflage of your protestations about Islamic communities being blissfully unaware of radicalisation on their doorstep did not hide this little nugget.

Essentially, until foreign policy changes, there exists, here in the UK, systemic and leadership approval of these actions by defining there being a justifiable cause for the terrorism. “these problems” that have gone I think you referred to it. A gate that until lifted, will not be acted upon by leaders.

Only when foreign policy is changed, will the imams, the mosques and all those people vocally discourage. Your pointing to Mandela and the arms back into the sea, neatly adds vivid emphasis. The UK Islamic community does view it as an armed struggle and until foreign policy is changed we can expect no assistance from community leaders. And by virtue, this actually places them in a position where they are wilfully gambling the safety of men, women, boys and girls of the uk. Our lives until “the problems” are resolved overseas are being held to ransom.

[rjan]

Evil8Beezle:

Rjan:
Another thing, if we want to advance liberal values in deprived communities and stop a regression into black and white authoritarian values, we must ameliorate their deprivation. And with minority communities, we must bring people together, and we must be tolerant and give people time to change.

What bloody planet do you live on?
We bend over backwards to ameliorate immigrants, and IF THEY CHOOSE to integrate, they are welcomed. You seem to be completely blinkered to the fact that a large percentage CHOOSE not to integrate. We don’t impose/force our religion, values and way of life on them, which maybe is a mistake. But as I’ve already TRIED to point out to you, that’s not exactly a 2 way street with Muslim countries is it?

Take your head out the sand pal, your speaking out your arse!

What do you mean then by integration? Do you mean 100% indistinguishable in any conceivable way?

What sort of differences and disintegration do you actually notice in your direct experience when you come across a person who looks Middle Eastern?

Because when I talk about integration, I’m thinking about things like how they go to work 5 days a week in a factory or an office, they run commercial businesses, they watch telly, they speak native (or decent-enough) English, they respect the rule of law, they vote, their children go to a school with a modern curriculum, and so on.

All the things that you’d think an Afghani peasant would be almost totally unable to manage and would therefore be totally disintegrated into our society if they were dropped into it suddenly.

[rjan]

volvo2:
As the aussie pm said you came here we didn’t invite you and if you dont like our way of life go home thats what we should be telling these muslim immigrants as they are trying to change us into a medieval cult of murder ■■■■ and god alone knows what else Integrate or go home political correctness gone stark staring bonkers

The only thing bonkers is trying to tar millions of British people as a ‘cult of murderers and rapists’.

[evil8beezle]

Rjan:
What do you mean then by integration? Do you mean 100% indistinguishable in any conceivable way?

You really are a ■■■■!

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Leave it out.Firstly you’re trying to justify it on grounds of economic deprivation then you’re also trying to justify it on the grounds of ethnic based split loyalty.It can only be one or the other and it seems obvious which it is.

No, I’m justifying their criticism of foreign policy as being based on plain human sympathy and anger at injustice.

I’m justifying the ambivalence to British society amongst some, as being a function of the fact they are living deprived lives in Britain, same as many working class whites.

People are capable of being ■■■■■■ off at more than one thing at once, you know.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Syria,Iran,Saudi and Iraq all supposedly concentrating on peacetime activeties. As opposed to arming themselves to the teeth with Russian or Western hardware and causing murder and mayhem in the region just as their ‘book’ teaches them.

How many people do you think were actually conventional soldiers in those nations armies? I’ll bet it was far fewer than those engaged in routine peacetime activities.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
Indeed, the terrorists would target me like anyone else. They wouldn’t say, oh that Rjan, he’s alright, he’s on our side. That doesn’t stop me acknowledging the simple truth that we all play a key role in the formation and expression of British foreign policy.

Now feel free to explain why we should continue with a situation which subjects us to potential attack by an enemy based immigrant population.Of which we can’t trust it’s loyalty to the nation’s ‘decision’ to commit forces to war.IE disagreeing with foreign policy is one thing but when it turns into going to war we are all in it together like it or not.While if the immigrant community takes the side of our enemies that’s a matter of national security.Which in this case logically means deportation to the country where their allegiance is.

[rjan]

Evil8Beezle:

Rjan:
We are in no different position to the German civil population during WW2. We bombed them because they played a key role in the creation and maintenance of the ■■■■ military. Many disagreed with the Nazis, many paid taxes they didn’t want to pay, many didn’t know the full horrors of the Nazis, but it makes no difference to the fact that they were the underlying support structure to the military, and so long as they went to work each day and continued paying taxes and sending their sons to the fronts, the ■■■■ war machine would rumble on.

We bombed them because we couldn’t hit a barn door with a banjo back then bellend!
We (the UK) also bombed at night, so it wasn’t exactly easy to a see was it?
But you leave that out pal as it doesn’t suit your argument!

No, we targetted the civilian population in WW2. I quote Bomber Harris (lifted from Wikipedia):

the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive…should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.

… the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.

[james_the_cat]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Leave it out.Firstly you’re trying to justify it on grounds of economic deprivation then you’re also trying to justify it on the grounds of ethnic based split loyalty.It can only be one or the other and it seems obvious which it is.

No, I’m justifying their criticism of foreign policy as being based on plain human sympathy and anger at injustice.
.

What a load of balonie.

And what about their sympathy for people in the UK. The injustice of someone having his head cut off? Sympathy for others stops short whilst injustice exists overseas. When you say foreign policy by the way.

Where, the middle east? Which country? Why only the middle east then if it’s nothing to do with Islam ethnic loyalty? What about China? We trade with them. Bad lot for human rights. Dont see islamic hordes marching up and down asking for us to stop trading with china. Funny, they dont march for us to stop trading with Saudi. Terrible lot again for human rights. Mmm? Funny one that. No, doubt it. Be honest, it’s because it’s Muslim countries. Injustice within a Muslim country, carried out under Sharia is ok isn’t it? So much for human sympathy. It is ethnic loyalty

[evil8beezle]

Why didn’t you also include this bit in your quote?

From 1942 onward, the British bombing campaign against Germany became less restrictive and increasingly targeted industrial sites and eventually, civilian areas

Basically we accepted we couldn’t hit the targets we kept failing to hit, and instead changed your policy to include what we were actually doing.

WE DID NOT START OFF BOMBING CIVILIANS ON PURPOSE!!!
We just gave trying not to…

[carryfast]

Evil8Beezle:
We bombed them because we couldn’t hit a barn door with a banjo back then bellend!
We (the UK) also bombed at night, so it wasn’t exactly easy to a see was it?
But you leave that out pal as it doesn’t suit your argument!

You wouldn’t find many of the WW2 generation who didn’t follow Harris’ correct idea of indiscriminate bombing payback.On the same idea that the Germans were using of total war.Unfortunately that’s often what major wars eventually descend into by necessity.

The issue in this case being an immigration policy that unnecessarily brings our enemies in among us.

[rjan]

Freight Dog:
Only when foreign policy is changed, will the imams, the mosques and all those people vocally discourage. Your pointing to Mandela and the arms back into the sea, neatly adds vivid emphasis.

Mandela is a good example, because clearly if the regime had got him to say “throw your weapons away”, even if he’d said it sincerely for some reason, nobody would actually have listened. He’d have just lost credibility with the very people he was trying to speak to - even those who didn’t have weapons, but were resigned to the fact that nothing short of force would generate change.

Personally, if you ask me, I’d agree with the assertion that nothing short of retaliation will cause us to revise or curtail our foreign policy in the Middle East in future, and if we don’t revise it but try and fight its effects and resist the retaliation, then the form that retaliation is taking (and the steps necessary for us to resist it) will seriously impair the functioning of our society for a long time to come.

The UK Islamic community does view it as an armed struggle and until foreign policy is changed we can expect no assistance from community leaders. And by virtue, this actually places them in a position where they are wilfully gambling the safety of men, women, boys and girls of the uk. Our lives until “the problems” are resolved overseas are being held to ransom.

To do nothing about foreign policy would gamble with the safety of people in other parts of the world in the first place, and gamble with the safety of British people as retaliation against that foreign policy becomes stronger. You’re just going to have to accept that our foreign policy does and will always have an effect on our safety - there isn’t a world in which we can do what we want to people abroad, without there being consequences for Britain in return (including consequences that foreign people are in a position to impose). If our foreign policy is good, those returns should be good, but if it is bad then the returns will be bad.

[carryfast]

Evil8Beezle:
Why didn’t you also include this bit in your quote?

From 1942 onward, the British bombing campaign against Germany became less restrictive and increasingly targeted industrial sites and eventually, civilian areas

Basically we accepted we couldn’t hit the targets we kept failing to hit, and instead changed your policy to include what we were actually doing.

WE DID NOT START OFF BOMBING CIVILIANS ON PURPOSE!!!
We just gave trying not to…

Trust me we’re all human and the story as I heard it from the generation involved in the bombing of our cities was that it had reached that primal level of the whole country wanting payback in kind and who can blame them.Unfortunately for the Germans and luckily for us we had 4 engined bombers they didn’t.It was as simple as that.Brilliant engineers in the form of people like Chadwick and just like Mitchell in the case of the Spitfire.So yes Rjan’s wiki quote is closer to the truth.

[evil8beezle]

Carryfast:

Evil8Beezle:
Why didn’t you also include this bit in your quote?

From 1942 onward, the British bombing campaign against Germany became less restrictive and increasingly targeted industrial sites and eventually, civilian areas

Basically we accepted we couldn’t hit the targets we kept failing to hit, and instead changed your policy to include what we were actually doing.

WE DID NOT START OFF BOMBING CIVILIANS ON PURPOSE!!!
We just gave trying not to…

Trust me we’re all human and the story as I heard it from the generation involved in the bombing of our cities was that it had reached that primal level of the whole country wanting payback in kind and who can blame them.Unfortunately for the Germans and luckily for us we had 4 engined bombers they didn’t.It was as simple as that.Brilliant engineers in the form of people like Chadwick and just like Mitchell in the case of the Spitfire.So yes Rjan’s wiki quote is closer to the truth.

They are both from the same wiki page!

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Of which we can’t trust it’s loyalty to the nation’s ‘decision’ to commit forces to war.IE disagreeing with foreign policy is one thing but when it turns into going to war we are all in it together like it or not.

We are all in in together in many ways. Including the sense that the people run over or blown up in attacks will include Muslims, and including the fact that Muslims are part of the civil population that support our military (just as anti-war campaigners are).

But I don’t have to be “in it together” in the sense of openly supporting what I disagree with, or even concealing my disagreement. I don’t even remotely have to respect the decision of MPs whom the majority never voted for and in fact whom a substantial number of people took to the streets to march against on a decision that Chilcott has now certified as folly. If they want to jail me to silence me they can, but then they aren’t even pretending to run a liberal democracy anymore, and they will engage in more folly unchallenged until we falter irrecoverably.

While if the immigrant community takes the side of our enemies that’s a matter of national security.Which in this case logically means deportation to the country where their allegiance is.

But if I’m simply against more regime change, which country actually has my allegiance? Where are you going to send me?

[carryfast]

Rjan:
You’re just going to have to accept that our foreign policy does and will always have an effect on our safety - there isn’t a world in which we can do what we want to people abroad, without there being consequences for Britain in return (including consequences that foreign people are in a position to impose). If our foreign policy is good, those returns should be good, but if it is bad then the returns will be bad.

So why would we want to increase the risk of such retaliation by going on with an immigration policy which as you’ve admitted yourself brings our enemies among us.

As for your idea that we don’t have an enemy in the form of Wahabbist and Iranian revolutionary Islam or that we shouldn’t do what it takes to disarm the Islamic world and close our borders with it,whether it’s Syria,Iraq,Saudi,Iran, Pakistan,or even Erdogan’s Turkish cluster zb.That’s not a question of foreign policy.That’s a question of sides.