Many dead as lorry hits crowd in Nice

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
161

Freight Dog:
When I said no matter what it takes I didn’t mean that. It was a bit open ended what I said so I should clarify. I mean no matter what your background, community, colour or beliefs we should all recognise if anyone has an opportunity to help keep the country safe, they should take that opportunity as part of moral responsibility to others.

You say Islam isn’t a national identity and that is true, but as a group within the UK, they are UK citizens no? They have the same responsibility as us all?

As a group within the UK it empirically has far more contact and eyes on the ground with individuals at risk of developing dangerous ideals. It is Islamic radicalisation we’re talking about. Surely at least 50 percent of the community’s priority should be acknowledging that they have the power to help more than any other community and should actively assist and take measures to meet the threat.

You see, to myself and others I see it that these people who pose a risk are hidden behind a community cloak. If UK Islam, made up of uk citizens took its responsibility as uk citizens seriously and used its power to do great good in identifying and rifling out radicalism, and let’s be honest, it is Islamic radicalisation, then it wouldn’t appear so much like they’re being hidden.

Constantly batting the ball back as it being down to foreign policy doesn’t assuage. It stops short. The U.K. Islamic community has a great ability, more so than the police to do something.

I didn’t create foreign policy. The kids at the local school didn’t. Its not their fault. As uk citizens uk Islamic communities should bloody well take ownership of their key advantage in helping and get on with it. Yes, talk about foreign policy and apply pressure if that’s what you feel, but as a group they should bloody well get off the soap box and actually help us. And that’s keeping all safe, including uk Muslims.

Exactly!

Also what does their current impotence in the matter suggest to the UK masses?
If they really want to stamp out racism and not feel marginalised, they have to step up!

162

Freight Dog, you assume that a sizeable percentage actually want to be part of a united Britain and that is far from the case, the benefits are nice, a nice clean civilised country just ripe for turning into a terrifying place in due course.

Then there’s the problem of anyone who criticizes the weirdos, themselves shielding behind some hocus pocus divine words just as charlatans here did many centuries ago, are genuinely in fear of finding themselves suddenly dead.

It’s our fault in the west, we’ve kissed extremist arses for too bloody long in order to placate them and humour them in the hope they’ll what?, kill fewer of us at a time?
Who would have thought the bloody IRA brass would have forced surrender on the British and end up invited to Buck Palace for tea with the queen.

Course it doesn’t help electing nutters as presidents and prime ministers who bomb civilians to hell and back and then wonder why their kin hate us…hmm now why would that be?

163

Juddian:
Freight Dog, you assume that a sizeable percentage actually want to be part of a united Britain and that is far from the case, the benefits are nice, a nice clean civilised country just ripe for turning into a terrifying place in due course.

Then there’s the problem of anyone who criticizes the weirdos, themselves shielding behind some hocus pocus divine words just as charlatans here did many centuries ago, are genuinely in fear of finding themselves suddenly dead.

It’s our fault in the west, we’ve kissed extremist arses for too bloody long in order to placate them and humour them in the hope they’ll what?, kill fewer of us at a time?
Who would have thought the bloody IRA brass would have forced surrender on the British and end up invited to Buck Palace for tea with the queen.

Course it doesn’t help electing nutters as presidents and prime ministers who bomb civilians to hell and back and then wonder why their kin hate us…hmm now why would that be?

That’s a contradiction.In that we justifiably attacked them because of the threat they were creating to us in just the same way that Israel took pre emptive action in 1967.Whether it be Islamic fundamentalism taking over Afghanistan or the threat posed by Saddam regards GW2.

The problem in this case being the equal mistake,as those ‘tactical’ ‘not’ ‘moral’ mistakes,in allowing such a large immigrant Islamic immigrant population to set up a large subversive movement in Europe when it’s clear that on balance that Islam is a threat to us not an asset.On the basis that these people identify and take allegiance to Islam more than nation.

IE Iraq attacks Saudi they don’t have a problem with that.But we attack Iraq then they do. :bulb:A bit like the ridiculous situation of us attacking Iraq in GW 1 to protect the Kuwaitis/Saudis from their Arab Islamic brothers while having to tell Israel to stay out of it because if they joined us then Saudi would have allied with Iraq against us,Because their was more that united them in their hatred of Jews than their so called ‘hatred’ of each other. :bulb: :unamused:

The point being that appeasement of that hypocritical Islamic agenda isn’t going to work.

On that note it should be remembered that more Irish Nationalists died in the fight against the provisional/continuity anti partition IRA than Brits.Including its best leader Collins.IE morals mattered more than religious identity.That’s the key point in all this. :bulb:

164

Juddian:
Freight Dog, you assume that a sizeable percentage actually want to be part of a united Britain and that is far from the case, the benefits are nice, a nice clean civilised country just ripe for turning into a terrifying place in due course.

Then there’s the problem of anyone who criticizes the weirdos, themselves shielding behind some hocus pocus divine words just as charlatans here did many centuries ago, are genuinely in fear of finding themselves suddenly dead.

It’s our fault in the west, we’ve kissed extremist arses for too bloody long in order to placate them and humour them in the hope they’ll what?, kill fewer of us at a time?
Who would have thought the bloody IRA brass would have forced surrender on the British and end up invited to Buck Palace for tea with the queen.

Course it doesn’t help electing nutters as presidents and prime ministers who bomb civilians to hell and back and then wonder why their kin hate us…hmm now why would that be?

I actually don’t assume this. There is an element of devil’s advocate. I portrayed the point deliberately like this to illicit a response on that issue to try and avoid side stepping it. Cornering if you will. The sentiment I raised is the very meat and potatoes of why people are losing patience fast.

The UK Islamic response is more slippery than a bloody jellyfish. My own opinions are several steps further fold following my own experiences.

165

Freight Dog:
The UK Islamic response is more slippery than a bloody jellyfish. My own opinions are several steps further.

+1

Anything less than that idea just being dangerous naivety in this case. :bulb:

166

Carryfast:
You’re avin a larf.There is a point where we just have to accept that a whole region of the world and in general,with some exceptions its culture,is a threat to us.If we’ve got an immigrant community within the country that has any form of allegiance to that threat and culture then that’s obviously a problem of national security which can only be dealt with by deportation of it back to the place where it’s allegiance is.

What you’re describing is a civil war. Why don’t you describe it as such?

Are we really at the point where ten million of us need to be mobilised to fight an internal civil war in Britain? Followed up, if successful, by a prolonged guerrilla campaign against dislocated Brits dumped abroad in some foreign country?

You need to get real Carryfast. These proposals you make idly on a discussion forum as if it involves the mere stroke of a pen to execute, rather than the disintegration of Britain, the loss of a substantial chunk of our GDP (and the commandeering of what is left for military purposes and basic life support), hundreds of thousands of deaths, the suspension of democracy, and the end of daily life as we currently know it for a very long time!

These are not the sorts of wars you choose to fight, because you don’t like curry, or seeing other women who choose to wear a veil, or because a significant number of people disagree idly with our foreign policy initiatives. Those differences don’t even begin to justify a civil war, and in fact it would verge on the lunatic thinking of a madman to even contemplate it.

Asw for bombing the Middle East back to the stone age that’s probably what it’s going take at some point and certainly would have helped in the case of Iran in 1979.

But a truly neolithic age doesn’t mean that the place is pacified or rendered harmless to us. On the contrary, it means human life becomes trivially cheap to reproduce (and cheap to lose), it means all our civilised values, all the constraints of settled life which operate on our opponents, are rendered impotent in that part of the world. Far from pacification, that describes a condition of utmost human liquidation and radicalisation.

This is in fact the reason why radicals usually want to provoke an overwhelming military response, because by doing so we change the social conditions in those places to be more favourable to their goals than ours.

167

Rjan:

Carryfast:
You’re avin a larf.There is a point where we just have to accept that a whole region of the world and in general,with some exceptions its culture,is a threat to us.If we’ve got an immigrant community within the country that has any form of allegiance to that threat and culture then that’s obviously a problem of national security which can only be dealt with by deportation of it back to the place where it’s allegiance is.

What you’re describing is a civil war. Why don’t you describe it as such?

Are we really at the point where ten million of us need to be mobilised to fight an internal civil war in Britain? Followed up, if successful, by a prolonged guerrilla campaign against dislocated Brits dumped abroad in some foreign country?

You need to get real Carryfast. These proposals you make idly on a discussion forum as if it involves the mere stroke of a pen to execute, rather than the disintegration of Britain, the loss of a substantial chunk of our GDP (and the commandeering of what is left for military purposes and basic life support), hundreds of thousands of deaths, the suspension of democracy, and the end of daily life as we currently know it for a very long time!

These are not the sorts of wars you choose to fight, because you don’t like curry, or seeing other women who choose to wear a veil, or because a significant number of people disagree idly with our foreign policy initiatives. Those differences don’t even begin to justify a civil war, and in fact it would verge on the lunatic thinking of a madman to even contemplate it.

Asw for bombing the Middle East back to the stone age that’s probably what it’s going take at some point and certainly would have helped in the case of Iran in 1979.

But a truly neolithic age doesn’t mean that the place is pacified or rendered harmless to us. On the contrary, it means human life becomes trivially cheap to reproduce (and cheap to lose), it means all our civilised values, all the constraints of settled life which operate on our opponents, are rendered impotent in that part of the world. Far from pacification, that describes a condition of utmost human liquidation and radicalisation.

This is in fact the reason why radicals usually want to provoke an overwhelming military response, because by doing so we change the social conditions in those places to be more favourable to their goals than ours.

It’s not a civil war because what you’re describing is a one sided action all on their part jut as we’ve got anyway.In which case we obviously have everything to gain by nipping it in the bud now than allowing to grow stronger later.

We shouldn’t have any ‘goals’ for the Islamic world other than to recognise that they are,on balance,a hostile enemy and render them harmless to themselves,their neighbours and us on that basis.We’re not going to do that by pouring arms into the place such as making the Saudi military better equipped than our own and trying to differentiate so called ‘good’ Islamists/Iraqis//Syrians from bad etc etc.Nor by bringing that hostile culture here among us.In just the same way that Israel doesn’t allow mass Islamic immigration nor arms its Arab neighbours.

On that note bombing the place back to the stone age and/or sealing their borders with Europe,and/or most importantly as part of that totally smashing their military capability.Which will by necessity concentrate minds in the region that they’ll need to put all their efforts into peacetime activeties and rebuilding their countries.Instead of fighting and killing each other and their neighbours and spreading their backward savage religion into Europe etc where it has no place and isn’t wanted.I’ll include Erdogan and his obvious Islamic agenda in that.

To which your bs answer is let’s go on bringing them here among us and continue the status quo of appeasement in the form of allowing them to grow ever stronger ideologically and militarily by continuing to pour arms into the place.While apologising to them every time we have to take inevitable action to stop their typical backward violent actions whether it be attacking each other or their neighbours or us.Although as I’ve said that isn’t surprising bearing in mind the historic Socialist agenda regards same such as in 1973. :unamused:

168

Freight Dog:
When I said no matter what it takes I didn’t mean that. It was a bit open ended what I said so I should clarify. I mean no matter what your background, community, colour or beliefs we should all recognise if anyone has an opportunity to help keep the country safe, they should take that opportunity as part of moral responsibility to others.

You say Islam isn’t a national identity and that is true, but as a group within the UK, they are UK citizens no? They have the same responsibility as us all?

Yes, and that could be a huge resource for us in understanding and developing the Middle East, but many ‘indigenous Brits’ go out their way to alienate the Islamic community and pick fights over insignificant cultural differences, and many of those communities live in increasing poverty under both free market capitalism and the discrimination they experience. I’ve got Carryfast on here saying British-born Muslims should be “sent back” to somewhere that is never specifically identified.

As a group within the UK it empirically has far more contact and eyes on the ground with individuals at risk of developing dangerous ideals. It is Islamic radicalisation we’re talking about. Surely at least 50 percent of the community’s priority should be acknowledging that they have the power to help more than any other community and should actively assist and take measures to meet the threat.

But even well-motivated Islamic moderates can’t wholly compensate for our foreign policy which is an underlying material cause of that radicalisation, nor can they wholly compensate for the ambivalence created when British nationalists and far-right sympathisers treat the Islamic community poorly.

You see, to myself and others I see it that these people who pose a risk are hidden behind a community cloak.

The reality is, they aren’t hidden. I used the analogy before about boiling water - steam isn’t hiding in the water, it is the water, and trying to target individual molecules to prevent boiling into steam is almost hopeless unless a heat source is removed.

I didn’t create foreign policy.

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).

but as a group they should bloody well get off the soap box and actually help us. And that’s keeping all safe, including uk Muslims.

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.

169

Carryfast:
We shouldn’t have any ‘goals’ for the Islamic world other than to recognise that they are,on balance,a hostile enemy and render them harmless to themselves,their neighbours and us on that basis.

Then why are all your solutions of a radicalising kind? Can’t you get it, that the nub of your folly is in using radicalising means to achieve the goal of pacification?

It might seem counterintuitive to many, but bombing a village that has no conventional army, produces a completely different effect to bombing a village that does! In the latter case, the conventional army is pacified and its logistical tail degraded, the morale of its men diminished, but the underlying regime maintains order and discipline and makes compensations to preserve settled civil life.

In the former case, settled farmers and family men are radicalised into guerrilla soldiers, and because those guerrilla soldiers are the boiling off of the settled population, when you bomb the settled population more or disrupt their lives, you cause more boiling off of settled farmers into guerrilla fighters. Eventually, if the disruption of settled life does not cease, the entire population will be boiled off into guerrilla fighters.

170

Rjan:
Yes, and that could be a huge resource for us in understanding and developing the Middle East, but many ‘indigenous Brits’ go out their way to alienate the Islamic community and pick fights over insignificant cultural differences, and many of those communities live in increasing poverty under both free market capitalism and the discrimination they experience. I’ve got Carryfast on here saying British-born Muslims should be “sent back” to somewhere that is never specifically identified.

I wouldn’t call Wahabbi Sharia or Iranian revolutionary law enforced by the sword etc an ‘insignificant cultural difference’.

Sorry Rjan you’re trying to mix two incompatible cultures,if not tacitly supporting an enemy one,using obsolete long gone Soviet ideology with inevitable results.Even Soviet Russia having found such stupidity turning round and biting it in Afghanistan in the process.

171

Rjan:

Carryfast:
We shouldn’t have any ‘goals’ for the Islamic world other than to recognise that they are,on balance,a hostile enemy and render them harmless to themselves,their neighbours and us on that basis.

Then why are all your solutions of a radicalising kind? Can’t you get it, that the nub of your folly is in using radicalising means to achieve the goal of pacification?

It might seem counterintuitive to many, but bombing a village that has no conventional army, produces a completely different effect to bombing a village that does! In the latter case, the conventional army is pacified and its logistical tail degraded, the morale of its men diminished, but the underlying regime maintains order and discipline and makes compensations to preserve settled civil life.

In the former case, settled farmers and family men are radicalised into guerrilla soldiers, and because those guerrilla soldiers are the boiling off of the settled population, when you bomb the settled population more or disrupt their lives, you cause more boiling off of settled farmers into guerrilla fighters. Eventually, if the disruption of settled life does not cease, the entire population will be boiled off into guerrilla fighters.

I said seal the borders and do whatever it takes to disarm the population and concentrate their minds on peacetime activeties.If that means having to bomb every building to dust so be it.If not that’s obviously a bonus.

Instead of which we’ve got arms and cash being poured into the region in greater amounts than ever open door immigration with an enemy culture and appeasement at every level of government.If not typically outdated Soviet style tacit support,in the form of the same old pro Arab anti Israeli bs,by the Socialist agenda here.

172

Rjan:

Freight Dog:
When I said no matter what it takes I didn’t mean that. It was a bit open ended what I said so I should clarify. I mean no matter what your background, community, colour or beliefs we should all recognise if anyone has an opportunity to help keep the country safe, they should take that opportunity as part of moral responsibility to others.

You say Islam isn’t a national identity and that is true, but as a group within the UK, they are UK citizens no? They have the same responsibility as us all?

Yes, and that could be a huge resource for us in understanding and developing the Middle East, but many ‘indigenous Brits’ go out their way to alienate the Islamic community and pick fights over insignificant cultural differences, and many of those communities live in increasing poverty under both free market capitalism and the discrimination they experience. I’ve got Carryfast on here saying British-born Muslims should be “sent back” to somewhere that is never specifically identified.

As a group within the UK it empirically has far more contact and eyes on the ground with individuals at risk of developing dangerous ideals. It is Islamic radicalisation we’re talking about. Surely at least 50 percent of the community’s priority should be acknowledging that they have the power to help more than any other community and should actively assist and take measures to meet the threat.

But even well-motivated Islamic moderates can’t wholly compensate for our foreign policy which is an underlying material cause of that radicalisation, nor can they wholly compensate for the ambivalence created when British nationalists and far-right sympathisers treat the Islamic community poorly.

You see, to myself and others I see it that these people who pose a risk are hidden behind a community cloak.

The reality is, they aren’t hidden. I used the analogy before about boiling water - steam isn’t hiding in the water, it is the water, and trying to target individual molecules to prevent boiling into steam is almost hopeless unless a heat source is removed.

I didn’t create foreign policy.

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).

but as a group they should bloody well get off the soap box and actually help us. And that’s keeping all safe, including uk Muslims.

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.

:open_mouth:

This is your response to my post challenging UK Islamic inaction? This is it? Anyone else care to comment?

If your opinions are by twist or fluke actually mirrored by any of the UK Islamic community then we have a huge problem. If your squirrelly, sloppy shoulder attitude to a basic challenge of inaction is anyway similar to UK Islam’s opinion, then this is why there exists marginalization. The community is marginalising itself. And with defiant disregard for safety of fellow citizens.

"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.”

173

Freight Dog:
This is your response to my post challenging UK Islamic inaction? This is it? Anyone else care to comment?

I’ll comment! :smiley:

Don’t bother debating with someone who won’t address your points, either ignoring them or says they are not relevant.
I tried comparing cultural differences with Rjan saying that we breed pigs to eat, so we can’t judge just places like North Korea where it’s culturally acceptable to eat dogs. He comes back and tries to introduce cannibalism and eating babies into the equation! :open_mouth:

I ended the discussion there… :unamused:

174

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?

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?

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

175

Is this the answer Freight Dog? :smiley:

176

Evil8Beezle:
Is this the answer Freight Dog? :smiley:

The old me used to think it was something as innocent and infantile. My experiences as an older me have led to deduct its far more sinister.

177

Freight Dog:
My experiences as an older me have led to deduct its far more sinister.

You’re not alone in your “open mind” there pal… :wink:

178

Freight Dog:
"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.”

Not inaction.More like if it looks and quacks like a 1960’s/70’s Soviet Socialist/Islamic alliance type agenda duck,this time in the form of people like Merkel and Hollande and Corbyn and their supporters,it’s probably a duck. :bulb:

On that note Blair had the right idea in that the idea of GW2 was all about trying to disarm the zb’s and render them harmless in whatever regard.It’s just that something got lost in the translation between him and Bush in terms of tactics and objectives.Also that it would have taken the same policy to be applied to Saudi,Iran and Syria and all weapons not just so called WMD’s and a major rethink on our Islamic immigration policy in Europe, to make it work. :open_mouth: As for Afghanistan nothing less than use of tactical nukes was ever going to work there.Which still would have left the issue of Pakistan.

179

Evil8Beezle:
Don’t bother debating with someone who won’t address your points, either ignoring them or says they are not relevant.

+1
I also gave him a few examples of where religion, not western bombings, were reasons given by terrorists but he ignored them. I didnt even bother countering his whole butchers shop acceptability ■■■■■■■■ because I could tell it would be pointless. He’s someone with a very big “my point of view or you’re wrong” mentality.

180

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.