Rivers of Blood

[Ex Lion Tamer]

My assertion was you didn't have any evidence to support your point of view. I was correct.

Lol

[Viking Warrior]

Veiw from the top ,

 

It's not 100 % certain it's Iran as there are jihadist from various countries involved with ISIS

Brits , chechians etc etc

IIiS first raised it's head in Syria not Iraq .

But when our troops were on Op Telic , and Moqtada came to the fore , Iran were providing weapons to him and Shias , hence the problems that started in Basra etc

[View From The Top]

Veiw from the top ,

 

It's not 100 % certain it's Iran as there are jihadist from various countries involved with ISIS

Brits , chechians etc etc

IIiS first raised it's head in Syria not Iraq .

But when our troops were on Op Telic , and Moqtada came to the fore , Iran were providing weapons to him and Shias , hence the problems that started in Basra etc

 

ISIS = Sunni

 

Iran= Shia

 

There is no way, no way all, that Iran is involved None. Nada. Zip. Nowt. Zero.

[Halo Stickman]

It is human nature to integrate.

 

The area of Devon in which I presently live has seen a large influx of newcomers over the last 30 years or so, mainly from the Midlands and northern UK. As an example of what you are saying, most of these people make efforts to integrate into the local community, but it’s not easy because, for instance, in the town in which I live there is a saying that you’re not accepted as a local until you have at least two generations of your family buried in the town’s graveyard.

 

When these newcomers give reasons as to why they moved to the area they cite the usual stuff like wanting to be near to the sea or that they had previously enjoyed holidays here, but often they also go on to say something like “and the thing is, where we used to live has changed so much, do you know what, on our street we were the only …” Usually they stop themselves at this point, but we all know what they were going to say.

 

So, integration in one respect, but not on the other.

 

“It’s human nature to integrate.” I truly wish this was the case, but I fear that on many levels it isn’t. The overwhelming majority of us will place the interests of a close family member ahead of those of an extended family member; likewise, we’ll place the interests of the latter ahead of those of a stranger. This is a natural instinct and very few people would argue that there’s anything wrong with this. Furthermore, there are sound and well documented genetic reasons for this kinship bias, which we don’t need to go into here.

 

But, many people – by no means all, but many – will place the interests of their fellow countrymen, or the interests of their fellow religious, political, ethnic, cultural, race and species group, ahead of the interests of any other group. The reasons for this group bias are varied and complex and are often unsound. Again, we don’t need to go into them, but we have to acknowledge that group bias exists, and that it can manifest itself as prejudice, intolerance, hatred and hostility.

 

Yes, there are plenty of examples throughout history of people successfully integrating, but there are also plenty of examples where seemingly successful integration has unravelled the moment stressors such as famine, financial hardship, conflict, war or sudden removal of suppressing leadership has occurred. And, Colinjb has already made a very good point about integration, assimilation and annihilation.

 

But Polaroid Saint, having said all this, I do agree with you that integration is the only way forward; indeed, for the sake of world peace, there’s probably a good argument for dismantling all political, religious, national and other divides, so that all seven billion of us can live in one big integrated harmonious melting pot. But, sadly, looking at Ukraine, Gaza, Syria, Iraq et al, anyone that thinks there’s a chance of that happening soon – or, indeed, ever – has probably spent too long integrating with the fairies.

 

Besides, which one of us would want to integrate with that bunch of skates down the road ffs.

[Viking Warrior]

VFTT

 

Miss read your post re IRAN

iSIS is Sunni , I agree but is. Also made up of other terrorists.

 

The guys who killed foley were Sunni or followed Sunni ideology

Sunni use decapitation as a means of killing their opponents whether western or Shia

Shia are a bit more barbaric but will keep the head in tact .

That was the norm in Iraq during op Telic. You would know who had killed wh if the head was missing

 

I think the ISIS is far more extreme than just Sunni ideology and religious beliefs

[holepuncture]

It was evident from the start that the real motives of multiculturalism were never benevolent; it was about creating divide and rule and implementing a strategy of tension.

 

...

 

Hopefully though, the majority will realise they are being played.

 

That does seem to be the case, though what is the end game for the mysterious superpowers that are setting the world in this direction?

 

Government has been in 'when not if' mode regarding terror for around a decade now. I take Tony Blairs words seriously, due to his war history and his ironic role in the middle east post premiership. He says we will bring terrorism to our streets on the back of our failure to intervene in Syria, it seems to be playing out that way.

 

The people of Britain will absolutely destroy these scumbags if they try and kick off in the UK.

 

They are hugely outnumbered, cowards as well.

[aintforever]

He says we will bring terrorism to our streets on the back of our failure to intervene in Syria

 

I'm not sure how he works this out. I thought the government's plan in Syria was to bomb the sh!t out of Assad which would help ISIS.

[pap]

That does seem to be the case, though what is the end game for the mysterious superpowers that are setting the world in this direction?

 

Not that mysterious. Balkanise the Middle East by breaking states up into smaller, easier to control entities with Western pals in charge. Previously, I'd always thought Iran might be part of the endgame, but the recent thawing of relations with the US has caused me to reconsider that assessment.

 

Government has been in 'when not if' mode regarding terror for around a decade now. I take Tony Blairs words seriously, due to his war history and his ironic role in the middle east post premiership. He says we will bring terrorism to our streets on the back of our failure to intervene in Syria, it seems to be playing out that way.

 

I don't take anything he says seriously. The man is a walking contradiction. Responsible for one of the bloodiest conflicts since the Second World War, inexplicably UN Envoy for peace in the Middle East. A complete and utter liar.

 

The people of Britain will absolutely destroy these scumbags if they try and kick off in the UK.

 

They are hugely outnumbered, cowards as well.

 

This is where it all gets a bit far right for me, especially as I remember you referring to an entire ethnicity as "vermin".

 

We may agree on the true goals of multiculturalism. Don't assume we've got the same outcomes in mind.

 

If the purpose of multiculturalism is to divide us and rob us of collective bargaining power, then I'd suggest that the solution is for people to start talking and working together to identify and realise common goals.

 

The last thing we need is a load of loser fúcking fascists going around mob-handed, coshing anyone with a tan.

[um pahars]

Please read the report, or, if you haven't got the time, I quote:

 

 

 

Steve, you need to improve your English...

 

John, I was replying to your use of the higher figure of 800,000ish who couldn't speak English when the actual figure was just over 100,000 (the difference being those who couldn't speak it well, not ideal, but definitely not speaking English at all).

 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/language-in-england-and-wales-2011/rpt---language-in-england-and-wales--2011.html

 

I agree that not speaking English is a barrier to integration, but I don't think that's the same as not wanting to integrate (as per Powell's claim), and I would like to think that over time those who have emigrated here (and most definitely the next generation) would in turn speak the local language.

[um pahars]

Migrants who cannot speak English well or not at all find it impossible to integrate in this country and are more likely to be in receipt of benefits and unable to find work. Both political parties see the command of our language the biggest barrier to the integration of the vast number of migrants Labour allowed into the country. It could also explain why many of the 785,000 and their dependants are alienated from our society and a small percentage of these are radicalised.

 

Let me know if you have trouble understanding the point and I will draw you a picture....

 

Listening to those in groups like Al-Muhajiroun, Muslim Against Crusades etc, then I'm not sure that their lack of command of the English Language is a driving force for their hatred and radicalised views on the world.

[Guided Missile]

Seriously guys, I think "Police Academy 9 - Jihadists Return to Croydon" is a movie that needs to be made....

[holepuncture]

Not that mysterious. Balkanise the Middle East by breaking states up into smaller, easier to control entities with Western pals in charge. Previously, I'd always thought Iran might be part of the endgame, but the recent thawing of relations with the US has caused me to reconsider that assessment.

 

But who in the west, the House of Lords, Bilderberg/NWO etc, US arms corps, Religious leaders?

[Saint in Paradise]

I promised Steve Grant I won't post the link that I saw about some murders that Muslim "Islam State" lot

have done in the name of religion. I just cannot find strong enough words to describe them. The pictures

are far, far, far too horrific for here.

[Batman]

[Batman]

well, the treat level has been raised. More so because over 200 of the nutters fighting for ISIS are back home in the UK

[Sour Mash]

well, the treat level has been raised. More so because over 200 of the nutters fighting for ISIS are back home in the UK

AN utter, utter embarrassment that these people are resident in the UK. It's that same one community again, such a positive addition to the UK.

[aintforever]

well, the treat level has been raised. More so because over 200 of the nutters fighting for ISIS are back home in the UK

 

I guess it's not quite as much fun for them out in Syria/Iraq now that the yanks and their Hellfires have joined in.

[Batman]

AN utter, utter embarrassment that these people are resident in the UK. It's that same one community again, such a positive addition to the UK.

 

It will only take one of them to be booted out of the country before the human rights lawyers will be piping up for them.

[um pahars]

well, the treat level has been raised. More so because over 200 of the nutters fighting for ISIS are back home in the UK

 

It wasn't that long ago that the current Govt were pushing to be theirs and others Air Force against Assad!

[Batman]

It wasn't that long ago that the current Govt were pushing to be theirs and others Air Force against Assad!

 

That was to get rid of his chemical weapons. Which he did get rid.

Had we not even threatened, those weapons would probably be in the hands of Isis now anyway (or not far off)

[Jonnyboy]

well, the treat level has been raised. More so because over 200 of the nutters fighting for ISIS are back home in the UK

 

Ooooh! I love a treat!

[pap]

Let's hope the members of the IS are the nice ones we armed, trained and William Hague wanted us to fight beside, not the nasty ones that are in the news.

[hypochondriac]

Let's hope the members of the IS are the nice ones we armed, trained and William Hague wanted us to fight beside, not the nasty ones that are in the news.

 

My Arabic relatives believe that the Islamic State as a concept has been exaggerated in the western media and that these atrocities committed by "Islam" have been encouraged as part of a propaganda war against Muslims. It has the effect of both eroding civil liberties in the UK (new powers for the police today etc) and provides further justification for the Israelis. Not sure how true that viewpoint is.

[pap]

My Arabic relatives believe that the Islamic State as a concept has been exaggerated in the western media and that these atrocities committed by "Islam" have been encouraged as part of a propaganda war against Muslims. It has the effect of both eroding civil liberties in the UK (new powers for the police today etc) and provides further justification for the Israelis. Not sure how true that viewpoint is.

 

The Syrian part of IS are the same people that Hague wanted us to buddy up with against Assad. The rebels were financed and trained by the usual cabal of corrupt, Western-allied Arab states, Israel, the US and UK. Perhaps people remember the fuss over whether it was ok to send them weapons (it was).

 

The most innocent appraisal that one can make of the West is that this is a serious case of blowback, and even that doesn't look good. Our Foreign Secretary was suggesting we join forces with the rebels, which included Al-Qaeda. Few were convinced by that argument; Parliament certainly wasn't.

 

I'd probably agree with your Arab relatives on the propaganda angle. They really are the ultimate Muslim bogeyman; you only need to look at this thread to see that. Some hold them up as representative of a general barbarism in the Islamic faith.

 

I'd go further and say that elements of them (at least) are controlled opposition. The back channels were all established when funding the Syrian rebels, and their operations handily coincided with atrocities committed elsewhere.

 

The only positive I can see is that the War on Terror may be drawing to a close. One of the problems with the original mission was that the enemy was nebulous, ill-defined and geographically difficult to locate. If there is a benefit to the Islamic State, it's having a precise group of people to go after in a relatively well defined area.

[Saint in Paradise]

I look forward to the day when moderate Muslims throughout the world, including of course Muslim countries,

hold wide spread demonstrations against these so called minority extremists. That will be the day that I can

start to really believe that ordinary Muslims disagree with the extremists.

 

Do I think that day will be in my lifetime ? Not an effing chance.

[um pahars]

That was to get rid of his chemical weapons. Which he did get rid.

Had we not even threatened, those weapons would probably be in the hands of Isis now anyway (or not far off)

 

His army/Air Force are still dropping barrels filled with chlorine on civilian areas (as per the recent UN statement on war crimes in Syria).

 

The whole thing is a clusterfkck.

 

Despot dictators ruling by fear over historically imposed boundaries, minorities persecuted (then & now), potentially positive "Arab Springs" turning into 2/3/4/5 way civil wars, western countries intervening here and there, other Middle Eastern states fighting proxy wars and Ideologies & Religion being used to justify it all.

 

Pandora's box has been smashed open.

[hypochondriac]

I look forward to the day when moderate Muslims throughout the world, including of course Muslim countries,

hold wide spread demonstrations against these so called minority extremists. That will be the day that I can

start to really believe that ordinary Muslims disagree with the extremists.

 

Do I think that day will be in my lifetime ? Not an effing chance.

 

You do realise there are individuals in these Muslim countries who are putting their own lives at risk to fight these extremists? Probably don't have much time for protesting as well.

[ecuk268]

A long read but a good explanation of the cuplability of the Saudis and Qataris in the funding of ISIS.

 

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2014/4134wahhabi_terrs.html

 

So, what action are we taking against them? Bug*er all because they might stop buying weapons from us.

 

Morals have no place in politics.

Edited 30 August, 2014 by ecuk268
typo

[View From The Top]

A long read but a good explanation of the cuplability of the Saudis and Qataris in the funding of ISIS.

 

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2014/4134wahhabi_terrs.html

 

So, what action are we taking against them? Bug*er all because they might stop buying weapons from us.

 

Morals ahve no place in politics.

 

The Saudis are behind radical Islam. Their petrodollars have funded it.

[View From The Top]

I look forward to the day when moderate Muslims throughout the world, including of course Muslim countries,

hold wide spread demonstrations against these so called minority extremists. That will be the day that I can

start to really believe that ordinary Muslims disagree with the extremists.

 

Do I think that day will be in my lifetime ? Not an effing chance.

 

We know you're not the sharpest but you do understand, I hope, that it's Muslims fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

[Saint in Paradise]

A brave but miniscule amount compared with the number of Muslims in the rest of the world.

These men will be thought of and treated as traitors just like the Russians etc who helped the

Germans in WW2 were.

 

Personal attacks show that you haven't a coherent argument.

[View From The Top]

A brave but miniscule amount compared with the number of Muslims in the rest of the world.

These men will be thought of and treated as traitors just like the Russians etc who helped the

Germans in WW2 were.

 

Personal attacks show that you haven't a coherent argument.

 

Personal attacks are due to you being an utter moron who really doesn't have a clue.

 

You are a thick, bigoted f**kwit.

[saintfully]

A brave but miniscule amount compared with the number of Muslims in the rest of the world.

These men will be thought of and treated as traitors just like the Russians etc who helped the

Germans in WW2 were.

 

Personal attacks show that you haven't a coherent argument.

 

Even by your imperious standards this comment is staggering in its stupidity. Can you tell us the rhyme you use to help you get dressed in the morning?

[Rasiak-9-]

The Saudis are behind radical Islam. Their petrodollars have funded it.

 

What exactly do the Saudi's stand to gain from fueling an unpredictable and volatile force like the IS?

 

Their political control over their own country is fairly secure, not to mention the fact that plenty of Islamic extremists don't like Saudi Arabia because of its alliances with the USA and (in Bin Laden's case) the fact that they allowed American troops too near to the Muslim holy sites.

 

I'm not quite sure what their incentive is. If anything I'd assume they'd want to keep them under wraps.

[sebastian firefly]

simply the one of the best articles about isis ive read

 

The War Nerd: Here’s everything you need to know about “too extreme for Al Qaeda” I.S.I.S.

 

http://pando.com/2014/06/16/the-war-nerd-heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-too-extreme-for-al-qaeda-i-s-i-s/

[Verbal]

What exactly do the Saudi's stand to gain from fueling an unpredictable and volatile force like the IS?

 

Their political control over their own country is fairly secure, not to mention the fact that plenty of Islamic extremists don't like Saudi Arabia because of its alliances with the USA and (in Bin Laden's case) the fact that they allowed American troops too near to the Muslim holy sites.

 

I'm not quite sure what their incentive is. If anything I'd assume they'd want to keep them under wraps.

 

The Saudis - actually a mix of state support and shadowy private funders - have a great deal to gain, at least in their eyes. The country is flanked or in close proximity to Iran, Iraq and Syria - all Shia (or in Syria's case an alewife version of it). Were it not for the oil, Wahhabism would be seen more clearly in the West for what it really is - an extreme, conservative, archaic form of Sunni Islam, of which Salafism (the shared ideology of Al Qaeda and ISIS) is just a yet more extreme version.

 

The Saudis are using ISIS to try to drive the Shia governments in Iraq and Syria into submission, and curtail the influence of Iran. It's a proxy war - creating religious armies to fight their battles for them. It's not an uncommon tactic: the Pakistani secret service, the ISI, created the Taliban with a similar objective - to hamper Indian influence in Afghanistan by funding Salafist insurgents to defeat large religious and ethnic minorities who might have been sympathetic to India (and to India's blandishments). The Pakistan army fights a proxy war against India with Salafist insurgents in Kashmir - mostly because it is so useless as a military force (much more effective as a property owner, bizarrely). Iran also does it with Hezbollah and, to some degree, Hamas.

 

So this is a religious war within Islam - one the Saudis are desperate not to lose. As the 'defenders of the faith' (with the two most important monuments in Islam), the Saudis are terrified of Shia encroachment, even on lesser stages like Bahrain and Kurdistan. And actually, it's a war that has virtually nothing to do with the West, much as we like to terrify ourselves with the non-existent prospect of a Caliphate in Whitehall.

[View From The Top]

What exactly do the Saudi's stand to gain from fueling an unpredictable and volatile force like the IS?

 

Their political control over their own country is fairly secure, not to mention the fact that plenty of Islamic extremists don't like Saudi Arabia because of its alliances with the USA and (in Bin Laden's case) the fact that they allowed American troops too near to the Muslim holy sites.

 

I'm not quite sure what their incentive is. If anything I'd assume they'd want to keep them under wraps.

 

I think Verbal has summed it up perfectly.

[Rasiak-9-]

The Saudis - actually a mix of state support and shadowy private funders - have a great deal to gain, at least in their eyes. The country is flanked or in close proximity to Iran, Iraq and Syria - all Shia (or in Syria's case an alewife version of it). Were it not for the oil, Wahhabism would be seen more clearly in the West for what it really is - an extreme, conservative, archaic form of Sunni Islam, of which Salafism (the shared ideology of Al Qaeda and ISIS) is just a yet more extreme version.

 

The Saudis are using ISIS to try to drive the Shia governments in Iraq and Syria into submission, and curtail the influence of Iran. It's a proxy war - creating religious armies to fight their battles for them. It's not an uncommon tactic: the Pakistani secret service, the ISI, created the Taliban with a similar objective - to hamper Indian influence in Afghanistan by funding Salafist insurgents to defeat large religious and ethnic minorities who might have been sympathetic to India (and to India's blandishments). The Pakistan army fights a proxy war against India with Salafist insurgents in Kashmir - mostly because it is so useless as a military force (much more effective as a property owner, bizarrely). Iran also does it with Hezbollah and, to some degree, Hamas.

 

So this is a religious war within Islam - one the Saudis are desperate not to lose. As the 'defenders of the faith' (with the two most important monuments in Islam), the Saudis are terrified of Shia encroachment, even on lesser stages like Bahrain and Kurdistan. And actually, it's a war that has virtually nothing to do with the West, much as we like to terrify ourselves with the non-existent prospect of a Caliphate in Whitehall.

 

Sounds very interesting. Sources please?

[um pahars]

simply the one of the best articles about isis ive read

 

The War Nerd: Here’s everything you need to know about “too extreme for Al Qaeda” I.S.I.S.

 

http://pando.com/2014/06/16/the-war-nerd-heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-too-extreme-for-al-qaeda-i-s-i-s/

 

Very interesting read, so thanks for posting up the link.

 

With regards the swathe of territory, I did think that large parts of the "ISIS controlled territory" were indeed barren scrubland and as the piece mentions, towns like Fallujah have only nominally run by those in Baghdad.

[Orange]

Enoch was in my eyes a man who loved his country dearly, albeit provocatively at times, and feared seeing traditional working class communities torn apart by mass immigration. He was merely saying that if immigration from certain countries/cultures is at such a high level in a short space of time, instead of integrating into British culture they will just set up their own 'new' communities. This has now happened and only a deluded loony lefty would not be able to see the damage it's done to our society and cohesion. These multiculturalist nut cases have now created the absurd scenario where we have our own so called British nationals planning attacks against us, groups of men praying on white girls because they deem them inferior and fair game, and white British now being an increasing minority in the country's own capital city.

 

It could be worse, we could be France (hence the success of the national front), areas of France are becoming more and more Islamic and at current birth rates it's only going to carry on faster and faster.