Britain’s phoney war on terror

[Lov3ll]

Britain’s phoney war on terror
We are too concerned with multiculturalism and political correctness to combat the threat of Islamism effectively

After spending time recently with senior Pentagon officials and other Americans involved in counter-terror-ism, I was struck by the global scope of their concerns. Above all I was reminded how different their attitudes are from those of their British counterparts, still obsessed with “community cohesion” and the “radicalisation” of young Muslims.
In Britain the views of the nonMuslim majority are largely ignored - or lead to them being branded as potential “Islamophobes”. In the United States the unthinkable and unsayable are debated openly.
Last month, for example, the Senate committee on homeland security heard evidence about the likely effects of a terrorist nuclear attack on Washington. It started with a chilling scenario: a 10-kiloton bomb in a truck beside the White House. First, the committee was told, it would kill about 100,000 people and erase a two-mile radius of mainly federal buildings. Most of the casualties would be burn victims, the majority of them African Americans who worked for the government.

About 95% of them would die in agony, because capacity to treat such cases is limited to about 1,500. Since the winds blow west to east, the ensuing radioactive plume would drift towards the poor black neighbourhoods of the capital’s southeast, where there is only one hospital. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the committee, concluded: “Now is the time to ask the tough questions and then to get answers as best we can.”
I can’t help wondering what preparations for such a nightmare scenario are being made here in Britain. Does anyone know if our parliamentarians are asking similar questions?
As the main target of jihadist violence, the United States has a sober estimation of the threat we face and a polyvalent strategy for dealing with it. In Britain use of the phrase the “war on terror” has been proscribed by the Brown government; local representatives of the global jihadist insurgency process through British courts in startling numbers. A recent Europol report showed that in 2007 the British arrested 203 terrorist suspects, against 201 for the rest of Europe.

By contrast, the United States is fighting a global war - against an Al-Qaeda-inspired nebula of extremists - with arms and ideas and a vast array of analytic intelligence. In essence, America wants to destroy Al-Qaeda as a brand. One strategy is to highlight the moral squalor of those who denounce the West, which means exposing the criminal underpinnings of jihadism - including reliance on conflict diamonds, counterfeiting, drug trafficking, fraud and robbery. Yet the British government has done almost nothing to undermine the noble self-image of the jihadists in the eyes of those who are drawn to Osama Bin Laden.
Elsewhere in the world jihadists are going through “deprogramming” courses in which they are given authoritative instruction in a religion most of them know only as a handful of banal slogans. The combination of aid from the West and rehabilitation schemes explains why southeast Asian jihadism is now in disarray.
The use of military force, aggressive counter-terrorism measures and diligent police work is also indispensable to defeating the insurgency; after three years of horrendous death tolls in Iraq, the United States has at last succeeded in turning the “Sunni Awakening” movement against the foreign Al-Qaeda-inspired jihadists, many from Libya or Saudi Arabia. It turns out that local people had balked at such Islamist customs as breaking the fingers of smokers and shooting anyone selling alcohol. The Sunni counter-insurgents may not relish US occupation, but they like the jihadist reign of terror even less.

No European country faces the global challenges confronting the United States, but because of its success in integrating Arab immigrants, America largely faces an external threat. Europeans face one hatching among second or third-generation north Africans, Bangladeshis or Pakistanis, not to speak of indigenous converts.
Europe can be weak in combating terrorism at a political level, largely because of the effects of officially decreed multiculturalism and a failure to do much about the impact of population movements on the host culture and economy. Not surprisingly, the failure of European governments to get a grip on what are still relatively small Muslim minorities provokes exasperation in America.
Many of the 1.6m Muslims living in Britain, for example, still do not seem fully to appreciate the outrage that a finger-jabbing minority causes at home and abroad with each escalating demand for Islamist enclaves. Like a perennial student, new Labour favours debate and dialogue. But in dealing with the Muslim Council of Britain, the government has unwittingly accepted as “community” interlocutors men who have blamed Islamist terrorism primarily on British foreign policy, while failing to condemn suicide bombing outside the UK.

Hardly anything is being done to stem the flow of Wahhabist money and its intolerant ideology not only into mosques but also to university “Islamic studies” programmes. Others are also complicit in this process. Did banks think about the cultural implications of sharia-compliant finance, noticeably absent in Egypt? This was allowed by Gordon Brown without triggering the public outrage that attended the Archbishop of Canterbury’s sly unclarities about sharia.
The police seem to be turning a blind eye to “honour crimes” and to the informal resort to sharia, even when this involves manifestly criminal offences. They have preferred to turn on the makers of a Channel 4 documentary about homegrown extremists, accusing the producers of distorting the views of Muslim clerics, rather than to investigate the extremists themselves - leading Channel 4 to sue the police for libel and win.
A robust response to the jihadist threat is also stymied by ideologue lawyers who have made a decent living out of defending terrorists and by judges who, with honourable exceptions, seem to have greater allegiance to abstract notions of human rights than to our primary right of not being blown to pieces.

Attempts to free Abu Qatada, the alleged Al-Qaeda spiritual leader in Europe, amounted to a national disgrace. Lawyers claimed that if he were deported to Jordan, he might be tortured (despite agreements to the contrary). They also claimed the Jordani-ans might produce witnesses who had themselves been tortured.
Judges have recently undermined the government’s attempts to interdict terrorist financing - even in the case of a dangerous Al-Qaeda operative known for legal reasons as “G”. And it was judges who subverted the regime of control orders that was introduced at their own behest after they had released detainees from long-term custody in Belmarsh. Even the Royal Navy is reluctant to detain Somali pirates on the grounds that their “human rights” might be infringed in Saudi Arabia, Somalia or Yemen.
The government’s recent attempts to sponsor British citizenship and values to counteract the multiculturalism propagated by a previous wave of state patronage seem tired and unconvincing. There is little sense in asking Muslims to “become us” when that evidently implies to them a culture of considerable coarseness: binge drinking, crime, drugs and chronic family breakdown. Why shouldn’t they insulate themselves within the various ghettos that Britain has complacently allowed to form?

One has yet to hear a British politician of any stripe talk about what changes he wishes to see in the Muslim world – for example, in Saudi Arabia, to which we sell arms in return for passively accepting their citizens’ funding of subversive religious activities in Britain.
By contrast, Nicolas Sarkozy’s plan to give north Africa (and Israel) EU associate status suggests that he has expanded his horizons since 9/11. Meanwhile, anything that serves to strengthen liberal Muslim voices in Indonesia or Turkey is worth encouraging. It may be that the dictators - the Assads, Bouteflikas, Mubaraks, Gadaffis and others - will cling to power longer than optimists imagine. But if they don’t, how will the West help those moderates - judges, lawyers, journalists, liberals and socialists - who find themselves in temporary oppositional coalitions with fundamentalists? How do we ensure such a coalition does not go the way of the one that toppled the Shah of Iran, after which Khomeinites imprisoned or murdered their secular allies?

The one British politician who grasps the need to be as frank as our American cousins about the threat from terrorists who are actively plotting indiscriminate slaughter is not the prime minister, who appears to be locked into the globalising vapidities that thrill Davos seminars, but David Cameron. The leader of the opposition understands the existential threat from jihadism and has comprehensive ideas about how to combat it that will link foreign, defence and security policies. He is fully conscious of the need to balance ancient liberties with the right to stay alive.
Like the United States, Britain needs a dedicated border police and defences against terrorism that begin when someone buys an air ticket. It needs to dismantle the bureaucratic residue of state multiculturalism, and the deportation of foreign agitators is essential. Any appeal they may mount should take place after they have been deported. As for human rights lawyers - they can pay for their own.
A more imaginative approach to the Muslim world should go hand-in-hand with a clearer statement of what the domestic majority is not prepared to tolerate. That is the difference between a properly thought-out strategy and the government’s clue-less alternation between appeasement and knee-jerk authoritarianism.

This is an edited version of a longer article that will appear in Standpoint, the new cultural and political magazine that will be launched on Thursday

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3997524.ece

[oldsoak]

I think this paragraph says it all - the problem lies with with the lawyers and Judges emasculating the police and immigration officials

"Attempts to free Abu Qatada, the alleged Al-Qaeda spiritual leader in Europe, amounted to a national disgrace. Lawyers claimed that if he were deported to Jordan, he might be tortured (despite agreements to the contrary). They also claimed the Jordani-ans might produce witnesses who had themselves been tortured.
Judges have recently undermined the government’s attempts to interdict terrorist financing - even in the case of a dangerous Al-Qaeda operative known for legal reasons as “G”. And it was judges who subverted the regime of control orders that was introduced at their own behest after they had released detainees from long-term custody in Belmarsh. Even the Royal Navy is reluctant to detain Somali pirates on the grounds that their “human rights” might be infringed in Saudi Arabia, Somalia or Yemen."

- David Cameron is going to face the same hurdles with learned lawyers undermining any legislation he might bring in or the existing laws being more ruthlessly pursued - if the commentator thinks DC is the only one with any idea, then the writer is either conveniently ignoring his own claims or has some idea that DC can somehow ignore due process and the judiciary which is contributing to the mess we're in . Which one is it ?

[Rancid]

If this Labour Government hadn't signed us up for the Human Rights treaty our Judges and Security Forces might be able to better deal with the terrorists. The UK knows how to fight terror we've been doing it for decades all over the world, the difference from whats happened before is that the present Government is a bunch of bedwetting, bleeding heart cowards, I'm sure that none, yes thats right folks, none of our elected Government have ever served in any of our Armed Forces and they have no idea what "war" is like.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Britain is dealing with the domestic terror threat in its own way we don't really do dog and pony shows and no matter what party is in power the security forces never deviate from plan. David (Hug a Hoodie) Cameron is no more able deal with the international jihadist than Gordon Brown or Nick Clegg.

[Calanen]

I think this paragraph says it all - the problem lies with with the lawyers and Judges emasculating the police and immigration officials


Its not the lawyers and judges...its the law! Who makes the law, the politicians. And who elects the politicians..you and I.

[Dasein]

So who wants to be the first to campaign against human rights?

[Rancid]

Britain is dealing with the domestic terror threat in its own way we don't really do dog and pony shows and no matter what party is in power the security forces never deviate from plan. David (Hug a Hoodie) Cameron is no more able deal with the international jihadist than Gordon Brown or Nick Clegg.

Cameron has said that if elected he will withdraw from parts of the Human Rights treaty. This will help fight terror. The Conservative party at least have MP's that have served, David Davis being a good case in point.

[little icebear]

Yeah! Who needs human rights anyway? Just some stupid liberal invention... :D

[oldsoak]

Its not the lawyers and judges...its the law! Who makes the law, the politicians. And who elects the politicians..you and I.

- I disagree in this instance in the UK - we have plenty of laws to chuck people out and the human rights legislation we signed up to does not stop the French or the Germans from deporting people if they feel the need. In fact there is even a clause which allows us to deport people to places that have the death penalty for crime such as murder. I think we have a serious failing on the part of government lawyers to convince the judicary of desirability of some deportations, and a judiciary that does not lend itself to being convinced to act in the public interest.

[oldsoak]

Cameron has said that if elected he will withdraw from parts of the Human Rights treaty. This will help fight terror. The Conservative party at least have MP's that have served, David Davis being a good case in point.

- thats no recommendation , so did Callaghan, and look what happened there.

Withdrawing from parts of the human rights treaty will not work - citizens can still appeal to the ECHR in Strasbourg, and this will influence any outcome in British courts.

[CMNot]

Seconded what Calanen said.

If Labour in particular are willing to bung through leaky, piss poorly legislation (which they have done and continue to do with regards to just about every sector of Britain's industrial, commercial and residential law), then they will get served their just desert's.

I'd rather have someone fighting the Government (especially this Government) than allowing them carte blanche. Under the shaky way at the moment, I can be pulled anywhere at anytime under "Anti-Terror".

As for the debate on politics, webCameron's Tory's are merely New Labour by a different name. To call them 'Conservative' is damn near libelous :roll:

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Cameron has said that if elected he will withdraw from parts of the Human Rights treaty. This will help fight terror. The Conservative party at least have MP's that have served, David Davis being a good case in point.Yeah there is an odd notion that serving ones country makes you a better statesman a notion that might stand up if you have done your 20 years, did a stint in JSCSC and picked up a couple languages. A wee spell in the Territorial Army's 21 SAS before uni does not make you a counter terror expert.

[Ed Robinson]

Its not the lawyers and judges...its the law! Who makes the law, the politicians. And who elects the politicians..you and I.


Who makes case law then?

[Calanen]

- I disagree in this instance in the UK - we have plenty of laws to chuck people out and the human rights legislation we signed up to does not stop the French or the Germans from deporting people if they feel the need. In fact there is even a clause which allows us to deport people to places that have the death penalty for crime such as murder. I think we have a serious failing on the part of government lawyers to convince the judicary of desirability of some deportations, and a judiciary that does not lend itself to being convinced to act in the public interest.

You forget that all immigration law and decisions are made by the Minister. The Minister tells the government lawyers and the Crown what to do. Keep this guy around. Throw this guy out. Lawyers are only hired guns who do what they are told.

Like all things, there are some judges that get it wrong. But on the whole, the judiciary in the UK is pretty good.

There is a policy from Whitehall down of going 'softly softly' with Islamic radicals in the UK. And it is destroying the fabric of your country. That's not the fault of the lawyers or the judges. Its the fault of the politicians who implement these policies, and the people for not standing up to the politicians and saying 'enough.'

[Calanen]

Who makes case law then?

No one in the sphere of immigration, and especially with immigration law which is very code specific and statute based, its not common law at all. Judges can only interpret statutes, they cannot make them. And if the politicians disagree with an interpretation, they can immediately rewrite the legislation and say, 'We meant x instead this time'. So blaming judges, overall is a bad strategy. You cannot blame the referee, you must blame the person who has made the rules.

[oldsoak]

You forget that all immigration law and decisions are made by the Minister. The Minister tells the government lawyers and the Crown what to do. Keep this guy around. Throw this guy out. Lawyers are only hired guns who do what they are told.

Like all things, there are some judges that get it wrong. But on the whole, the judiciary in the UK is pretty good.

There is a policy from Whitehall down of going 'softly softly' with Islamic radicals in the UK. And it is destroying the fabric of your country. That's not the fault of the lawyers or the judges. Its the fault of the politicians who implement these policies, and the people for not standing up to the politicians and saying 'enough.'

I dont think thats the case regrading the ministers ability to kick people out. If you get deportation orders issued against you, the government has decided it doesnt want you in the UK or else it wouldnt bother - its not worth the appeal going to the courts otherwise. Quite a few cases fail because it cannot be proved that the person will get a fair trial or will face the death penalty in their country of origin - the fact that they are inciting violence within the UK is not considered sufficient grounds to expel an individual when it is felt they will face uncertain safety. Now, AIUI, a judge can remain unconvinced by the defence in the light of the evidence or if he/she feels that the law is being brought into disrepute they can still say that the defence have not proved that the deportation order is unlawful or infringes the apellants rights. Correct me if I am wrong - is the case in Oz as well ? I presume its historically based on UK law.
We have had cases where foreign governments have undertaken not to mistreat deportees, yet the judiciary seem unconvinced when this evidence is provided - there is no further means you can take to guarantee someones safety. IMHO, this says theres a problem either with government lawyers or the bench in accepting their case.

[Rictor]

So because the UK isn't planning for a nuclear attack on London, they're a bunch on pansies who aren't serious about the really, terribly, unimaginable grave threat that a bunch of cave-dwelling assholes and their associates represent?

Give me a break. But, after all, it is the Daily Mail.

[deagle]

i think they're doing their part, which is difficult b/c any misconception can be spun by radical propaganda into "islamophobia", so they have to be careful. yet the same ppl who claim "islamophobia" never seem to condemn the radical minority .

[a_very_ex_STAB]

If the UK is being so ineffective in its efforts against islamic terrorism then how come there has only been successful attack in the UK since our current crop of anti-terrorism legislation was enacted in 2000 (NB that was about 18 months before 911 to you hysterical Euro hating septic neocons :roll:).

In addition, if the aforementioned efforts are so unsuccessful then how come when the fundies do try to attack they have to go to enormous DIY efforts to make their own home made explosives which tend not to work very well! Surely, if they're as rampant as all you 'ragheads under the beds' paranoids say they are over here they'd have semtex coming out of the ears or something.

The fact that they've recently had to resort to recruiting 'suicide mongs' is an indication of just how firmly they are being sat on here in the UK.

[Calanen]

If the UK is being so ineffective in its efforts against islamic terrorism then how come there has only been successful attack in the UK since our current crop of anti-terrorism legislation was enacted in 2000 (NB that was about 18 months before 911 to you hysterical Euro hating septic neocons


There would have been two successful attacks if the jihadis could connect detonators probably.

And three successful attacks if a brave Bobby had not decided to disarm a carbomb by himself before the bomb squad got there in Picadilly Circus. That's far more good luck than good management.

Just the street protests and the docco Undercover Mosque shows that you have a huge radical islamic problem in the UK. You can pretend there isnt one, and then every time there is a terror attack, or a near miss, you can say, thats just the few rotten apples etc etc.. but its not really doing much to fix the problem is it?

[CMNot]

True, there is a big problem here - not so much with law though, with attitudes, failed integration etc. Fundamental social problems.

I am happy the judiciary are fighting the Gov't at every turn. This Gov't in particular has shown it is not to be trusted. The errosion of what were already fairly limited civil liberties cannot be justified. Britain can happily absorb one 7/7 attack per month indefinetly - in fact, should there be a serious of large scale attacks, people may finally wake up to the multi-cultural lie they've been fed for decades.

If we can find some way to reach a stable peace with the IRA, we can find a way around jihad. I know the IRA put the ****s into me a lot more than a gaggle of chimps from Shipley.

Personally, I'd rather live in liberty and danger than safety and confinement. + rep for the judges (and a lot of the media for that matter) standing up on behalf of our civil rights.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

There would have been two successful attacks if the jihadis could connect detonators probably.

And three successful attacks if a brave Bobby had not decided to disarm a carbomb by himself before the bomb squad got there in Picadilly Circus. That's far more good luck than good management.

No - it means they're cr@p terrorists. They couldn't organize a gang bang in a brothel. Wow so they're could have been a whole massive number of two successful attacks in 8 years - but there wasn't there was only one.



Just the street protests and the docco Undercover Mosque shows that you have a huge radical islamic problem in the UK. You can pretend there isnt one, and then every time there is a terror attack, or a near miss, you can say, thats just the few rotten apples etc etc.. but its not really doing much to fix the problem is it?

So there's gobsh1tes in mosques so what? That's hardly surprising it's the ethnic equivalent of football hooliganism because its the only 'entertainment' they're allowed. And like so-called football hooligans most of 'em are all mouth and no action (as has been amply demonstrated by they're lack of success!).

I bet in the cold war you were one of those 'reds under the beds' and 'chinks under the sinks' guys. How you must miss the simplistic certainties of those days :roll:

[Holycrusader]

No - it means they're cr@p terrorists. They couldn't organize a gang bang in a brothel. Wow so they're could have been a whole massive number of two successful attacks in 8 years - but there wasn't there was only one.




So there's gobsh1tes in mosques so what? That's hardly surprising it's the ethnic equivalent of football hooliganism because its the only 'entertainment' they're allowed. And like so-called football hooligans most of 'em are all mouth and no action (as has been amply demonstrated by they're lack of success!).

I bet in the cold war you were one of those 'reds under the beds' and 'chinks under the sinks' guys. How you must miss the simplistic certainties of those days :roll:

Great analysis ex...

[Calanen]

No - it means they're cr@p terrorists. They couldn't organize a gang bang in a brothel. Wow so they're could have been a whole massive number of two successful attacks in 8 years - but there wasn't there was only one.

The gangbang in the brothel crew blew up 3 trains and a bus, killing, injurying and spreading panic. The second wave would have done the same, except they didnt connect the detonators properly.

The last round, had built a viable bomb, filled with gas cylinders, nails and explosives connected to a mobile phone out the front of a nightclub that was about to close and pour out onto the street. The fact that a bobby risked his life by pulling the mobile phone out of the bomb to disarm it does not mean the terrorists were 'crap'. And even crap terrorists can get training.

Then there were 21 people who were plotting to blow up 10 airliners simultaneously. They got caught.


So there's gobsh1tes in mosques so what? That's hardly surprising it's the ethnic equivalent of football hooliganism because its the only 'entertainment' they're allowed. And like so-called football hooligans most of 'em are all mouth and no action (as has been amply demonstrated by they're lack of success!).

Allowed? They can have any entertainment they want. Certainly more entertainment than they can back in Saudi. All mouth and no action? Can we rely on this? Do you know any of them or what they are doing to say? Have a wire on MI5s intel from your many contacts? The Head of MI5 certainly thought there was a problem:


"Today, my officers and the police are working to contend with some 200 groupings or networks, totalling over 1,600 identified individuals - and there will be many we don't know - who are actively engaged in plotting, or facilitating, terrorist acts here and overseas," she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6134516.stm

You are only going to need a couple of attacks in a row to smash your economy in London.


I bet in the cold war you were one of those 'reds under the beds' and 'chinks under the sinks' guys. How you must miss the simplistic certainties of those days :roll:

And I bet if you had lived during the 1930s you would have been an ardent Neville Chamberlain supporter. His policy did not work out so well though, did it?


“In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply. Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the press, for it will be said--indeed, I hear it said sometimes now - that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey.” -- Winston Churchill

[a_very_ex_STAB]

It's a sure sign that the neocon fanboyz are on the run when they start whining about Neville Chamberlain :roll:

That would be the Neville Chamberlain who was the hardnosed, unsentimental, pragmatic practitioner of realpolitik who re-armed Britain in the 1930s, introduced peacetime conscription to prepare for war and declared war on Nazi Germany would it? It was tough on the Czechs for sure - but they were going down anyway no matter what. If I was a politician I would be proud to be compared with Neville Chamberlain. The Winston Churchill you guys profess to love so much was little more than a figurehead, a good speechmaker yes but he benefitted from the OBE system (other buggers' efforts - most notably those of Chamberlain) and made many disastrous c0ck ups through his meddling. But anyway that's digressing off-topic which I am sure is what you were hoping to do.

You still haven't adequately explained how the FACT that the fundies have only pulled off one successful attack in 8 years is an indication of how Britain's antiterror policies are somehow failing?

From your ivory tower 12,000 miles away - please enlighten those of us who live here as to how our security services could be doing a better job.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

True, there is a big problem here - not so much with law though, with attitudes, failed integration etc. Fundamental social problems.

I am happy the judiciary are fighting the Gov't at every turn. This Gov't in particular has shown it is not to be trusted. The errosion of what were already fairly limited civil liberties cannot be justified. Britain can happily absorb one 7/7 attack per month indefinetly - in fact, should there be a serious of large scale attacks, people may finally wake up to the multi-cultural lie they've been fed for decades.

If we can find some way to reach a stable peace with the IRA, we can find a way around jihad. I know the IRA put the ****s into me a lot more than a gaggle of chimps from Shipley.

Personally, I'd rather live in liberty and danger than safety and confinement. + rep for the judges (and a lot of the media for that matter) standing up on behalf of our civil rights.

Hear hear! Well said CMN

[Calanen]

From your ivory tower 12,000 miles away - please enlighten those of us who live here as to how our security services could be doing a better job.


When did I criticise the security services? Did you even read the article? Its not about what the security services are operationally doing. It's about the fact that the UK is asleep at the wheel while wahhabi money pours into unis and mosques. Its about no one confronting the islamic world about what is essenitally a fascist ideology that demands the subjugation of women, the death of homo******s, and the second class citizenship of all other religions, and people of other religions. In addition, it demands the death of unbelievers and war against them. But we can't say that..because it might upset someone.

I also criticise the Emperor's Clothes politicians and the appeasement mentality of people in the general public. Which includes people like you who will only admit the building is on fire when they themselves are ablaze.

I could say that my ivory tower has been a lot closer to this sort of thing than you might realise. But nowhere was there any criticism of the operational arms of the police or the security services. Only the idiocy of appeasement at all levels towards islamic radicals in the UK.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

When did I criticise the security services? Did you even read the article? Its not about what the security services are operationally doing. It's about the fact that the UK is asleep at the wheel while wahhabi money pours into unis and mosques. Its about no one confronting the islamic world about what is essenitally a fascist ideology that demands the subjugation of women, the death of homo******s, and the second class citizenship of all other religions, and people of other religions. In addition, it demands the death of unbelievers and war against them. But we can't say that..because it might upset someone.

I also criticise the Emperor's Clothes politicians and the appeasement mentality of people in the general public. Which includes people like you who will only admit the building is on fire when they themselves are ablaze.

I could say that my ivory tower has been a lot closer to this sort of thing than you might realise. But nowhere was there any criticism of the operational arms of the police or the security services. Only the idiocy of appeasement at all levels towards islamic radicals in the UK.

Yeah well you're not the only who has felt the impact of terrorism. Our society and our security services are doing a pretty good job from what I can see - as the lack of successful attacks indicates.

[oldsoak]

thats well and good ex stab, but what about get rid of the effers ? Like back to where they came from ?
Currently we're at overstretch when it comes to these bu*ggers - the ability to stop them is coming at a price which is the loss of some liberties that many hold dear ie the kind of stuff that Orwell wrote about. They only need to get lucky once. If we threw the troublemakers out the moment they started shouting, we'd stop them spreading the poison and not have to get dodgy legislation through because the t*ssers wouldnt be around to cause trouble.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

thats well and good ex stab, but what about get rid of the effers ? Like back to where they came from ?
Currently we're at overstretch when it comes to these bu*ggers - the ability to stop them is coming at a price which is the loss of some liberties that many hold dear ie the kind of stuff that Orwell wrote about. They only need to get lucky once. If we threw the troublemakers out the moment they started shouting, we'd stop them spreading the poison and not have to get dodgy legislation through because the t*ssers wouldnt be around to cause trouble.

Well I'm all in favour of deporting people of foreign origin who cause problems and I have to say I find the queasiness in the establishment about sending people who hate us back to countries of origin where they may be tortured rather mystifying. Personally, I don't care if foreign countries torture people or not.

As for people who are UK citizens, born here etc a revision/revival of the old treason laws might be worth a look - just to make it crystal clear where people stand if they fart in church.

[LRPV]

Well I'm all in favour of deporting people of foreign origin who cause problems and I have to say I find the queasiness in the establishment about sending people who hate us back to countries of origin where they may be tortured rather mystifying. Personally, I don't care if foreign countries torture people or not.

As for people who are UK citizens, born here etc a revision/revival of the old treason laws might be worth a look - just to make it crystal clear where people stand if they fart in church.

For once I agree with you.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

For once I agree with you.

I'll have to change my mind then.

[CMNot]

the loss of some liberties that many hold dear...They only need to get lucky once

Let's hope they don't get lucky not just for the loss of life - obviously - but if/when they do, I'll wager my house our beloved leaders will see fit to remove some more of our freedoms. Thats the kind of impractical, heavy handed, idiotic **** this Gov't is composed of (and most MPs it would seem).

Right about now, I just want one party to say they will practice small Government and get out of my life - may actually motivate me enough to get up and vote for the first time.

But hey, I also dream of lottery wins and my daughter joining a convent at the 'that time'.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Right about now, I just want one party to say they will practice small Government and get out of my life - may actually motivate me enough to get up and vote for the first time.


Don't get your hopes up. The British 'political class' whose common interests transcend party political divides has no interest whatsoever in small government. The new political orthodoxy in the UK is founded on:

1. High taxation
2. High regulation
3. Huge amounts of public spending of your tax money on dependent work shy parasites to buy their votes
4. Politicians feathering their nests with your tax money


No politicians in the UK are going to challenge the new status quo when it's such a good free lunch for them.

The real threat to this cosy setup does not come from a few islamic fundies. What the state is really worried about is the right wing and I think we will see greater efforts on the part of the state to restrict right wing 'subversion' in the future (irrespective of which party wins the next election).

Welcome to the brave new world of endless Stalinist 5-year tractor plans.:roll:

[tecumseh11]

Terrorists are the least of Britain's worries. Yobs, pikies and stabby-stabby youth are.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Terrorists are the least of Britain's worries. Yobs, pikies and stabby-stabby youth are.

Yup. Americans are obsessed with islamic terrorism so they think its at the root of all problems everywhere :roll: They don't seem to get that other countries might have other priorities.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Terrorists are the least of Britain's worries. Yobs, pikies and stabby-stabby youth are.Your regular Pikey or Tinker is of no threat to the social fabric of the UK.

Never go to Gillingham in Kent and say anything negative about Pikeys, it's not clever.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Your regular Pikey or Tinker is of no threat to the social fabric of the UK.

Never go to Gillingham in Kent and say anything negative about Pikeys, it's not clever.

Chavs and pikeys are an infestation. Like zombies. We should gas them and turn them into soap.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Chavs and pikeys are an infestation. Like zombies. We should gas them and turn them into soap.Nah I have a fondess for Pikeys and Tinkers and Chav soap on rope would bring me out in rash.

[Calanen]

Yup. Americans are obsessed with islamic terrorism so they think its at the root of all problems everywhere :roll: They don't seem to get that other countries might have other priorities.

The biggest worry England has, is, it doesnt know what it stands for anymore. Multiculturalism? Being embarassed about all things English? Hide the Cross of St George lest anyone be offended?

Islam knows what it stands for, and is unapologetic about it. But what do you stand for in response as an alternative? At the moment, its only limp wristed moral relativism. You will need to do better than that.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The biggest worry England has, is, it doesnt know what it stands for anymore. Multiculturalism? Being embarassed about all things English? Hide the Cross of St George lest anyone be offended?

Islam knows what it stands for, and is unapologetic about it. But what do you stand for in response as an alternative? At the moment, its only limp wristed moral relativism. You will need to do better than that.I would argue that the English are in no way embarassed about being English or their culture, the vast majority of the English are still mostly WASP's and seem to be very proud of the fact. The only towns in England that might not feel totally English are Corby and Bradford.

[Billy No Mates]

Never go to Gillingham in Kent.

...Im with you there what an armpit of a place .

The dole scum scattered round the country are what will eventually do for us not the Tipton Taliban or any other wannabe Jihadis .

As for being ashamed of the cross of St George its just not very English to wrap yourself up in the flag,we leave such vulgar showy shenanigans to Johny Foreigner .

[a_very_ex_STAB]

The biggest worry England has, is, it doesnt know what it stands for anymore. Multiculturalism? Being embarassed about all things English? Hide the Cross of St George lest anyone be offended?

Islam knows what it stands for, and is unapologetic about it. But what do you stand for in response as an alternative? At the moment, its only limp wristed moral relativism. You will need to do better than that.

In relation to the UK, I think you've been spending too much time either:

1. Reading the Daily Mail or
2. Reading doom laden, cliche ridden, right wing websites

I live here, not in an ivory tower 12000 miles away. I never met anyone in my 44 years here who is ashamed to be English or British or whatever. If anything I think national identity here is a lot stronger than in many other EU countries I have visited, especially as we currently have troops heavily engaged in two wars with the islamic fundies that you are getting your knickers in a twist about. However, what we don't do is constantly engage in the rather superficial, wrapping ourselves up in the flag type of overt patriotism for appearances sake that Americans and Australians seem to feel the need to do all the time.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

However, what we don't do is constantly engage in the rather superficial, wrapping ourselves up in the flag type of overt patriotism for appearances sake that Americans and Australians seem to feel the need to do all the time.

Maybe you need to take some 'uppers' to lift your mood a bit?http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1159/1282886523_6fce3b3beb_b.jpg

[a_very_ex_STAB]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1159/1282886523_6fce3b3beb_b.jpg

It's an international soccer game. They occur intermittently and last for 90 minutes.
So what?

[Breakfast in Vegas]

It's an international soccer game. They occur intermittently and last for 90 minutes.
So what?Your sense of humour leave with the morning train?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Your sense of humour leave with the morning train?

The internet is a serious business Mein Herr!

[Connaught Ranger]

And let us not forget, the basic fact the Saint George wus a foreigner,

who never set foot on Engel lands fair shore.

Connaught Ranger

[Calanen]

And let us not forget, the basic fact the Saint George wus a foreigner,

who never set foot on Engel lands fair shore.

Connaught Ranger

Same goes for Jesus.

[Connaught Ranger]

Same goes for Jesus.

Do we see the "flag of Jesus" being "waved" at football matches:|

Connaught Ranger

[Calanen]

Do we see the "flag of Jesus" being "waved" at football matches:|

Connaught Ranger

Does Jesus have a flag to wave?

[Connaught Ranger]

Does Jesus have a flag to wave?

Of course, the Papal colors of the Vatican:p

Connaught Rangerp-)

[PeterRJG]

However, what we don't do is constantly engage in the rather superficial, wrapping ourselves up in the flag type of overt patriotism for appearances sake that Americans and Australians seem to feel the need to do all the time.

Just a heads up - Australians, as a rule, don't feel the need to wrap themselves in flags and go booyah in the manner you describe. Patriotism comes naturally to us, it's an unstated thing and we don't feel the need to parade it.

In that way, we aren't a whole lot different to the English.

Let Calanen speak for himself; he doesn't represent all Australians on this forum and his views aren't particularly representative of my people and my country.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Just a heads up - Australians, as a rule, don't feel the need to wrap themselves in flags and go booyah in the manner you describe. Patriotism comes naturally to us, it's an unstated thing and we don't feel the need to parade it.

In that way, we aren't a whole lot different to the English.

Let Calanen speak for himself; he doesn't represent all Australians on this forum and his views aren't particularly representative of my people and my country.

Fair enough. My apologies!!

[Calanen]

Let Calanen speak for himself; he doesn't represent all Australians on this forum and his views aren't particularly representative of my people and my country.


I never said I spoke for all Australians, I only speak for me. But as for 'your' people, and 'your' country, they are as much 'my people' and 'my country'..too.

[oldsoak]

Just a heads up - Australians, as a rule, don't feel the need to wrap themselves in flags and go booyah in the manner you describe. Patriotism comes naturally to us, it's an unstated thing and we don't feel the need to parade it.

In that way, we aren't a whole lot different to the English.

Let Calanen speak for himself; he doesn't represent all Australians on this forum and his views aren't particularly representative of my people and my country.


- we cant tell the difference between patriots and those that dont give an eff in this country either. :-P

[deagle]

i woudln't say its "phoney" b/c they're addressing it a different way. is our part in the GWOT terror "phoney" ?? we have the machines like abrams, f-22's to use, but are they being used effectively ???

[CMNot]

STAB I am (sadly) all to aware of my political situation. I sit back and watch the US election race with wry amusement - so many Americans are moaning about candidates, but they have real choices about the direction their country may take. Real, genuine choices. Fair enough, they're still self-serving cnuts, but at least they stand for different things.

What pains me even more, is I can't see anyone on our political horizon who is ready to stand up and implement serious, sweeping reform. Of any kind. Fair enough, I want lower taxation and lower public spending (in the full belief that I am old enough and big enough to look after my own affair without the state sticking it's beak in every 5 minutes) which is never going to happen; I'm almost to the point where I would welcome a Socialist or even a bloody Nationalist if they were going to restoke the political fires.

This is what saddens me about this country. Yes we have problems. Yes we have - in my opinion - polarising and very serious problems. Yes, we are probably rotting on our way to the dogs. I just want to see a leader - someone with some stones to guide what was once a fairly great nation through some dark times.

The trouble with Britain can be seen in Marbeya; the place is rife with retired coppers and old cons talking about their heydays. Also some politicians and footballers hanging about.

Why is that trouble? Well, rats first off sinking ships and all that p-)

[MaDuce]

Some muslims may come to the Uk with terrorism in mind but change their minds when they realize they can live the good life on welfare.

[PeterRJG]

I never said I spoke for all Australians, I only speak for me. But as for 'your' people, and 'your' country, they are as much 'my people' and 'my country'..too.

Even when you'd rather not be here in Australia? Expatriated love, for the win.

[Calanen]

Even when you'd rather not be here in Australia? Expatriated love, for the win.

Interesting. One can only be Australian, while wanting to forever remain on these shores. According to you. Please surrender your passport.

[PeterRJG]

Interesting. One can only be Australian, while wanting to forever remain on these shores. According to you.

Well, it does come across as 100 proof hypocrisy for mine, when someone like you rabbits on about the menace that's slowly subsuming Australia's Anglo ways and means and what should be done about it, etc, and then says he wishes he was somewhere else, namely San Diego, in another thread.

What better way to stand up and back up your ideas than hang around and do something about it. Christ knows, you aren't short of opinions on how it could be changed.



Please surrender your passport.
It's expired.

[Calanen]

Well, it does come across as 100 proof hypocrisy for mine, when someone like you rabbits on about the menace that's slowly subsuming Australia's Anglo ways and means and what should be done about it, etc, and then says he wishes he was somewhere else, namely San Diego, in another thread.

What better way to stand up and back up your ideas than hang around and do something about it. Christ knows, you aren't short of opinions on how it could be changed.



If I thought enough people cared, I might. But the jury is still out on that.

As for going back to San Diego - bit of an ad hominem attack. But, I'll deal with that. I worked my *ass* off to become a US qualified lawyer. And yeah I'd like to earn enough cash in California so I could one day (a) own my own home (b) be financially secure. Neither of these things are possible or likely here. And I should stay in Australia, limiting my career possibilities, because you think that it is 'unAustralian' to work overseas. Man, how many Australians work or have worked overseas? Like millions? Are they all traitors? Is this your own jealousy speaking?

Being Australian is not dependant on living here. Jesus H, enough people live here who say they are NOT Australian. Wherever people put me, or I put myself, I am Australian. That cannot be changed. And me disagreeing with you, or vice versa, doesnt mean someone is more or less Australian.