Proud and Prejudice

In terms of what's needing to be done, yep - it is that easy. Finding the political will to do it is the problem. Unless someone is willing to commit genocide, no amount of warfare is going to stabilise the Middle East, and as long as US/UK armed forces are seen as an occupying force, we'll continue to create more extremists.

In terms of what's needing to be done, yep - it is that easy. Finding the political will to do it is the problem. Unless someone is willing to commit genocide, no amount of warfare is going to stabilise the Middle East, and as long as US/UK armed forces are seen as an occupying force, we'll continue to create more extremists.

in your little head, maybe

In terms of what's needing to be done, yep - it is that easy. Finding the political will to do it is the problem. Unless someone is willing to commit genocide, no amount of warfare is going to stabilise the Middle East, and as long as US/UK armed forces are seen as an occupying force, we'll continue to create more extremists.

Is the reason the UK are seen as the occupying force the reason they would kill all homosexuals and think the whole nation should be Islamic and under their sharia laws then?

it is that easy eh...you should work for the UN...they must have missed these points

Actually the UN didn't. No surprise that you did though.

Is the reason the UK are seen as the occupying force the reason they would kill all homosexuals and think the whole nation should be Islamic and under their sharia laws then?

It's more to do with the fact that over a million Iraqis were killed as a result of the latest conflict. You're putting a regressive attitude to homosexuality up against that? Perhaps you forget that it wasn't so long ago that we were committing homosexuals to asylums and saying that women weren't smart enough to vote. Go a little further back, we were burning people for being Catholic, or Protestant - depending on what year it was. The Islamic world doesn't have a monopoly on atrocity. It's just behind the times on a lot of issues, in my Western opinion of course.

We've seen ourselves that mass demonstration and protest are huge catalysts for social change. The irony is that in throwing our weight around, we've allowed hardliners to clamp down in places like Iran, using Western aggression in the region as their excuse.

It's all very easy when it's just good guys versus bad guys, but ultimately, it's as simplistic as super-gluing two incongruent concepts together and pretending they constitute a proper question.

pap has all the answers.

pap for PM....the world is so easy to him

It's more to do with the fact that over a million Iraqis were killed as a result of the latest conflict. You're putting a regressive attitude to homosexuality up against that? Perhaps you forget that it wasn't so long ago that we were committing homosexuals to asylums and saying that women weren't smart enough to vote. Go a little further back, we were burning people for being Catholic, or Protestant - depending on what year it was. The Islamic world doesn't have a monopoly on atrocity. It's just behind the times on a lot of issues, in my Western opinion of course.

We've seen ourselves that mass demonstration and protest are huge catalysts for social change. The irony is that in throwing our weight around, we've allowed hardliners to clamp down in places like Iran, using Western aggression in the region as their excuse.

It's all very easy when it's just good guys versus bad guys, but ultimately, it's as simplistic as super-gluing two incongruent concepts together and pretending they constitute a proper question.

Well you said WE create extremists. I don't see how The UKs prescence in Iraq an have created the teaching that all homosexuals should be killed or about Sharia laws. Did they just make these beliefs up to sit nicely alongside the "celebrating the death of British troops" teachIng when they decided to become extremists because of of our presence in the middle East?

pap has all the answers.

 

pap for PM....the world is so easy to him

He can argue a point eloquently and concisely. I think he's definitely the front-runner.

He can argue a point eloquently and concisely. I think he's definitely the front-runner.

I agree. It's absolutely crap argument point to resort to basically calling them a 'know it all'. Sign of defeat if you ask me.

I agree. It's absolutely crap argument point to resort to basically calling them a 'know it all'. Sign of defeat if you ask me.

I take it you haven't decided to dabble with AIDS today.

I agree. It's absolutely crap argument point to resort to basically calling them a 'know it all'. Sign of defeat if you ask me.

but I look at it the other way. people like pap would simply dismiss what certain other posters say regardless....

did you give any terminal illnesses a try today..?

I take it you haven't decided to dabble with AIDS today.

How can you possibly dabble with AIDS? It would be HIV. It takes years to develop AIDS.

Again, more rubbish points. If I was right wring, I wonder what you would think of me.

How can you possibly dabble with AIDS? It would be HIV. It takes years to develop AIDS, at which point you will be very ill.

 

Again, more rubbish points. If I was right wring, I wonder what you would think of me.

but I look at it the other way. people like pap would simply dismiss what certain other posters say regardless....

 

 

did you give any terminal illnesses a try today..?

Is the last sentence necessary? Where did I ever say I wanted to give HIV a try?

My point is that you just dismiss the poster regardless too!

I see the gormless glutton and the wannabe-turkey woman-hater are double-teaming on the student again. Stick to the argument, geniuses.

I see the gormless glutton and the wannabe-turkey woman-hater are double-teaming on the student again. Stick to the argument, geniuses.

there he is....hello verbal

not like you to have a vicious tongue.....still hating the white-middle class british man today...?

How can you possibly dabble with AIDS? It would be HIV. It takes years to develop AIDS.

 

Again, more rubbish points. If I was right wring, I wonder what you would think of me.

Give it a go!! If you love them it'll work. Sex isn't important. Just wear a jonny. Something about not having to **** if you want kids. Just give it a go!!

Why do some posters feel the need to verbally abuse every poster with which they disagree?

Why do some posters feel the need to verbally abuse every poster with which they disagree?

I agree....awful

I see the gormless glutton and the wannabe-turkey woman-hater are double-teaming on the student again. Stick to the argument, geniuses.

Give it a go!! If you love them it'll work. Sex isn't important. Just wear a jonny. Something about not having to **** if you want kids. Just give it a go!!

Sounds good to me

I see the gormless glutton and the wannabe-turkey woman-hater are double-teaming on the student again. Stick to the argument, geniuses.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=GB#/watch?v=qLrnkK2YEcE

Why do some posters feel the need to verbally abuse every poster with which they disagree?

What Jamie said, You've got to give him sympathy though, he is mental.

there he is....hello verbal

not like you to have a vicious tongue.....still hating the white-middle class british man today...?

I don't hate anyone, not even feeble minded mini-me's, who are just mildly amusing in ways they'll never be capable of understanding. Now why don't you behave like you're older than eight and go back to the point of the thread.

I don't hate anyone, not even feeble minded mini-me's, who are just mildly amusing in ways they'll never be capable of understanding. Now why don't you behave like you're older than eight and go back to the point of the thread.

stop with the insults..you don't like it

I don't hate anyone, not even feeble minded mini-me's, who are just mildly amusing in ways they'll never be capable of understanding. Now why don't you behave like you're older than eight and go back to the point of the thread.

Not even the EDL?!!!

Well you said WE create extremists. I don't see how The UKs prescence in Iraq an have created the teaching that all homosexuals should be killed or about Sharia laws. Did they just make these beliefs up to sit nicely alongside the "celebrating the death of British troops" teachIng when they decided to become extremists because of of our presence in the middle East?

Those beliefs stem from their interpretation of their Abrahamic religion, some shared by extremist Christian groups. I agree that the UK's presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with why some Muslims believe that homosexuals should be killed or that Sharia law should be the law.

However, the US/UK presence did make a lot more of them consider blowing themselves up or causing mayhem in densely-populated areas like Mumbai.

So yes, we created extremists.

Those beliefs stem from their interpretation of their Abrahamic religion, some shared by extremist Christian groups. I agree that the UK's presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with why some Muslims believe that homosexuals should be killed or that Sharia law should be the law.

 

However, the US/UK presence did make a lot more of them consider blowing themselves up or causing mayhem in densely-populated areas like Mumbai.

 

So yes, we created extremists.

take it one step further..

they created extremists by forcing our hand to go in....they should just give us the oil for a cheaper price....then the world will be a happier place

take it one step further..

 

they created extremists by forcing our hand to go in....they should just give us the oil for a cheaper price....then the world will be a happier place

We should invest in green energy. Oil will run out sooner or later anyways, and it'll create jobs in our economy and in the end lead to cheaper energy. And we'll stop having to worrying as much everytime a member of OPEC sneezes.

Those beliefs stem from their interpretation of their Abrahamic religion, some shared by extremist Christian groups. I agree that the UK's presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with why some Muslims believe that homosexuals should be killed or that Sharia law should be the law.

 

However, the US/UK presence did make a lot more of them consider blowing themselves up or causing mayhem in densely-populated areas like Mumbai.

 

So yes, we created extremists.

That's strange, I could have sworn 9/11 happened before the UK/US were in Iraq. In fact, wasnt that the catalyst for the "war on terror"?

We are never going to solve Islamic extremism while we are are killing Muslims. The Iraq War will be regarded as a dark stain on the US and UK for generations. Any upcoming conflict in Iran is going to inflame sentiment further. I suspect the long term solution for achieving peace in that region is going to involve a settlement of the Palestinian question, contrition, reconciliation and many long years of wary dealings between former foes.

 

The EDL cannot achieve its stated objective.

 

I suspect that what they want to do is shut people up who are protesting against the actions of Western governments. I know it is uncomfortable to have to deal with Islamic extremists saying they want to destroy the West, but let's at least have a bit of perspective. Total up the bodycount wrought by "The Forces of Good" versus "The Evil Muslims" and the Islamic lot score so low they could be a rounding error.

 

The problem here is that the situation in the Middle East has been screwed since the creation of Israel, and instead of addressing that one basic problem, our governments have piled mistake upon mistake. We have finally found ourselves here, in a time where all Muslims are under suspicion of being bomb-chucking extremists, and far-right groups get to legitimise their existence by pinning their mast to an issue they know will resonate with a scared public.

 

This really isn't a new trick. Lots of very dangerous movements have started out in the same way, citing some nebulous nemesis that only they can conquer. I'm personally not comfortable with such organisations, whoever they claim to be against.

Nah- fundamentalism was well on the rise before Iraq, Afghanistan etc- the roots are far more complex than the lefty strawman story of a big bad blundering US trampling all over a poor, helpless Middle East.

While i don't doubt foreign policy has fanned the flames;they have been smoldering for a long time.

Talking about Muslims as a whole is also wildly simplistic. The factors that radicalise some British Muslims -notably the identity crisis that afflicts many 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants- are not found elsewhere - say in sedentary countries or countries that have Islam as the state religion.

Finally, what's gone in Israel might be wrong on plenty of levels; but lets not pretend that the ones who are least willing to show solidarity or support are neighbouring Arab countries. When interests clash with principle, most couldn't give a sh*t about few palis and it's one reason why pan arabism has never got off the ground.

That's strange, I could have sworn 9/11 happened before the UK/US were in Iraq. In fact, wasnt that the catalyst for the "war on terror"?

There were many ways that the US could have responded to 9/11, including the option that US Forces eventually took - use special forces to track down OBL and murder him on the spot.

Instead, they invaded one country, got us to invent evidence so we could invade another country and then killed over a million people looking for phantom WMDs.

Pretty sad really, because at that point - America had the sympathy of the world. The response has been utterly disproportionate and has created countless extra problems for us to deal with.

There were many ways that the US could have responded to 9/11, including the option that US Forces eventually took - use special forces to track down OBL and murder him on the spot.

 

Instead, they invaded one country, got us to invent evidence so we could invade another country and then killed over a million people looking for phantom WMDs.

 

Pretty sad really, because at that point - America had the sympathy of the world. The response has been utterly disproportionate and has created countless extra problems for us to deal with.

Maybe that is the case, but the extremists that committed 9/11 were there before the occupation of Iraq, yes? How can this be when you told us that this was the reason for extremists in the first place?

There were many ways that the US could have responded to 9/11, including the option that US Forces eventually took - use special forces to track down OBL and murder him on the spot.

 

Instead, they invaded one country, got us to invent evidence so we could invade another country and then killed over a million people looking for phantom WMDs.

 

Pretty sad really, because at that point - America had the sympathy of the world. The response has been utterly disproportionate and has created countless extra problems for us to deal with.

It wasn't really just about Bin Laden though, as far as I understand anyways. Wasn't it more about the fact that the Taleban were allowing Afghanistan to be used as some sort of headquarters for Al Qaeda? If that was the case, didn't we need to do more than just go in and get the lead man, but systematically dismantle Al Qaeda(as apparently we have now done, perhaps someone else can enlighten us on the progress of this 10 and a half years on) training bases and so on...

Iraq was obviously different.

Maybe that is the case, but the extremists that committed 9/11 were there before the occupation of Iraq, yes? How can this be when you told us that this was the reason for extremists in the first place?

I didn't cite that as the origin of the extremists, just that we created more of them.

It wasn't really just about Bin Laden though, as far as I understand anyways. Wasn't it more about the fact that the Taleban were allowing Afghanistan to be used as some sort of headquarters for Al Qaeda? If that was the case, didn't we need to do more than just go in and get the lead man, but systematically dismantle Al Qaeda(as apparently we have now done, perhaps someone else can enlighten us on the progress of this 10 and a half years on) training bases and so on...

 

Iraq was obviously different.

It should have been about Bin Laden. They should have gone after him and put him on trial at the Hague, treating him like any other war criminal.

Our response to that should have been a testament to the values that we say we are supposed to uphold. That we care about the rule of law and don't inflict punishment indiscriminately.

Instead, we invaded two strategically handy countries that happened to be filled with useful stuff, called them democracies and created a pile of corpses in the process.

It was a massively disproportionate response which hurt far more people than it should have, and looks very dodgy in retrospect, particularly with what we know about Iraq.

It should have been about Bin Laden. They should have gone after him and put him on trial at the Hague, treating him like any other war criminal.

 

Our response to that should have been a testament to the values that we say we are supposed to uphold. That we care about the rule of law and don't inflict punishment indiscriminately.

 

Instead, we invaded two strategically handy countries that happened to be filled with useful stuff, called them democracies and created a pile of corpses in the process.

 

It was a massively disproportionate response which hurt far more people than it should have, and looks very dodgy in retrospect, particularly with what we know about Iraq.

What is useful that is in Afghanistan? It doesn't have any oil, and I might be wrong here, no minerals or whatever either!

The Taleban were refusing to hand over Bin Laden, and even if we had gone in a taken out Bin Laden and put him on trial, the structures of the organisation would still be in place and so Al Qaeda would have still been able to launch attacks. Most analysts I've heard speak on the TV or whatever recently seem to think Bin Laden's Al Qaeda is finished.

Of course, whether as you say, we have created even more budding Bin Ladens by our chosen way to combat the problem is another question all together. But I disagree that we should have just concentrated on Bin Laden, as Al Qaeda was more than Bin Laden. Bin Laden, as far as I am aware was only a figure head and not the driving organisational force.

What is useful that is in Afghanistan? It doesn't have any oil, and I might be wrong here, no minerals or whatever either!

 

The Taleban were refusing to hand over Bin Laden, and even if we had gone in a taken out Bin Laden and put him on trial, the structures of the organisation would still be in place and so Al Qaeda would have still been able to launch attacks. Most analysts I've heard speak on the TV or whatever recently seem to think Bin Laden's Al Qaeda is finished.

 

Of course, whether as you say, we have created even more budding Bin Ladens by our chosen way to combat the problem is another question all together. But I disagree that we should have just concentrated on Bin Laden, as Al Qaeda was more than Bin Laden. Bin Laden, as far as I am aware was only a figure head and not the driving organisational force.

Massive poppy growing region. Huge percentage of the world's morphine comes from there.

Massive poppy growing region. Huge percentage of the world's morphine comes from there.

The war in Afghanistan has cost the states alone $500bn allegedly. How much is the international morphine industry worth?

The Taleban were refusing to hand over Bin Laden, and even if we had gone in a taken out Bin Laden and put him on trial, the structures of the organisation would still be in place and so Al Qaeda would have still been able to launch attacks. Most analysts I've heard speak on the TV or whatever recently seem to think Bin Laden's Al Qaeda is finished.

 

Of course, whether as you say, we have created even more budding Bin Ladens by our chosen way to combat the problem is another question all together. But I disagree that we should have just concentrated on Bin Laden, as Al Qaeda was more than Bin Laden. Bin Laden, as far as I am aware was only a figure head and not the driving organisational force.

If Al Qaeda was as billed, a cellular international terrorist organisation, then invading a country is not the right way to go about breaking that up, especially when there were countless other options on the table. The US could have tried to apply pressure through its partners in the region to secure Bin Laden.

Even if it took ten years, which it eventually did after much loss of life, a surgical response to the 9/11 atrocity, along with heightened security to protect against further attack, would have been a more civilised way to handle the problem. What we eventually did cost a lot of lives and has diminished our moral authority.

The war in Afghanistan has cost the states alone $500bn allegedly. How much is the international morphine industry worth?

Depends on what the morphine is used for. The US have form for selling drugs to raise funds for black projects, like in the Iran-Contra scandal.

they are not as advanced as Australia and New Zealand though are they Super Dopper Mikey? The fact is Mikey that Australia is rich in natural resources and China would most certainly have armed the Aboriginals if there had been enough of them to have mounted a terrorist campaign. You are very naive young un.

No, it is you who is misinformed here. I don't look at what was necessarily considered normal, or what may have happened if an Islamic State had arrived. I look at what the British actually DID which was to wipe tens/hundreds of Nations and condemn an entire community to near extinction.

Give one example of how the genocide of the Aboriginal people created the country today? That killing people for sport is the reason for our reasonable success in sport? Why couldn't Australia have developed whilst giving self-determination to the original owners? If this is something that the British are proud of, a legacy of violence, crime, rape and murder than how are you any better than an Islamic extremist who also seek the removal of certain population for progress?

Whilst I agree that there is certain element of British Colonial Rule to be proud of, to make sweeping remarks that it should be shown in Schools to raise patriotism is denial and insulting. Anyway won't bite anymore.

No doubt it will come as a disappointment to some on here; but the biggest land grab in human history was carried out not by the Brits but by the Chinese in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Depends on what the morphine is used for. The US have form for selling drugs to raise funds for black projects, like in the Iran-Contra scandal.

or heroin...why did you miss out heroin from your items from afghan

I didn't cite that as the origin of the extremists, just that we created more of them.

source..?

What we eventually did cost a lot of lives and has diminished our moral authority.

where did we do this with afghanistan...?

last time I checked (and I have been involved over there, have you..?) it has been a huge multi-national operation with countless nations involved as it was accepted by all that the Teleban allowed the country to be used as a base to train anti western terrorists...

get yourself over there and see for yourself the massive, MASSIVE difference in the country now where the locals are far from oppressed like they were....and with that, we have cleared pretty much al-qeada from the land.

Somalia is the place they shelter now...seeing as that it has no government, this is not news when operations are carried out over there....it known militarily as a "free fire state" and the security/military services are working daily in the area that DIRECTLY assist stopping terrorist plots in the UK

and guess what, these nutters existed before 2001...

where did we do this with afghanistan...?

last time I checked (and I have been involved over there, have you..?) it has been a huge multi-national operation with countless nations involved as it was accepted by all that the Teleban allowed the country to be used as a base to train anti western terrorists...

 

get yourself over there and see for yourself the massive, MASSIVE difference in the country now where the locals are far from oppressed like they were....and with that, we have cleared pretty much al-qeada from the land.

 

Somalia is the place they shelter now...seeing as that it has no government, this is not news when operations are carried out over there....it known militarily as a "free fire state" and the security/military services are working daily in the area that DIRECTLY assist stopping terrorist plots in the UK

 

and guess what, these nutters existed before 2001...

I think the jury is still out on Afghanistan, and we'll only really know whether we've achieved anything lasting after Western forces leave the country. It's widely accepted that Karzai doesn't have support across the multi-ethnic spectrum and that the Taliban will probably be in control of southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan once Western forces have vamoosed. We know for a fact that some of the very people we've trained as policemen have murdered British and American forces, and there were anti-US riots last week. You'll forgive me if I don't travel out to Kabul to witness this idyllic oasis of progress.

No-one is saying Islamic fundamentalists didn't exist before 2001. What I am saying is that there are now more people with a beef against the West, and that is a direct result of our foreign policy.

or heroin...why did you miss out heroin from your items from afghan

I thought most people would know that heroin comes from morphine.

In 2009, Afghanistan was still providing 82% of the world's supply.

I think the jury is still out on Afghanistan, and we'll only really know whether we've achieved anything lasting after Western forces leave the country. It's widely accepted that Karzai doesn't have support across the multi-ethnic spectrum and that the Taliban will probably be in control of southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan once Western forces have vamoosed. We know for a fact that some of the very people we've trained as policemen have murdered British and American forces, and there were anti-US riots last week. You'll forgive me if I don't travel out to Kabul to witness this idyllic oasis of progress.

 

No-one is saying Islamic fundamentalists didn't exist before 2001. What I am saying is that there are now more people with a beef against the West, and that is a direct result of our foreign policy.

maybe you should before you decide we have failed..

If Al Qaeda was as billed, a cellular international terrorist organisation, then invading a country is not the right way to go about breaking that up, especially when there were countless other options on the table. The US could have tried to apply pressure through its partners in the region to secure Bin Laden.

Even if it took ten years, which it eventually did after much loss of life, a surgical response to the 9/11 atrocity, along with heightened security to protect against further attack, would have been a more civilised way to handle the problem. What we eventually did cost a lot of lives and has diminished our moral authority.

Ah if only the leaders back then had possessed an IQ above 4

Those beliefs stem from their interpretation of their Abrahamic religion, some shared by extremist Christian groups. I agree that the UK's presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with why some Muslims believe that homosexuals should be killed or that Sharia law should be the law.

 

However, the US/UK presence did make a lot more of them consider blowing themselves up or causing mayhem in densely-populated areas like Mumbai.

 

So yes, we created extremists.

I didn't cite that as the origin of the extremists, just that we created more of them.

They were blowing themselves up long before the the US and UK being in Iraq, what about Lockerbie? How are you justifying that one and make it the fault of the Us or UK?