Jump to content

The ISIS threat to Europe


Ads

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

For me the immediate danger to us is the Paris-style attack with multiple locations at the same time using explosives and machine guns for maximum damage.  I think they'd be almost impossible to plan in the UK/Europe without somebody noticing along the way, and they need organising at least and probably training within the ISIS training camps, which is why we need to attack them in Syria as well.  It's stupid bombing them in Iraq, thus radicalising people anyway, then not being able to do anything about them going to Syria and having free run to do what they want before coming back to cause mayhem over here.  

 

I don't doubt the threat, or that bombing campaigns may hinder their operations in the short term, but it does nothing to change the overall situation or lessen the danger to Britain IMO. 

The choice shouldn't simply be do nothing or start bombing yet another country. What is the objective? The Russians and French are already at it, how many military targets can there be? Are we going to make any difference in the grand scheme of things? 

You might help stop and imminent attack, but in the long run it just fuels the fire for extremists and their propaganda. 

Like CED said, it needs a different approach. Don't know what, but ain't what we have been doing for the past feck knows how long. You can't fight an idealogy like this. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, omariqy said:

 

I've seen quite a few people say this guy was known to have mental problems. Not sure how true that is.

If he's religious (of any denomination) he's got mental problems in my book.

And I'm not just being provocative.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, maqroll said:

In Nepal? Must be another lone wolf type deal, I didn't think they had much of a profile there.

Want to destabilise the government. Pretty unstable as it is there so it's simply intensified it. ISIS have profile in a lot of places it seems. 

My bad I meant Yemen. Not napal. 

Edited by OneNightInRotterdam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wainy316 said: Where's that figure from? That can't be anywhere close to correct.

Office of National Statistics, 2011 Census. Info released 2013. 

ONS

figure1_tcm77-305936.png

That is very surprising although I'd suggest a great portion of 'Christians' are non practising and just chose it as default due to this supposedly being a Christian country along with having been force fed it at school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree they are in the majority non-practising. But 10% of the UK adult population are signed up members of churches. In 2012 almost 300 new churches opened in London alone.

I think the issue here, is that most people presume their view of the world is 'normal' Most people would think their view of the world is correct. If they didn't, they'd change their mind. But the trouble with presuming 'I am right', is that this can sometimes also be interpreted as 'they must be wrong'.

I think it's a bit too easy to be rude and off hand on the 'net. I'd never call somebody mental because they don't agree with my view of the world. It's actually a bit disrespectful to people with actual mental illnesses too if we're going the full PC on this.

We may have strayed down a side alley here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I'd agree they are in the majority non-practising. But 10% of the UK adult population are signed up members of churches. In 2012 almost 300 new churches opened in London alone.

I think the issue here, is that most people presume their view of the world is 'normal' Most people would think their view of the world is correct. If they didn't, they'd change their mind. But the trouble with presuming 'I am right', is that this can sometimes also be interpreted as 'they must be wrong'.

I think it's a bit too easy to be rude and off hand on the 'net. I'd never call somebody mental because they don't agree with my view of the world. It's actually a bit disrespectful to people with actual mental illnesses too if we're going the full PC on this.

We may have strayed down a side alley here.

Couldn't agree more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OneNightInRotterdam said:

Want to destabilise the government. Pretty unstable as it is there so it's simply intensified it. ISIS have profile in a lot of places it seems. 

My bad I meant Yemen. Not napal. 

They assassinated the Governor of Aden (where the so called Yemeni Government is currently based), the day after assassinating the top anti-Jihadist judge in the same city.  The day before they executed 23 Shia prisoners -  usual videotaped head choppy stuff, plus detonating mortar bombs strung around peoples necks, putting some of them in boat before blowing it up and another 6 vapourised by firing a Katyusha rocket at them.

Aden is supposed to be the centre piece of the Saudi coalition 'liberated' zone, in reality it is filled with competing AQAP and Islamic State fighters who are gradually taking control. Most of the country is an active war zone and the population is in very deep trouble.     

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I'd agree they are in the majority non-practising. But 10% of the UK adult population are signed up members of churches. In 2012 almost 300 new churches opened in London alone.

I think the issue here, is that most people presume their view of the world is 'normal' Most people would think their view of the world is correct. If they didn't, they'd change their mind. But the trouble with presuming 'I am right', is that this can sometimes also be interpreted as 'they must be wrong'.

I think it's a bit too easy to be rude and off hand on the 'net. I'd never call somebody mental because they don't agree with my view of the world. It's actually a bit disrespectful to people with actual mental illnesses too if we're going the full PC on this.

We may have strayed down a side alley here.

This might just be me being a bit weird, but I don't "think of my world view as correct", really. I'm not even sure I've got one. What I kind of see is that luckily, I'm somewhere that means I get presented with lots of information and am able to seek and and find more information, and where people with different ways of thinking, different instincts and so on are good enough to share those with me. Sometimes as a consequence of finding out more about something my view on that particular subject will change - maybe be re-inforced, or maybe reversed.

With the religion thing, my personal experience is that nothing like 68% of the people I interact with are religionists, practising or otherwise. I'd say the majority, maybe 75% + are not religionists, yet will at various times become involved in something where there's a religious background - so a wedding in a church/place of worship, a funeral in a church etc. These people would maybe say they were Christian/Sikh/hindu/Muslim/etc. if asked "what religion are you?" but to all intents and purposes they are not religious.

There's maybe another 20% who are atheist/agnostic and are not ashamed to say "there is no God(s)" - there is after all, a bit of a stigma, still to saying that, (for some people much more than others).

Back to the comment about world views, I think part of the problem is that people seem to have these rigidly held, unchallengeable, sacrosanct "views" - like you say an "I'm right so you must be wrong" view. I don't think the problem is that people have different views, more that firstly they absolutely will not change their views and secondly that they're so certain about them and so unwilling to engage in thinking. I reckon the biggest problem we have is people not using their brains, but instead relying on just being fed a sugar-drip of opinions to hold. That applies whether it's Politicians doing the feeding, Radical preacherss, media barons or journalists, Big business and marketeers or any of the other myriad of interested parties.

The lack of critical thinking is what I'd hope would change.

It is easy to be rude on the internet, unless there's a automatic word filter to stop you - then it's **** hard to be offensive.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We might be crunching and sifting the data a bit much here. I was trying to make a point that declaring all religious people 'mental', is possibly over stating a case and leaving little wriggle room. If we can write of 'others' as simply mental then it's all going to break down fairly quickly. Surely anyone that hits a woman, breaks in to a house at Christmas, rapes, takes illegal and dangerous drugs, smokes or drinks too much is also 'mental'?

The definitive number wasn't really the key point. It does look surprisingly high. I guess there's an additional category of 'mental' for people that aren't religious in any way, but say they are on a census form. I can't claim to know how accurate the Office of National Statistics are with this stuff, I'd be interested to be pointed towards a more respected source that's carried out a more comprehensive survey.

But that's all filler. I agree absolutely and totally it's about critical thinking. Quite a number of people hold a view and will only allow in information that confirms this original view of the world. No ability to be critical, to understand the agenda of others dishing out the information. To filter. No ability to seek perspective or just pause and think for themselves.

We've had the very recent case of the Sun reporter splashed across the paper claiming he's just travelled from Turkey to Paris without a passport check. Shocking. It didn't take much to work out it was bollocks though, and his passport was checked. Not only that, he didn't use the train like he said, he flew, there are records of it. But for those that read the Sun, only the first bit matters. A man travelled without passport checks. End of. 

Before the vote on bombing Syria they asked a random guy in a Labour club if he thought they should bomb Syria. His answer: 'yes'. Reporter followed up with 'why?'. His answer: 'well, you gotta do something'. Yep, let's not consider the 1,000 permutations, the ethnic mix, who's a good goody, who's a middling goody and who's really really bad. Consequences and scenarios, recent historical precedents. Let's just bomb. Now I don't know if that old bloke goes to church, I'd certainly say there's more of a case for declaring him 'mental', than the old woman across the street that attends every Sunday.

Critical thinking could maybe be part of the school curriculum a bit earlier. I think we've touched on this over in the private member's area. 

Edited by chrisp65
slightly less arsey
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Before the vote on bombing Syria they asked a random guy in a Labour club if he thought they should bomb Syria. His answer: 'yes'. Reporter followed up with 'why?'. His answer: 'well, you gotta do something'. Yep, let's not consider the 1,000 permutations, the ethnic mix, who's a good goody, who's a middling goody and who's really really bad. Consequences and scenarios, recent historical precedents. Let's just bomb. Now I don't know if that old bloke goes to church, I'd certainly say there's more of a case for declaring him 'mental', than the old woman across the street that attends every Sunday.

Exactly. Another example was pollsters asking people 2 questions firstly "should Britain stay in or leave the EU?" to which the answer in this instance was a majority to stay in. the follow up question was " if Cameron doesn't get all of his demands met, should we stay or leave?" the answer was then a majority saying leave. So either the people weren't thinking and were just acting on emotion - "those nasty foreigners saying no to GB on some demands makes me want to leave, even though I said I was quite happy, now, with none of the demands currently being met" OR the analysis must be that people thought that getting some of what Cameron asks for would make the EU worse for Britain, in their view. Neither of those was presented as the conclusion of the poll. That's all tangential to Syria and various barmpots, but it does suggest that people don't think about half of what they say. And that generalisation also applies to the Politicians  -such as when they voted on bombing Syria. They were all so certain that they were right, whichever view they were espousing. I didn't hear much along the lines of " there are two sides to this decision, and I'm torn between conflicting evidence and information" "or I'm not able to decide because I lack all of the knowledge, currently, to be certain"

And it's this type of, in essence ill informed, ill-considered approach to evidence and information (as well as blatant disregard for the truth from leaders) that leads to terrible decision making. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â