So 250 odd have come back to britain from syria. I thought they didnt want to come back...saw some tearing their passports up in syria. Where are we going to put them all?
I think the internet has made it easier for fanatics/extremists to contact each other and meet up.
Maybe there should be a world police to control and fight to keep peace in the world, not just america and us.
The authorities have three or four in mind (listed) but the colouring above the eyes of that grime rapper bloke - the one they want to rule out - is uncannily similar. (Previously on R1 and lived in a £1m - taxpayer funded? - house!!)
Your missing the point being made here that being British i.e. part of a nation and being a British citizen and having a passport are not the same thing. The former requires absolute loyalty and patriotism, the latter requires some form filling, a cash payment and a ceremony. Being born in Britain doesn't make you British either if you grew up in a foreign colony and have parents that have never integrated. Then there is second and third generation who have more loyalty to foreigners who have the same religion than Britain and it's people.
Its not racism because which people decide they are, is based on their actions and not just who they are.
England is still a country and just as being British is more than a passport, being English is more than just being born in England. If the EU started handing out European citizenship ,would we cease bring British?
The above is just your views, not the law and I don't accept your denial that it isn't racism either.
That is the woman who was in the Mirror yesterday.
The one I quoted.
I wouldn't let her back in to the UK at any price.
And if she does come back, I would lock her up indefinitely on ill health grounds.
She cannot and should not be prevented, she has committed no crime in this country, in fact none of them have, until such a time as they have committed a crime in this country any attempt to take away their liberty cannot be allowed.
They are soldiers, fighting a war, maybe unjust, its a matter of opinion. Even the beheading of the journalist was carried out in a country where British law has no jurisdiction. How many British soldiers have committed unjust acts?? do you say they should not return??
She cannot and should not be prevented, she has committed no crime in this country, in fact none of them have, until such a time as they have committed a crime in this country any attempt to take away their liberty cannot be allowed.
They are soldiers, fighting a war, maybe unjust, its a matter of opinion. Even the beheading of the journalist was carried out in a country where British law has no jurisdiction. How many British soldiers have committed unjust acts?? do you say they should not return??
I am not bothered by any of that stuff.
Obviously I would listen to those arguments in most cases.
She cannot and should not be prevented, she has committed no crime in this country, in fact none of them have, until such a time as they have committed a crime in this country any attempt to take away their liberty cannot be allowed.
They are soldiers, fighting a war, maybe unjust, its a matter of opinion. Even the beheading of the journalist was carried out in a country where British law has no jurisdiction. How many British soldiers have committed unjust acts?? do you say they should not return??
As British nationals if they ever re-enter British jurisdiction they can be tried for their crimes abroad, crimes in breach of British law. We do this for things from British nationals who go abraod and sexually abuse children, to British nationals who enable or committ FGM abroad, to British nationals who engage in terrorism and ISIS is a terrorist organization.
They are not soldiers fighting in a war, if you want to treat them as such maybe you would like these British nationals tried for treason, since ISIS wants to turn the world in to an Islamic state, and Britian has ISIS as a prohibited terrorist organization.
As British nationals if they ever re-enter British jurisdiction they can be tried for their crimes abroad, crimes in breach of British law. We do this for things from British nationals who go abraod and sexually abuse children, to British nationals who enable or committ FGM abroad, to British nationals who engage in terrorism and ISIS is a terrorist organization.
They are not soldiers fighting in a war, if you want to treat them as such maybe you would like these British nationals tried for treason, since ISIS wants to turn the world in to an Islamic state, and Britian has ISIS as a prohibited terrorist organization.
Fair points, well argued, and I bow to your superior knowledge of British international law. However how does ISIS differ from the UK? ISIS wants to turn Muslim lands into a calliphate, the UK wants to turn muslim lands into Democracies, both are abhorrent to the other side, therefore whats the difference?? Why should one be illegal and one puported to be all thats good??
Fair points, well argued, and I bow to your superior knowledge of British international law. However how does ISIS differ from the UK? ISIS wants to turn Muslim lands into a calliphate, the UK wants to turn muslim lands into Democracies, both are abhorrent to the other side, therefore whats the difference?? Why should one be illegal and one puported to be all thats good??
ISIS is a terrorist organization due to how it goes about achieving those aims, through terrorism. How Britain goes about its aims is in theory limited by intenational law dictating how it behaves in war, if it fails to behave Britian can be investigated and even tried for war crimes by international courts. The USA for example was unable to prevent the UN deciding to investigate Isreal for war crimes.
As more and more muslims from moderate muslim families (whatever they are) join ISIS, the liberals over here are going to have their work cut out for them..
As more and more muslims from moderate muslim families (whatever they are) join ISIS, the liberals over here are going to have their work cut out for them..
I found this difficult when all the nonsense started. Now I am more clear. I retain a liberal-ish outlook but put a boundary between that and any thinking on this type of fundamentalism. On the latter, my attitude isn't "I suppose it requires a bit of a tougher stance". It is wholly uncompromising and utterly draconian. Personally, I find that very easy to live with - it works for me rationally and emotionally - and I think it is the right way for policy to be applied.
As more and more muslims from moderate muslim families (whatever they are) join ISIS, the liberals over here are going to have their work cut out for them..
More and more? The amount of "muslims" stupid and outrageous enough to get involved in such things has always been a few thousand at the most and that includes those suspected of being involved or being watched. There are around 2.5 Million muslims maybe nearly 3 Million muslims in the UK now so no I don't accept your attempt to portray this as a massive reflection of muslims getting involved in terrorism.
More and more? The amount of "muslims" stupid and outrageous enough to get involved in such things has always been a few thousand at the most and that includes those suspected of being involved or being watched. There are around 2.5 Million muslims maybe nearly 3 Million muslims in the UK now so no I don't accept your attempt to portray this as a massive reflection of muslims getting involved in terrorism.
19 extremists killed 3000 people in America and injured many hundreds more. 4 'British-born' extremists in London killed 52 of their fellow citizens and injured over 700 others. Two extremists tried to commit a suicide attack on Glasgow airport.
Having 'a few thousand' allegedly British extremists motivated to go and fight for the loathsome Islamic State is something that everyone should be exceptionally worried about. The so-called 'moderate muslim' population is irrelevant.
19 extremists killed 3000 people in America and injured many hundreds more. 4 'British-born' extremists in London killed 52 of their fellow citizens and injured over 700 others. Two extremists tried to commit a suicide attack on Glasgow airport.
Having 'a few thousand' allegedly British extremists motivated to go and fight for the loathsome Islamic State is something that everyone should be exceptionally worried about. The so-called 'moderate muslim' population is irrelevant.
But people like to blame them as if they all knew about it! >:( Live up to your view and leave those who played no such part in committing acts of terror alone instead of always expecting them to prove themselves innocent by shouting from the roof tops all the time that they do not agree with such things.
But people like to blame them as if they all knew about it! >:( Live up to your view and leave those who played no such part in committing acts of terror alone instead of always expecting them to prove themselves innocent by shouting from the roof tops all the time that they do not agree with such things.
Unfortunately quite a large number of 'moderate' muslims have admitted that they wouldn't inform the authorities if they were aware either of radicalisation going on at a mosque or of an impending terrorist attack. Only 73% would inform the authorities if they were aware of a terrorist attack. Only 47%, less than half, would inform the authorities of radicalisation at a local mosque. That's 1,500,000 muslims who wouldn't inform the authorities in the latter instance. These numbers are enormous. It's not just one or two.
In fact a third of 'moderate' muslims, according to polling, believe that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end". A third of our current muslim population is nearly one million people. 16,000 believe Western culture should be overthrown using violence.
Unfortunately quite a large number of 'moderate' muslims have admitted that they wouldn't inform the authorities if they were aware either of radicalisation going on at a mosque or of an impending terrorist attack. Only 73% would inform the authorities if they were aware of a terrorist attack. Only 47%, less than half, would inform the authorities of radicalisation at a local mosque. That's 1,500,000 muslims who wouldn't inform the authorities in the latter instance. These numbers are enormous. It's not just one or two.
In fact a third of 'moderate' muslims, according to polling, believe that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end". A third of our current muslim population is nearly one million people. 16,000 believe Western culture should be overthrown using violence.
And how many of the 2-3 Milllion muslims were polled? 1 thousand? Was it a one off poll? If so not reflective of all the muslims at all! I've absolutely had it with the excuses people latch onto to give muslims a hard time. Why don't those giving muslims a hard time all the time admit they don't like or accept muslims full stop rather than always coming up with excuses all the time for their dislike?!
And how many of the 2-3 Milllion muslims were polled? 1 thousand? Was it a one off poll? If so not reflective of all the muslims at all! I've absolutely had it with the excuses people latch onto to give muslims a hard time. Why don't those giving muslims a hard time all the time admit they don't like or accept muslims full stop rather than always coming up with excuses all the time for their dislike?!
Well do you want to keep an open mind and read about the YouGov method of polling (which I'm sure you'll discount as amateur and irrelevant anyway) or not?
If the former then a discussion of the poll and its methods can be found here:
YouGov's methods aren't perfect, as the article explains, but its results have often been accurate. And it's one of the few feasible methods of polling the muslim population anyway: an online survey with the results weighted according to age, gender, etc.
I'm not sure it's sensible to dismiss polling evidence merely on the grounds that it doesn't fit into your pre-existing ideas.
Comments
I think the internet has made it easier for fanatics/extremists to contact each other and meet up.
Maybe there should be a world police to control and fight to keep peace in the world, not just america and us.
The key ones committed suicide there.
Stupid, deluded girl.
That is the woman who was in the Mirror yesterday.
The one I quoted.
I wouldn't let her back in to the UK at any price.
And if she does come back, I would lock her up indefinitely on ill health grounds.
It's probably just me, but her Swedish husband Abu Bakr does not look like his ancestors traveled in many longboats
It's not surprise the name keeps appearing when IS are in the news.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11049953/Net-closes-on-Jihadi-John-as-London-pair-probed.html
The authorities have three or four in mind (listed) but the colouring above the eyes of that grime rapper bloke - the one they want to rule out - is uncannily similar. (Previously on R1 and lived in a £1m - taxpayer funded? - house!!)
Not only you, I was half expecting a pic of a tall blond
The above is just your views, not the law and I don't accept your denial that it isn't racism either.
She cannot and should not be prevented, she has committed no crime in this country, in fact none of them have, until such a time as they have committed a crime in this country any attempt to take away their liberty cannot be allowed.
They are soldiers, fighting a war, maybe unjust, its a matter of opinion. Even the beheading of the journalist was carried out in a country where British law has no jurisdiction. How many British soldiers have committed unjust acts?? do you say they should not return??
I am not bothered by any of that stuff.
Obviously I would listen to those arguments in most cases.
Not for jihadists, though.
I just wouldn't have them back in the UK.
No ifs and no buts.
They are not soldiers fighting in a war, if you want to treat them as such maybe you would like these British nationals tried for treason, since ISIS wants to turn the world in to an Islamic state, and Britian has ISIS as a prohibited terrorist organization.
Fair points, well argued, and I bow to your superior knowledge of British international law. However how does ISIS differ from the UK? ISIS wants to turn Muslim lands into a calliphate, the UK wants to turn muslim lands into Democracies, both are abhorrent to the other side, therefore whats the difference?? Why should one be illegal and one puported to be all thats good??
I found this difficult when all the nonsense started. Now I am more clear. I retain a liberal-ish outlook but put a boundary between that and any thinking on this type of fundamentalism. On the latter, my attitude isn't "I suppose it requires a bit of a tougher stance". It is wholly uncompromising and utterly draconian. Personally, I find that very easy to live with - it works for me rationally and emotionally - and I think it is the right way for policy to be applied.
More and more? The amount of "muslims" stupid and outrageous enough to get involved in such things has always been a few thousand at the most and that includes those suspected of being involved or being watched. There are around 2.5 Million muslims maybe nearly 3 Million muslims in the UK now so no I don't accept your attempt to portray this as a massive reflection of muslims getting involved in terrorism.
19 extremists killed 3000 people in America and injured many hundreds more. 4 'British-born' extremists in London killed 52 of their fellow citizens and injured over 700 others. Two extremists tried to commit a suicide attack on Glasgow airport.
Having 'a few thousand' allegedly British extremists motivated to go and fight for the loathsome Islamic State is something that everyone should be exceptionally worried about. The so-called 'moderate muslim' population is irrelevant.
But people like to blame them as if they all knew about it! >:( Live up to your view and leave those who played no such part in committing acts of terror alone instead of always expecting them to prove themselves innocent by shouting from the roof tops all the time that they do not agree with such things.
Unfortunately quite a large number of 'moderate' muslims have admitted that they wouldn't inform the authorities if they were aware either of radicalisation going on at a mosque or of an impending terrorist attack. Only 73% would inform the authorities if they were aware of a terrorist attack. Only 47%, less than half, would inform the authorities of radicalisation at a local mosque. That's 1,500,000 muslims who wouldn't inform the authorities in the latter instance. These numbers are enormous. It's not just one or two.
In fact a third of 'moderate' muslims, according to polling, believe that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end". A third of our current muslim population is nearly one million people. 16,000 believe Western culture should be overthrown using violence.
And how many of the 2-3 Milllion muslims were polled? 1 thousand? Was it a one off poll? If so not reflective of all the muslims at all! I've absolutely had it with the excuses people latch onto to give muslims a hard time. Why don't those giving muslims a hard time all the time admit they don't like or accept muslims full stop rather than always coming up with excuses all the time for their dislike?!
Well do you want to keep an open mind and read about the YouGov method of polling (which I'm sure you'll discount as amateur and irrelevant anyway) or not?
If the former then a discussion of the poll and its methods can be found here:
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/07/about_that_youg.html
YouGov's methods aren't perfect, as the article explains, but its results have often been accurate. And it's one of the few feasible methods of polling the muslim population anyway: an online survey with the results weighted according to age, gender, etc.
I'm not sure it's sensible to dismiss polling evidence merely on the grounds that it doesn't fit into your pre-existing ideas.