Off Topic The Politics Thread

[sb_73]

Corbyn arguing for an isolationist foreign policy in the interests of national security. It's a position, though I don't think national security has been his primary concern in the past, rather some knee jerk 'anti imperialist' agitprop.

The fundamental argument is that our previous and current military involvement in Muslim countries is perceived as an attack on Islam by some of its followers and a justification for terror attacks, and if our prime duty is to protect our own citizens then we should avoid any such situations. Now no one in their right mind would claim that the result of these interventions has been wholly positive, but let's take a look at who we were/are actually trying to take down:
The Taliban
Al Qaeda/Bin Laden
ISIS
Gaddafi
Saddam Hussein
Assad (ish)
If any 'non radical' Muslim feels that these groups/people (who between them have killed and tortured more Muslims than the west ever has) are representative of Islam as a whole (personally I doubt whether Gaddafi, Saddam or Assad gave/give a **** about Islam) then they are not 'non radical', they are fundamentalists already. Their only excuse could be total ignorance about why we were/are involved in these conflicts, and willingness to believe people (usually in mosques) who lie to them. In which case the problem is their religion, again.

I realise that I am probably in a smallish minority happy with an interventionist foreign policy when it is directed against individuals and organisations who kill, torture and oppress at will. And I am not naive enough to think that we always intervene out of a moral obligation, there are always other, less savoury, motivations. And that the policy would never be applied to all such places, only where we think it could work. We certainly have to get better at it if we are going to continue these adventures, especially at what we leave behind. And it is a valid policy alternative not to engage because we think it makes us safer like that. But, given the example of Sweden above, and Belgium, what grounds would anyone have to think that non intervention will reduce the fundamentalist terror threat in the U.K.? Are the terrorists going to forget their perception of history because we promise to let them get on with it in their heartlands?

 

[TheBigDipper]

Corbyn arguing for an isolationist foreign policy in the interests of national security. It's a position, though I don't think national security has been his primary concern in the past, rather some knee jerk 'anti imperialist' agitprop.

The fundamental argument is that our previous and current military involvement in Muslim countries is perceived as an attack on Islam by some of its followers and a justification for terror attacks, and if our prime duty is to protect our own citizens then we should avoid any such situations. Now no one in their right mind would claim that the result of these interventions has been wholly positive, but let's take a look at who we were/are actually trying to take down:
The Taliban
Al Qaeda/Bin Laden
ISIS
Gaddafi
Saddam Hussein
Assad (ish)
If any 'non radical' Muslim feels that these groups/people (who between them have killed and tortured more Muslims than the west ever has) are representative of Islam as a whole (personally I doubt whether Gaddafi, Saddam or Assad gave/give a **** about Islam) then they are not 'non radical', they are fundamentalists already. Their only excuse could be total ignorance about why we were/are involved in these conflicts, and willingness to believe people (usually in mosques) who lie to them. In which case the problem is their religion, again.

I realise that I am probably in a smallish minority happy with an interventionist foreign policy when it is directed against individuals and organisations who kill, torture and oppress at will. And I am not naive enough to think that we always intervene out of a moral obligation, there are always other, less savoury, motivations. And that the policy would never be applied to all such places, only where we think it could work. We certainly have to get better at it if we are going to continue these adventures, especially at what we leave behind. And it is a valid policy alternative not to engage because we think it makes us safer like that. But, given the example of Sweden above, and Belgium, what grounds would anyone have to think that non intervention will reduce the fundamentalist terror threat in the U.K.? Are the terrorists going to forget their perception of history because we promise to let them get on with it in their heartlands?

In the short term, non-intervention might appeal to a lot of people. I can see it getting Labour some votes from some people previously planning to vote elsewhere.

As to the effectiveness of such a policy, I agree with you. Sometimes, but you can't be dogmatic about it every time. You need to pick your fights, explain the reasons clearly without spin or bull and do a better job at the end so you don't end up with a country that hates you and wants to kill your children because we killed theirs because they killed ours because we killed theirs, etc...

 

[Stroller]

Corbyn arguing for an isolationist foreign policy in the interests of national security. It's a position, though I don't think national security has been his primary concern in the past, rather some knee jerk 'anti imperialist' agitprop.

The fundamental argument is that our previous and current military involvement in Muslim countries is perceived as an attack on Islam by some of its followers and a justification for terror attacks, and if our prime duty is to protect our own citizens then we should avoid any such situations. Now no one in their right mind would claim that the result of these interventions has been wholly positive, but let's take a look at who we were/are actually trying to take down:
The Taliban
Al Qaeda/Bin Laden
ISIS
Gaddafi
Saddam Hussein
Assad (ish)
If any 'non radical' Muslim feels that these groups/people (who between them have killed and tortured more Muslims than the west ever has) are representative of Islam as a whole (personally I doubt whether Gaddafi, Saddam or Assad gave/give a **** about Islam) then they are not 'non radical', they are fundamentalists already. Their only excuse could be total ignorance about why we were/are involved in these conflicts, and willingness to believe people (usually in mosques) who lie to them. In which case the problem is their religion, again.

I realise that I am probably in a smallish minority happy with an interventionist foreign policy when it is directed against individuals and organisations who kill, torture and oppress at will. And I am not naive enough to think that we always intervene out of a moral obligation, there are always other, less savoury, motivations. And that the policy would never be applied to all such places, only where we think it could work. We certainly have to get better at it if we are going to continue these adventures, especially at what we leave behind. And it is a valid policy alternative not to engage because we think it makes us safer like that. But, given the example of Sweden above, and Belgium, what grounds would anyone have to think that non intervention will reduce the fundamentalist terror threat in the U.K.? Are the terrorists going to forget their perception of history because we promise to let them get on with it in their heartlands?

Yes, you can justify the interventions in that they are trying to take down bad people, but, by and large we've just left behind chaos allowing similar or worse people to take over, whilst giving Muslim 'brothers' elsewhere excuses to attack us. By the way, do you not wonder why the Saudis (another brutal, repressive dictatorship) are not on the list? The fact that we sell them rather a lot of arms perhaps?

The BBC's brief news round-up on Radio 5 just now led with.....

'Boris Johnson has accused Jeremy Corbyn of a monstrous attempt to justify the actions of terrorists'

Johnson was doing what he does compulsively, lying. Corbyn expressly said the opposite. However, there was no mention of what Corbyn actually said, just the context given that Johnson was reacting to a foreign policy speech earlier today.

****ing lefties.

 

[QPR999]

That's a frightfully good post sir. ( [HASHTAG]#627[/HASHTAG] )

 

[sb_73]

That's a frightfully good post sir. ( [HASHTAG]#627[/HASHTAG] )

Why thank you my liege.

Yes, you can justify the interventions in that they trying to take down bad people, but, by and large we've just left behind chaos allowing similar or worse people to take over, whilst giving Muslim 'brothers' elsewhere excuses to attack us. By the way, do you not wonder why the Saudis (another brutal, repressive dictatorship) are not on the list? The fact that we sell them rather a lot of arms perhaps?

The BBC's brief news round-up on Radio 5 just now led with.....

'Boris Johnson has accused Jeremy Corbyn of a monstrous attempt to justify the actions of terrorists'

Johnson was doing what he does compulsively, lying. Corbyn expressly said the opposite. However, there was no mention of what Corbyn actually said, just the context given that Johnson was reacting to a foreign policy speech earlier today.

****ing lefties.

Just heard Johnson on the wireless. I'd like to smash his face in. There is a serious policy discussion to be had here, but not with this self serving cheat.

I can justify the principle of the interventions, I can't justify the execution and aftermath incompetence. But surely it's easier to fix competence than principle? Don't answer that.

I would gladly cut all ties with the Saudis (not only a horrible regime but also a breeding ground for terrorists) and give them a good thumping at the first opportunity, regardless of lost arms sales. But of course we know why that won't happen. At the very least I'd like us to make a bit more fuss about their human rights, I don't buy this 'oh we do in private, that's the way to influence them' stuff, which is clearly bullshit as nothing ever improves - same with the Chinese.

 

[Staines R's]

Just heading out from Staines station and find police with machine guns posted outside.....used to seeing it at the airport but not somewhere like here.

Brings the threat home a bit

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Just heading out from Staines station and find police with machine guns posted outside.....used to seeing it at the airport but not somewhere like here.

Brings the threat home a bit

I could've understood that in Staines but not Staines-upon-Thames.

 

[Staines R's]

I could've understood that in Staines but not Staines-upon-Thames.

I blame the 'Staines Massive'

 

[kiwiqpr]

Just heading out from Staines station and find police with machine guns posted outside.....used to seeing it at the airport but not somewhere like here.

Brings the threat home a bit

bit of an over reaction to a bit of graffiti on platform 1

 

[Sooperhoop]

Corbyn arguing for an isolationist foreign policy in the interests of national security. It's a position, though I don't think national security has been his primary concern in the past, rather some knee jerk 'anti imperialist' agitprop.

The fundamental argument is that our previous and current military involvement in Muslim countries is perceived as an attack on Islam by some of its followers and a justification for terror attacks, and if our prime duty is to protect our own citizens then we should avoid any such situations. Now no one in their right mind would claim that the result of these interventions has been wholly positive, but let's take a look at who we were/are actually trying to take down:
The Taliban
Al Qaeda/Bin Laden
ISIS
Gaddafi
Saddam Hussein
Assad (ish)
If any 'non radical' Muslim feels that these groups/people (who between them have killed and tortured more Muslims than the west ever has) are representative of Islam as a whole (personally I doubt whether Gaddafi, Saddam or Assad gave/give a **** about Islam) then they are not 'non radical', they are fundamentalists already. Their only excuse could be total ignorance about why we were/are involved in these conflicts, and willingness to believe people (usually in mosques) who lie to them. In which case the problem is their religion, again.

I realise that I am probably in a smallish minority happy with an interventionist foreign policy when it is directed against individuals and organisations who kill, torture and oppress at will. And I am not naive enough to think that we always intervene out of a moral obligation, there are always other, less savoury, motivations. And that the policy would never be applied to all such places, only where we think it could work. We certainly have to get better at it if we are going to continue these adventures, especially at what we leave behind. And it is a valid policy alternative not to engage because we think it makes us safer like that. But, given the example of Sweden above, and Belgium, what grounds would anyone have to think that non intervention will reduce the fundamentalist terror threat in the U.K.? Are the terrorists going to forget their perception of history because we promise to let them get on with it in their heartlands?

Good post Stan. Picking our fights tends to be whether the 'aggressor' threatens our financial stability, ie Oil rather than altruistic concerns. Iraq and Libya were disastrous choices and the power vacuum these ill-thought out forays produced still haunt the whole region today. If 'regime change' was simply just that why did we ignore Zimbabwe which as a former colony may have deserved intervention?

We now live in an age when such 'war' cannot be won militarily, in Afghanistan both Russia and the USA, supposedly the biggest military powers on Earth have both realised they can never fully succeed. With 'suicide terrorism' now in vogue there is little more that can be done without some form of internment, but how many would you have to cage? For every one taken out two more will replace them as the disaffected spread like a cancer.

I fear we are now going to have to live with regular atrocities such as Manchester as the numbers of jihadis in our midst is far more than we can handle with our current security services. Whilst Corbyn has a point about our foreign policy mistakes they can't be undone and the thought of a 'pacifist' Prime Minister in the current climate doesn't bear thinking about...

 

[kiwiqpr]

apparently i am
66% tory
58 libertarian
56 ukip
56 democratic unionist
52 labour
50 british national
48 lib dem
44 green
43 snp
41 plaid cymru
36 sinn fein

blimey
have they left anyone out

 

[rangercol]

Col, I officially appoint you to be Prime Minister for the day.

What would you do to make us all safer and to stop the people promoting this from gaining further traction?

Try reading the thread (post #50).

 

[rangercol]

Put the liberals on the next boat out after the Muslims by the look of it. But it's an unfair question Dipper and you know it. It's not Col's job to come up with a solution. He, like a lot of people including me, is angry, not just at the atrocity, but at the whole situation which has lead us to this state of affairs. From what I am reading he feels that our liberal values are at least partly to blame. In the case of Islam (or some forms of Islam, I can't be arsed to sub divide it) I think he may be right - it's such an isolating, all inclusive ideology (honestly, a religion which tells you how to dress and what to eat? And I know it's not the only one) that being open to it and making allowances for it may be a waste of time. But taking a defiantly illiberal approach to it, like in France (a proper secularist country), doesn't seem to help either. Today the police have said that ALL 3000 people they are trying to monitor have been brought to their attention by the Muslim community. I would like to compare this to France, how helpful is the community there (I don't know)?

Col, you know where I stand on religion and especially religious violence (and for that matter any totalitarian ideology, religious or political, no matter how 'peace loving' they claim to be or even are. All are straitjackets for the mind). Our liberal values might have significant downsides, and they may be ones that you are not prepared to accept, but for me they are part of what makes us 'us'. Chuck them out and the consequences are much broader than tackling Islamic extremism, and even that might not work. I am not willing to make the trade off. Yet.

But I do wish those people saying they feel persecuted just because they are Muslim, and the other apologists, would button it for a bit. Not helping. And I do blame the Liberals Democrats for getting rid of (Labour's) Control Orders as a condition for entering the coalition, and May for not bringing them back at the first opportunity. The TPIM successor is feeble and not even used - only 7 people on them.

I don't want all Muslims or liberals on the next boat off this Island Stan.
Look, I'm just more angry about this than I think I've ever been.
In an ideal World we could all live as one on planet earth, with no wars and no hatred. But you and I know that this ain't an ideal World. I get the argument that going hard line may make things worse, but I can't think of anything worse than an 8 year old girl, full of holes, lying in the arms of a stranger, crying for her Mother!!
I've had it mate. No more "trying to understand" these nut-jobs. That liberal approach, along with Labour's multi-cultural experiment is a large part of why we're where we are. Colin Parry on Question Time was trying to say that we need to talk to these people, but does anyone really think they'll listen. They don't have a political aim that we could try to discuss. They just want to kill us because we don't believe what they believe.
Muslims have to stop whinging about feeling persecuted and start putting their house in order.

 

[rangercol]

My problem with this, TBD, is that having made ill-advised forays into both Afghanistan and Iraq and seen the problems this has caused, both in those respective countries and the repercussions at home, we have systematically repeated these mistakes in both Libya and Syria. What is it called when you repeat the same actions again and again whilst hoping for different results?

Totally agree with you about funding home security over military folly overseas.

We could also fund home security by cutting some of the overseas aid budget. Maybe divert a few billion to saving our kids from being blown to bits instead of sending money to Countries with their own space programme!

 

[Uber_Hoop]

We could also fund home security by cutting some of the overseas age budget. Maybe divert a few billion to saving our kids from being blown to bits instead of sending money to Countries with their own space programme!

I agree, although you might want to correct the typo.

 

[QPR999]

Does anyone else find this disturbing in light of what happened on Monday night? I personally think this is insensitive to the victims and their families.

You must log in or register to see media

 

[kiwiqpr]

I agree, although you might want to correct the typo.

maybe he dosent want his money going to overseas pensioners

 

[1982_Ranger]

I don't want all Muslims or liberals on the next boat off this Island Stan.
Look, I'm just more angry about this than I think I've ever been.
In an ideal World we could all live as one on planet earth, with no wars and no hatred. But you and I know that this ain't an ideal World. I get the argument that going hard line may make things worse, but I can't think of anything worse than an 8 year old girl, full of holes, lying in the arms of a stranger, crying for her Mother!!
I've had it mate. No more "trying to understand" these nut-jobs. That liberal approach, along with Labour's multi-cultural experiment is a large part of why we're where we are. Colin Parry on Question Time was trying to say that we need to talk to these people, but does anyone really think they'll listen. They don't have a political aim that we could try to discuss. They just want to kill us because we don't believe what they believe.
Muslims have to stop whinging about feeling persecuted and start putting their house in order.

Unfortunately I really cannot see how or where this will end. It's all very well 'real' muslims criticsing these extremist acts and feeling persecuted, but how willing are they really to help and what can they actually do?

We've made a rod for our own back in being too soft and are now reaping the consequences. Someone made the point to me the other day, could you imagine a country like Pakistan allowing Christians to settle and build churches within their community? I don't suppose so.

Short of banning the muslim faith, which is nigh on impossible and grossly unfair to proper muslims, what can be done? For every extremist arrested/taken out etc, there will be another to replace them.

There is no answer and it will sadly get worse.

 

[rangercol]

Does anyone else find this disturbing in light of what happened on Monday night? I personally think this is insensitive to the victims and their families.

You must log in or register to see media

I do mate, but we'll get hammered for saying it.

 

[1982_Ranger]

Does anyone else find this disturbing in light of what happened on Monday night? I personally think this is insensitive to the victims and their families.

You must log in or register to see media

Exactly what is wrong with this country. Not the club's fault, just indicative of the society we now live in.