Non-motoring > Are we going to talk about it: terror?	Miscellaneous
Thread Author: Roger.	Replies: 137

Sat 27 Jun 15 10:08   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Roger.

I make no apologies for the link below. It is from a UKIP supporting site, so I dare say I will have the usual suspects slamming both UKIP for publishing it and me for posting it. I DO NOT CARE. www.ukipdaily.com/will-we-ever-dare-to-talk/ Reply to this message | Report message       7

Sat 27 Jun 15 10:38   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> I make no apologies for the link below. >> It is from a UKIP supporting site, so I dare say I will have the >> usual suspects slamming both UKIP for publishing it and me for posting it. >> I DO NOT CARE. >> >> www.ukipdaily.com/will-we-ever-dare-to-talk/ Of course we can talk about it, we could talk about it in an intelligent calm even handed way without making political capitol out of it, or using it to scare people into reactionary knee jerk reactions. I'll tell you what you, and yourkip do? you feed people like this. You and your ilk are sustenance to the likes of UKIP, and we know you don't care. The best way to deal with this, would be for everyone planning an upcoming holiday, to take it on the Tunisian beaches - I do appreciate its a ballsy thing to do and is probably beyond the bravery of most people, but the principle and reaction should be "Ok, nasty people, now lets get on with life" That would make them whither on the vine. Keep feeding them tho Roger. Last edited by: Zero on Sat 27 Jun 15 at 10:39 Reply to this message | Report message       2

Sat 27 Jun 15 10:41   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

Edit - to be fair, the press is equally to blame. Reply to this message | Report message       2

Sat 27 Jun 15 10:46   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Roger.

>> >> Keep feeding them tho Roger. >> Count on it :-) Reply to this message | Report message       5

Sat 27 Jun 15 10:55   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - smokie

"Of course we can talk about it, we could talk about it in an intelligent calm even handed way without making political capitol out of it, .... "I'll tell you what you, and yourkip do? you feed people like this. You and your ilk are sustenance to the likes of UKIP, and we know you don't care" Doesn't the second phrase rather make political capital out of it? Whatever - the current crop of terrorists wouldn't be fazed if everyone turned up in Tunisia for their hols, they'd just up their efforts. And it would take a particular kind of idiot to go out there for a well earned and deserved holiday right now just to make some kind of statement. That's nothing to do with bravery/cowardice and everything to do with common sense and self-preservation. Reply to this message | Report message       4

Sat 27 Jun 15 11:03   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> Whatever - the current crop of terrorists wouldn't be fazed if everyone turned up in >> Tunisia for their hols, they'd just up their efforts. And it would take a particular >> kind of idiot to go out there for a well earned and deserved holiday right >> now just to make some kind of statement. That's nothing to do with bravery/cowardice and >> everything to do with common sense and self-preservation. Idiot? The safest place right now, this weekend, next two weeks, is Tunisia. Now assuming you are into self preservation, I assume you are staying in your back garden this summer? Reply to this message | Report message       2

Sat 27 Jun 15 11:15   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

>> Idiot? The safest place right now, this weekend, next two weeks, is Tunisia. Now assuming >> you are into self preservation, I assume you are staying in your back garden this >> summer? The Lad was due to go in 10 days time with a group of Uni mates. Not sure what they're doing but it certainly won't involve Tunisia. Operator Thomas Cook, is presently allowing cancellation free of charge up to next weekend. For later dates they're only allowing amendment. Suspect that may change in light of Foreign Office advice due shortly. Travel writer Simon Calder's view was that such advice would be against non essential travel for rest of summer season. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Sat 27 Jun 15 11:20   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> Suspect that may change in light of Foreign Office advice due shortly. Travel writer Simon >> Calder's view was that such advice would be against non essential travel for rest of >> summer season. Excelent. Terrorists 1, Rest of the Uk 0. Reply to this message | Report message       3

Sun 28 Jun 15 17:38   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

>> Idiot? The safest place right now, this weekend, next two weeks, is Tunisia. There's an element of truth in that. Would also be correct to compare with London on 08/07/2005 - no more dangerous than on the 6th. Foreign Office advice was updated today to refer to this incident and possibility of further outrages but concludes that the place is still safe. This means intending travellers are dependent on goodwill of tour operators for any refund or penalty free change of date/destination. While most seen to be offering concessions for those departing before late July few are allowing those booked in summer peak to change. Interesting debate on 5Live this morning between trave correspondent Simon Calder, ABTA's rep, a guy from Jet2 and a customer booked to go in September. Calder made point that travel advice for Tunisia has long referred to risk of terrorism and would have done so at time customer booked. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 28 Jun 15 at 17:38 Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 9 Jul 15 18:24   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

>> Foreign Office advice was updated today to refer to this incident and possibility of further >> outrages but concludes that the place is still safe. This means intending travellers are dependent >> on goodwill of tour operators for any refund or penalty free change of date/destination. While >> most seen to be offering concessions for those departing before late July few are allowing >> those booked in summer peak to change. Foreign Office advice now revised. No non essential travel and those there now should come home. Wonder what changed in last 10 days? Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 9 Jul 15 18:30   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> Wonder what changed in last 10 days? More like the last 72 hours. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 27 Jun 15 11:11   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> "Of course we can talk about it, we could talk about it in an intelligent >> calm even handed way without making political capitol out of it, .... >> >> "I'll tell you what you, and yourkip do? you feed people like this. You and >> your ilk are sustenance to the likes of UKIP, and we know you don't care" >> >> Doesn't the second phrase rather make political capital out of it? No it doesn't. Unless you want to bend it that way. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Mon 29 Jun 15 13:05   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

> >> Whatever - the current crop of terrorists wouldn't be fazed if everyone turned up in >> Tunisia for their hols, they'd just up their efforts. And it would take a particular >> kind of idiot to go out there for a well earned and deserved holiday right >> now just to make some kind of statement. That's nothing to do with bravery/cowardice and >> everything to do with common sense and self-preservation. Well I am very pleased to see there are considerable numbers of holiday making "idiots" who have refused emergency transport home as a matter of "support for the locals" and "british defiance" Good on them. Thats the way to deflate your average terrorist. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Mon 29 Jun 15 16:59   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Haywain

"Good on them. " Yes indeed. But I'm not sure that I could relax on a beach knowing that 3 dozen folks had been murdered there a couple of days earlier, and surrounded by balaclava-clad, armed-to-the-teeth security men who can barely be differentiated from them ol' IS boys. Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 29 Jun 15 17:05   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> "Good on them. " >> >> Yes indeed. But I'm not sure that I could relax on a beach knowing that >> 3 dozen folks had been murdered there a couple of days earlier, and surrounded by >> balaclava-clad, armed-to-the-teeth security men who can barely be differentiated from them ol' IS boys. I would be having similar thoughts, but I hope when the time came I had the same balls. Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 29 Jun 15 17:56   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - smokie

I'm not sure that a person who mind is sufficiently warped that they are willing and capable of hacking off someone's head, or carrying out a suicide bombing, would fret much that some of his potential targets have decided to tough it out. Ballsy it may be, but defiance won't bring an end to terrorism. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Sat 27 Jun 15 10:52   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Haywain

""Ok, nasty people, now lets get on with life"" You are quite correct, Zeddo. If, in the late 1930s everyone in the UK, France, Poland etc had gone into Germany for their holidays, it would have stopped old Adolf in his tracks. Reply to this message | Report message       5

Sat 27 Jun 15 10:48   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Observer

Though I think I see where Z is coming from, it seems to me that Roger's post rather coyly avoids actually getting to the nitty-gritty (and it also seems that the article to which he links also skirts around the issue). So, Roger, this is not about "terror". What you really mean is that Islam is bad, or at least so much of it is bad (in that it's involved with terrorism) we should stop pussy-footing around and just stamp on it, starting with the closure of a lot of mosques in the UK. That's what you mean, yes? Reply to this message | Report message       2

Sat 27 Jun 15 11:10   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

What the fundamentalist islamic terrorist wants to achieve is christian / islam strife.* To do this, the best way is to enrage non muslims into overreacting against the islamic community in your country of choice, who in turn become aggressive in defence. Bingo. (*its got nothing to do with any real or genuine grievances, like the Palestinian cause for example) Last edited by: Zero on Sat 27 Jun 15 at 11:11 Reply to this message | Report message       1

Sat 27 Jun 15 11:19   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

>> What the fundamentalist islamic terrorist wants to achieve is christian / islam strife.* AIUI Isis is sectarian witihn Islam and devotes a good deal of energy to stirring up Sunni/Shia conflict too. Yesterday's atrocity seems to be aimed at destabilising Tunisia's economy and it's democratic government - the one success of the Arab Spring. Reply to this message | Report message       2

Sat 27 Jun 15 12:52   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - No FM2R

I think its important to understand that as a bitter and racist man, Roger wants exactly the same as IS, which is conflict between muslim and non-muslim. So he, and his increasingly nasty little party will always react as the terrorist wish them to react - it is in their interests to do so. The extemists on both sides are to be reviled. Reply to this message | Report message       2

Sat 27 Jun 15 12:57   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Haywain

"I think its important to understand that as a bitter and racist man," ISTR that UKIP didn't want to go stirring things up in the middle east in the first place. Reply to this message | Report message       3

Sat 27 Jun 15 13:27   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Roger.

>> I think its important to understand that as a bitter and racist man, Roger wants >> exactly the same as IS, which is conflict between muslim and non-muslim. >> >> So he, and his increasingly nasty little party will always react as the terrorist wish >> them to react - it is in their interests to do so. This response rather proves the point, contained in the article (if you bothered to read it fully) that anyone who dares to raise the point is blackguarded as "racist". You are a product of your own prejudices. Reply to this message | Report message       5

Sat 27 Jun 15 13:41   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - No FM2R

You want the same as IS, conflict between Muslim & Non-Muslim and total separation of the groups, preferably involving the end of the other group. You believe the other group to be bad. True or not? Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 27 Jun 15 13:43   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Haywain

"... anyone who dares to raise the point is blackguarded as "racist"." And, of course, anyone who flees from or who avoids Tunisia is islamaphobic by definition. Reply to this message | Report message       3

Sat 27 Jun 15 17:31   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> anyone who flees from or who avoids Tunisia is ... doing the sensible thing. These crazed murderers don't have it in for the British in particular, just for all foreign tourists who come to the country not as travellers who want to engage with the population, but as feather-brained tourists consuming sun, sea, sand and hotel-and-restaurant services manned by the, er, local population. The extreme ruthlessness and brutality of such 'militants' stems from the forties and fifties and is largely France's doing: in the days of Algérie française, the French colonial authorities formed very nasty local militias to execute their policies (and anyone who disagreed with them effectively). The Maghreb has been a bit of a horrorshow ever since... but it learned how to be so horrible from Europeans. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Sat 27 Jun 15 13:46   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

>> This response rather proves the point, contained in the article (if you bothered to read >> it fully) that anyone who dares to raise the point is blackguarded as "racist". >> You are a product of your own prejudices. >> Unfortunately far too many of those raising the point do so from a racist or islamophobic point of view. The KIP article itself has exactly that theme through it like Brighton through rock. The linked article by Richard Mott is quite explicit eg What does it say about the UK when US First Lady Michelle Obama visits a school in East London, only for the students on parade to be dressed as if attending an establishment somewhere in the Saudi Arabia? Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 27 Jun 15 20:52   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Dutchie

I've had a nice holiday in Tunisia a few years ago.Can't be nice do being shot and killed on a beach on holiday.Infact it is terrible like so many killings what goes on in this world. What would you like to see Roger.Kick these moslims all out shut down all the mosgue.Or what? I haven't the answer. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 3 Jul 15 11:47   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Westpig

>> Unfortunately far too many of those raising the point do so from a racist or >> islamophobic point of view. The KIP article itself has exactly that theme through it like >> Brighton through rock. The linked article by Richard Mott is quite explicit eg >> >> What does it say about the UK when US First Lady Michelle Obama visits a >> school in East London, only for the students on parade to be dressed as if >> attending an establishment somewhere in the Saudi Arabia? I don't think it is racist or islamophobic to state what the writer stated... and indeed I agree with it. I don't think it should be the case that our female citizens should be pressured into hiding behind such clothing, just because some bigoted men in some communities think they should do. That shouldn't be what this country is about. And when the wife of the President of the USA attends this country to promote women's rights, it is surprising that she would be directed to a school that is not at all representative of the vast majority of this country... and specifically.... to a school that has so many female citizens wearing outfits that hardly shows women's equality. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 4 Jul 15 09:50   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

>> I don't think it is racist or islamophobic to state what the writer stated... and >> indeed I agree with it. Did you actually read Mott's article or look at the pictures of Michelle Obama's visit? If you take the extract I quoted in context of rest of piece the meaning is unmistakeable. The pics show a mix of dress style but the majority are wearing a colourful jilbaab together with a headscarf. Probably part of school uniform as most are in same shade of purple. The girl's smiling faces are visible and they're taking part in a range of normal UK school activities. The subject of Islamic and other religious/traditional dress is complex and nuanced. The idea that the sort of garb seen in that Tower Hamlets school is a result of pressure from bigoted men is (a) grossly simplistic and (b) conveys a racist slant of its own. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 4 Jul 15 12:50   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

On the subject of female dress and male domination I've always liked this piece by NZ cartoonist Evans but couldn't locate a copy when posting earlier. www.democraticunderground.com/10026022609 Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 4 Jul 15 at 12:50 Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 4 Jul 15 17:30   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Westpig

>> The pics show a mix of dress style but the majority are wearing a colourful >> jilbaab together with a headscarf. Probably part of school uniform as most are in same >> shade of purple. The majority of people in this country, inc London, do not wear jilbaab's colourful or not. >> >> The girl's smiling faces are visible and they're taking part in a range of normal >> UK school activities. ...and? >> >> The subject of Islamic and other religious/traditional dress is complex and nuanced. The idea that >> the sort of garb seen in that Tower Hamlets school is a result of pressure >> from bigoted men is (a) grossly simplistic and (b) conveys a racist slant of its >> own. ... and there you go again. It's a complicated subject, my viewpoint is far too simplistic and as I disagree with you on this subject matter my view has a racist slant. Hmm. How about: If Michelle Obama is to champion women's rights in this country, that they find her a school that represents more accurately what this country is about... and one that does not have a great chunk of its pupils wearing clothing that some men, part of one religion, dictate they should wear to remain chaste. I find it ironic that some people who vociferously fight for the rights of some people's bigoted religious views, are remarkably quiet when it comes to women's rights in circumstances when the two clash..(and animal rights as well, come to that). In your world, is someone's cultural/religious rights more important than female rights or those of animals to be treated humanely? Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 4 Jul 15 at 17:31 Reply to this message | Report message       1

Sat 4 Jul 15 22:19   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

>> The majority of people in this country, inc London, do not wear jilbaab's colourful or >> not. Where do I even start in replying to this? First of all Mrs Obama wasn't here to see some English traditional dancing round the Maypole stuff. She's heavily involved in an initiative to 'Let Girls Learn' about the millions of girls worldwide excluded from education. So in that sense, at least on your terms, it's not surprising she went to an inner city school where a large proportion of pupils are from minorities which (a) wear the jilbaab and (b) are supposedly opposed to educating women. In fact exactly where you'd expect her to be if championing women's rights. Secondly my accusation of racism isn't because I disagree but because you're using the technique of portraying an extreme stereotype (Saudi Arabia) as applicable to the whole of Islam. That's how racists work - think Jews in 'all' in dodgy international finance or black boys 'all' in drugs and mugging. The point about the girls' faces is exactly that. If they were really anything like Saudi you'd not see their faces. In reality they're British girls following the same curriculum as my kids did and yours will. Only they're wearing jilbaabs. The article Roger linked to was indefensibly racist. Why try and defend it? Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 4 Jul 15 at 22:20 Reply to this message | Report message       1

Sat 4 Jul 15 22:43   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Westpig

>> First of all Mrs Obama wasn't here to see some English traditional dancing round the >> Maypole stuff. She's heavily involved in an initiative to 'Let Girls Learn' about the millions >> of girls worldwide excluded from education. So in that sense, at least on your terms, >> it's not surprising she went to an inner city school where a large proportion of >> pupils are from minorities which (a) wear the jilbaab and (b) are supposedly opposed to >> educating women. In fact exactly where you'd expect her to be if championing women's rights. So, you are saying that she deliberately went to a school where a lot of the pupils come from or could come from a background whereby the bigoted older menfolk might prevent their proper education... yet they are at school, receiving an education, presumably? So she didn't go to a traditional English / British school, because there's no need to? Are you really saying that? >> Secondly my accusation of racism isn't because I disagree but because you're using the technique >> of portraying an extreme stereotype (Saudi Arabia) as applicable to the whole of Islam. That's >> how racists work - think Jews in 'all' in dodgy international finance or black boys >> 'all' in drugs and mugging. You go too far with putting words in my mouth. I made no hint or suggestion about Saudi Arabia. I dislike the requirement of any Islamic country or followers anywhere to make their womenfolk be covered by such clothing, particularly when they are plenty of Islam followers who do not require this. Now that fits Saudi Arabia, fair enough, but it also fits some bloke in Birmingham. >> The point about the girls' faces is exactly that. If they were really anything >> like Saudi you'd not see their faces. In reality they're British girls following the same >> curriculum as my kids did and yours will. >> >> Only they're wearing jilbaabs. My daughter will never have to wear something that I insist on because of my interpretation of some sky fairy story that has been twisted for many hundreds of years and turned into whatever someone wants it to be. >> The article Roger linked to was indefensibly racist. Why try and defend it? Because I don't think it was. Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 4 Jul 15 at 22:45 Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 4 Jul 15 22:50   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> My daughter will never have to wear something that I insist on because of my interpretation of some sky fairy story OK Wp, granted, religious uniforms a bit of a turnoff. One can only agree wholeheartedly. But to be mischievous, might you not feel like frowning a bit and commenting on a daughter's apparel when it seems to have become immodest for one reason or another? I never hesitated myself, for all the good it did... Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 4 Jul 15 22:58   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Westpig

>> OK Wp, granted, religious uniforms a bit of a turnoff. One can only agree wholeheartedly. >> >> >> But to be mischievous, might you not feel like frowning a bit and commenting on >> a daughter's apparel when it seems to have become immodest for one reason or another? >> I never hesitated myself, for all the good it did... Yes, I no doubt will. But there's a bit of a difference between the likes of you and I moaning about our daughters walking out of the house with half their backsides showing or showing too much cleavage.. and.. making them wear a great big sheet and covering their faces. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 4 Jul 15 23:02   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> My daughter will never have to wear something that I insist on because of my >> interpretation of some sky fairy story that has been twisted for many hundreds of years >> and turned into whatever someone wants it to be. Have you ever considered that a lot of the girls WANT to wear traditional clothing as part of their heritage and faith? No of course you haven't. Reply to this message | Report message       2

Sat 4 Jul 15 23:07   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Westpig

>> Have you ever considered that a lot of the girls WANT to wear traditional clothing >> as part of their heritage and faith? >> >> No of course you haven't. >> Have you considered that a lot of girls want to wear traditional clothing etc, because that's how they've been brought up..... in a system where women are expected to do that... and children often adopt the views of their parents. And that people like me wish to allow others to choose for themselves, not have it dictated to them. No of course you haven't. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 4 Jul 15 23:47   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

< >> No of course you haven't. Now try reading my post again, I made it quite simple, oh and by the way, cut out the liberal enlightened parent crap, it doesn't go with the " I reserve the right to hit them " and the " they will never be allowed to take a school coach trip" stance. Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 6 Jul 15 at 01:25 Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 5 Jul 15 15:18   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Westpig

>> Now try reading my post again, I made it quite simple, Obviously not... unless you don't understand my post, in which case I'd invite you to re-read that. >> oh and by the >> way, cut out the liberal enlightened parent crap, it doesn't go with the " I >> reserve the right to hit them " and the " they will never be allowed >> to take a school coach trip" stance. I'm not trying to be the enlightened parent. If you think that, you've made a mistake.. again. I'm signed up for equality. Are you? Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 5 Jul 15 15:46   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> >> Now try reading my post again, I made it quite simple, >> >> Obviously not... unless you don't understand my post, in which case I'd invite you to >> re-read that. I read it which is why it was abundantly clear to me that you actually chose to ignore what it said. >> I'm not trying to be the enlightened parent. If you think that, you've made a >> mistake.. again. I know you are not you are not capable of it, but I was not mistaken in the fact that was what you were trying to impart. >> I'm signed up for equality. >> >> Are you? Yes, and that includes the right to dress in traditional dress if they so choose. Something you seem to think they don't have the right to do. Your idea of fairness and equality is always under your rather narrow and coloured terms. Last edited by: Zero on Sun 5 Jul 15 at 15:47 Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 5 Jul 15 15:57   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Westpig

>> I read it which is why it was abundantly clear to me that you actually >> chose to ignore what it said. In that case, I don't have the faintest clue what you are on about. Which means either your communication skills are lacking, or my interpretation of what you have posted is lacking. >> I know you are not you are not capable of it, but I was not >> mistaken in the fact that was what you were trying to impart. A bit strong and presumptuous, as is usual with you, bearing in mind you've never met me and never witnessed my parenting. >> Yes, and that includes the right to dress in traditional dress if they so choose. >> Something you seem to think they don't have the right to do. Well that's where you are wrong.. again. My beef is with those that insist, indoctrinate, bully, etc. If someone with complete freedom to make their own mind, wishes to indulge, so be it, no problem from this quarter. But do you really believe that this applies to most? Are you really that naive? >> Your idea of >> fairness and equality is always under your rather narrow and coloured terms. >> A good look in the mirror is required for this one. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 5 Jul 15 16:08   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> If someone with complete freedom to make their own mind, wishes to indulge, so be >> it, no problem from this quarter. But do you really believe that this applies to >> most? Are you really that naive? How may second or third generation uk muslim women do you know? Young 20 something career mind women doing well for themselves, living in sin with boyfriends, yet still wearing traditional dress? I know quite a few. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 5 Jul 15 09:41   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

>> So she didn't go to a traditional English / British school, because there's no need >> to? >> >> Are you really saying that? She went to a particular school in Tower Hamlets. I don't know why it was chosen but given that 'Let Girls Learn' is an international initiative showing a model of education in a liberal multi-cultural democracy seems a way to go. There's some background on the scheme and Mrs Obama's involvement in it at www.whitehouse.gov/letgirlslearn. >> You go too far with putting words in my mouth. I made no hint or >> suggestion about Saudi Arabia. I dislike the requirement of any Islamic country or followers anywhere >> to make their womenfolk be covered by such clothing, particularly when they are plenty >> Islam followers who do not require this. Now that fits Saudi Arabia, fair enough, but >> it also fits some bloke in Birmingham. You were defending a piece that stated the Tower Hamlets school looked like Saudi. It's your pre-conception that traditional Islamic dress is solely a matter of male pressure. The full blown Burkha is one thing but the Jilbaab is a practical garment worn by thousands. The reality is that, as Zero suggests many women do so through choice. Islam is no more a single faith than Christianity so it's not surprising that there are differing dress codes in communities around the world. Dressing modestly is still part of the 'code' in some Christian communities - try rural Spain for a start. >> My daughter will never have to wear something that I insist on because of my >> interpretation of some sky fairy story that has been twisted for many hundreds of years >> and turned into whatever someone wants it to be. But you'll let her absorb some of the Christian sky fairy stuff 'cos that's a British tradition? Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 4 Jul 15 11:07   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

>> AIUI Isis is sectarian witihn Islam and devotes a good deal of energy to stirring >> up Sunni/Shia conflict too. Yesterday's atrocity seems to be aimed at destabilising Tunisia's economy and >> it's democratic government - the one success of the Arab Spring. Could whoever 'frownied' the above post explain why it's offensive (or even why they disagree)? Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 27 Jun 15 22:07   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - BrianByPass

Based on my interaction with and observation of South Asian origin muslim community in England, I think most of them are decent people but are fearful of openly expressing their true abhorrence of the barbaric murderous activities ISIS and other fundamentalists. That fear factor and peer pressure means most of them will not condemn fundamentalism, and the men are increasingly adopting the compulsion for their women to wear burqas and hijabs. But then they will also tell you in private that they do support and condone the anti-West (by which they mean mainly US, UK and France) attitude and actions taken by muslim militants in the Middle East. Reply to this message | Report message       3

Sat 27 Jun 15 23:26   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> But then they will also tell you in private that they do support and condone the anti-West (by which they mean mainly US, UK and France) attitude and actions taken by muslim militants in the Middle East. Are you sure this is what you mean? Isn't there a 'not' or negative missing here? If no not, then why the but? Reply to this message | Report message       1

Sun 28 Jun 15 08:49   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - movilogo

>>decent people but are fearful of openly expressing their true abhorrence May be they are silent supporters of such acts? What is the fear by the way? If they believe Islam is religion of peace (!) then they should act to prove it. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Sun 28 Jun 15 09:08   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Manatee

The vast majority of people regardless of race or creed will not put their heads above the parapet in their own communities even when the chopping off of body parts is not even a remote possibility. I feel very uncomfortable when I see the "muslim community" criticised for not condemning or rising up against Islamic extremism. 99% reject it every day in the way they live their lives, just like the rest of us. Reply to this message | Report message       3

Sun 28 Jun 15 22:40   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Cliff Pope

>> >> I feel very uncomfortable when I see the "muslim community" >> I feel very uncomfortable when I see the word "community" used at all. We are all supposed to belong to "communities" nowadays, and be community-ist in our awareness of people of other communities. I don't belong to a community, and I wouldn't want to join one that wanted me as a member. :) Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 28 Jun 15 22:43   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Londoner

>> I don't belong to a community, and I wouldn't want to join one that wanted >> me as a member. :) >> You are Groucho Marx, and I claim my £5. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 28 Jun 15 09:12   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> >>decent people but are fearful of openly expressing their true abhorrence >> >> May be they are silent supporters of such acts? What is the fear by the >> way? If they believe Islam is religion of peace (!) then they should act to >> prove it. Why? how? What are you doing to prove you do not support terrorism? Last edited by: Zero on Sun 28 Jun 15 at 09:13 Reply to this message | Report message       1

Sun 28 Jun 15 23:40   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - zippy

I have avoided commenting on this discussion but I read this and thought it appropriate to show that not everyone from the Middle East is a lunatic murderer... tinyurl.com/pcsl3do (from the Mail no less). Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 29 Jun 15 00:30   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> not everyone from the Middle East is a lunatic murderer... I wasn't sure before, but that clip has convinced me zippy. :o} More seriously, North Africa - the Maghreb - is a very mixed bag for all sorts of historical and cultural reasons. Both Algeria and Libya are tough places which can be very harsh. Obviously this applies to Tunisia too, but it has less oil and more tourism, so is politer to foreigners. But I don't think I've ever set foot in it, so I can't comment with any knowledge. The other two - mainly Algeria - always treated me pretty well. What a lot of people don't understand is how ethnically diverse the region is. There are numerous Berber groups, more or less distinct from each other, and quite ancient Arab, Turkish and European admixtures. In southern Algeria, and probably in Tunisia too, there are black populations descended from slaves (in which the Berbers and Arabs used to trade when that was a respectable activity). Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 29 Jun 15 09:48   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

>> What a lot of people don't understand is how ethnically diverse the region is. There >> are numerous Berber groups, more or less distinct from each other, and quite ancient Arab, >> Turkish and European admixtures. In southern Algeria, and probably in Tunisia too, there are black >> populations descended from slaves (in which the Berbers and Arabs used to trade when that >> was a respectable activity). The ethnic diversity issue of course applies to the whole of Islam. A fact worth reminding to those who speak sceptically of the 'religion of peace' as though it was a single unified bloc of humanity. Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 29 Jun 15 10:26   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Roger.

Link to an article in the Spectator about "The Religion of Peace". tinyurl.com/q8zlc9w Reply to this message | Report message       2

Mon 29 Jun 15 12:45   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - movilogo

>> Why? how? What are you doing to prove you do not support terrorism? As a Hindu, I believe our holy book Geeta has not that much relevance to modern life (some of it is still relevant as it is mostly about human race). Many Hindus are quite open to this fact. However, I am yet to see muslims are making similar comments about their holy books. Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 29 Jun 15 13:36   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

>> >> Why? how? What are you doing to prove you do not support terrorism? >> >> As a Hindu, I believe our holy book Geeta has not that much relevance to >> modern life (some of it is still relevant as it is mostly about human race). >> Many Hindus are quite open to this fact. Whatever the status of holy books Hindu terrorism is not exactly unknown. It may be associated with religion as s marker for ethnic difference but that's true in Islam too. >> However, I am yet to see muslims are making similar comments about their holy books. Neither have the more committed Christians or Jews. The sort of oppositionn to Islam which you appear to be espousing is exactly the way to drive adherents in to the hands of the extremists. Moderate Islam and the west needs a narrative that counters the appeal of ISIS etc. Unfortunately that requires study and understanding of the drivers of extremism but anybody taking that course get's accused of 'thoughtcrime'. Not new. Exactly the same barbs were thrown at those trying to explain Irish terrorism. And guess how we moved that one on....... Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 29 Jun 15 15:08   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

All monotheistic religions have this hectoring, bullying, threatening side which can be seen in their sacred texts. They are made to look a lot better than they really are by the believers themselves, who understand that humanity is diverse and who generally tolerate 'difference' without agonizing unduly. There are exceptions of course but they are generally unpleasant troublemakers who want to make a career of putting the frighteners on everyone. Evil t***s. If a chap with a beard or tonsure shakes his finger at you, listen carefully to what he's actually saying and spit in his eye if it seems appropriate. Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 29 Jun 15 18:13   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Dutchie

Do we really know where ISIS originated from? They are well organised have plenty of money for weapons.Makes you think what this horrible game is all about? Putting people up against each other is a old game and it seems to be working. Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 29 Jun 15 19:02   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Old Navy

Is it an Iranian / Saudi Arabian proxy conflict that has got out of control? A bit like the East and West funding proxy wars. Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 29 Jun 15 at 19:03 Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 29 Jun 15 19:48   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> Is it an Iranian / Saudi Arabian proxy conflict that has got out of control? It is a bit like that. Muslims are awful cats, nearly as bad as the Jews and Christians on whom the Prophet Muhammad based his purely invented religion. Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 29 Jun 15 19:48   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - smokie

I reckon there isn't much central planning or coordination of some of these attacks - just some local nutter gets a weapon and goes out looking for his moment of glory. I expect there is some historical radicalisation but that's of a general nature and just gets them on the road to an unspecified future event, the detail of which they work out for themselves. In my very humble opinion that's probably true of Lyons and Tunisia for starters. I expect I'm wrong though. Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 29 Jun 15 19:56   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Old Navy

Yes, the difficult to detect Lone wolf. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 09:35   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - movilogo

While I agree with the overall fact that it is difficult to detect lone wolfs (especially when they are in a different country) but based on whom some people interact with, there are some advanced algorithms (e.g. graph theory where a node can be associated with similar links - more like whom someone know in Facebook/LinkedIn etc) using which it is often possible to fairly accurately predict who can be such persons. But then the main difficulty arises. Even if you guess, how do you prevent it. Our law is based on fact crime is punishable only after it is committed. Remember the movie Minority Report? Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 14:07   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Ambo

>>the Prophet Muhammad based his purely invented religion. Are not all religions invented? Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 14:23   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - smokie

That depends on what you believe :-) Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 14:30   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> Are not all religions invented? Yes, but Judaeism and Christianity were put together bit by bit. They sort of evolved in a sense. Islam was invented all of a piece by the Prophet Muhammad, who was a warrior and politician as well as a genius. He thought the Arabs could do with something integral that would make them function as powerful units, like the Christians and Jews, instead of the disparate and sometimes quarrelsome tribal polytheisms that existed previously. Or that's my take on it. Muhammad himself attributed the whole thing to the Angel Gabriel who dictated the Book to him in a series of visions. Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 30 Jun 15 at 14:31 Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 14:36   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - movilogo

>> Are not all religions invented? Hinduism had no single founder. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 14:51   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Alanovich

>> >> Are not all religions invented? >> >> Hinduism had no single founder. >> It's still a man-made invention, however many men it took. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 15:56   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - movilogo

>> It's still a man-made invention, however many men it took Well, God was invented by men too. Although most people believe the opposite. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 16:12   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Alanovich

>> Well, God was invented by men too. Yes, I know. That's my point entirely. >> Although most people believe the opposite. I wouldn't be too sure on that one. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 14:58   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Dog

>> Muhammad himself attributed the whole thing to the Angel Gabriel who dictated the Book to him in a series of visions. I wonder what he was on :) Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 15:04   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> I wonder what he was on :) Self-imposed semi-starvation and solitude perhaps. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 16:30   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Dog

>>Self-imposed semi-starvation and solitude perhaps. Maybe I'd better begin formulating a collection of beliefs, and work out a new meaning for the meaning of life, being there's plenty good money to be made in the ole faith business, I hear. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 16:31   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Mapmaker

>>Well, God was invented by men too. Although most people believe the opposite. But who invented man? The fundamental question of where we come from and why has bemused better brains than those on this forum! Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 16:38   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Alanovich

Well for a start there doesn't have to be a "why". As to "who", well surely "nobody" is the answer to that, it almost certainly wasn't a God(s) of any kind, as presented by man-made religion. The only question that is pertinent and relevant is "how". Science is tantalisingly close to the "how". It will come. When it does, nobody will ever ask "who" or "why" again, thankfully. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 16:39   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - No FM2R

>> Science is tantalisingly close to the "how" I don't think it is. And when [if] it does, we won't be able to understand it. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 16:41   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Alanovich

It's a darn sight closer than religion. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 16:43   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - No FM2R

>>It's a darn sight closer than religion. I expect so. But closer is not close. And it certainly isn't very or tantalisingly close. Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 1 Jul 15 09:54   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Alanovich

Hmm. www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15618759 "But new tools and new data in a range of fields are allowing scientists to get closer to those answers than they ever have before. And major, interdisciplinary efforts like Harvard's Origins of Life project, and similar ones at Arizona State University, the University of Washington, and University College London (which is holding its first symposium on the subject on 11 November), are radically changing the way we search - and what we are likely to find. Just as Copernicus revolutionised how people viewed themselves and their world 450 years ago, and Darwin did again 150 years ago, so Sasselov says we're getting close to another transformative moment." Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 1 Jul 15 10:39   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Alanovich

And: www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-theory-of-life-could-prove-how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 2 Jul 15 14:30   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Cliff Pope

>> >> And when [if] it does, we won't be able to >> understand it. >> Not as hard to understand as why God, who knows everything, spent billions of years messing around stirring bits of matter in space before finally hitting on the idea of creating a solar system and earth. And then a few more billion years working out how to create humans. And then another, admittedly shorter period, before he got fed up and decided to tell us about his existence. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 16:41   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Focusless

>> It will come. When it does, nobody will ever ask "who" or "why" >> again, thankfully. Sure about that? :) Last edited by: Focusless on Tue 30 Jun 15 at 16:42 Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 17:24   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Mapmaker

>> Well for a start there doesn't have to be a "why". That shows a real lack of interest in your surroundings. Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 1 Jul 15 10:42   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Alanovich

Not really. I'm very interested in how my surroundings work. "Why" is an irrelevance. There just doesn't have to be one, so trying to find one is a pointless task. The nearest I think we'll ever come to a why is the theory that life, like all matter, is simply congealed energy, and the purpose of life is simply to allow the universe to expend its energy and eventually die. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 16:41   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - movilogo

Nobody "invented" man! Man evolved from primates (don't we all know this?) Ancient people didn't have the scientific knowledge to explain natural phenomena so they "invented" God (and religion for that matter). Ideally concept of "religion" should have been obsolete by now. However, a group of people kept that concept alive so that they can control much larger groups of people. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 17:23   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Dog

>>Man evolved from primates If that is fact, then why don't primates now drive BMW's? No naughty answers please of you'll have DD after you! Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 16:51   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

Men evolved from single-celled organisms which appeared in a 'primal organic soup'. It took a considerable time. Where the universe came from, and what it is, remain impenetrable mysteries though. Are there other worlds, other sentient beings somewhere? Seems statistically quite likely, but it doesn't make me feel comfortable. I'd rather we were alone in the cosmos. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 17:35   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> I'd rather we were alone in the cosmos. Wonder if that means I'm autistic like Dog? :o} Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 17:40   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Dog

>>Wonder if that means I'm autistic like Dog? Course, I knows you mean artistic. I also know it's almost your drinkies time. :} Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 17:52   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> I also know it's almost your drinkies time. Thanks for the reminder Perro. But I've (cough) jumped the gun a bit, since Herself is still out and I don't need to simulate virtue. Time to ogle the idiot's lantern and absorb the propaganda. God I'm hopeless... Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 17:47   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> Self-imposed semi-starvation and solitude perhaps. It's said that the Prophet spent some time alone in a cave, praying constantly no doubt, and like the Irish hero Finn Mac Cool 'without the solace of women or food or chessmen'. Solitude and stress (which covers malnutrition) are known to produce hallucinations in many subjects. All I can say is that when I was alone and hungry I never saw an angel let alone a named Archangel. Probably not hungry enough. :o} Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 17:55   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Dog

Coupla books 'ere guvnor might make you think a tad differently: www.amazon.co.uk/Autobiography-Yogi-Hindi-Yogananda-Paramahamsa/dp/8189535218 www.amazon.co.uk/Cosmic-Consciousness-Revisited-Development-Psychology/dp/0788194941 Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 18:53   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

I doubt it Perro. Not my sort of text at all. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 18:59   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - CGNorwich

I'd certainly want to revisit my cosmic consciousness if I paid the Amazon asking price of £911.11 for a new copy of the tome. Stay clear of the one touch button! Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 30 Jun 15 20:00   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Dog

>>I'd certainly want to revisit my cosmic consciousness if I paid the Amazon asking price of £911.11 for a new copy of the tome. Howl amazing! .. doth thou reckon tis a mistake? Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 1 Jul 15 01:12   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - No FM2R

Mayel Moncef Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 2 Jul 15 14:18   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Cliff Pope

>> Our law is based on fact crime is punishable only after it is committed. >> Not altogether true. Conspiracy to commit crime can be punishable even if not carried out. Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 1 Jul 15 21:35   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Dog

It really hits home when they put names and faces to the cold-blooded killings in Tunisia. One chap, Stephen Mellor, lived not far from here. He was killed as he attempted to shield his wife. Blame is for God, and small children, they say, but I point the finger of suspicion firmly at George Walker Bush and Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33300776 Reply to this message | Report message       4

Thu 2 Jul 15 00:51   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> Blame is for God, and small children, they say, but I point the finger of suspicion firmly at George Walker Bush and Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. Those two skeletons are Johnny-come-latelies Perro. The nasty side of the Maghreb is the doing of France, and I'm sorry to say of the Muslim religion too. Not to mention the howling beasts who are doing the killing and bullying. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Thu 2 Jul 15 14:08   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Roger.

More grist to certain people's mills! Not "Racist", but more on the lines of "Silly-Religionism" (We need a site on the lines of "Fundamental-Christian-Loony-Watch, too!) www.shariawatch.org.uk/ Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 2 Jul 15 14:22   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> www.shariawatch.org.uk/ That's a silly mischievous site Rastaman. Why encourage ignorant people to give offence to a sixth of humanity and risk their lives? Superstitious people can be dangerous, but everyone has a right to be superstitious and it's simply rude to jeer at them. Smile thinly and walk on by if that's the best you can do. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 2 Jul 15 15:00   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - commerdriver

>> More grist to certain people's mills! >> >> Not "Racist", but more on the lines of "Silly-Religionism" >> >> (We need a site on the lines of "Fundamental-Christian-Loony-Watch, too!) >> >> www.shariawatch.org.uk/ >> can we also have one on the lines of fundamental atheist loony watch as well please, they are certainly just as irritating as all the other fundamentalist / loony whatevers. Alternatively let's just live and let live Last edited by: commerdriver on Thu 2 Jul 15 at 15:01 Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 2 Jul 15 15:03   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> fundamental atheist loony watch as well please, they are certainly just as irritating as all the other fundamentalist / loony whatevers. Quite right cd. Not all are irritating, but some are. Same applies to the believers of course. Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 2 Jul 15 at 15:04 Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 2 Jul 15 15:05   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - commerdriver

absolutely, fundamentalist / loony behaviour is not required in any form, life's too short Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 4 Jul 15 06:34   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Crankcase

It's a cancelled picnic. So has terrorism won in some manner? www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/04/independence-day-event-at-uk-military-base-cancelled-over-security-fears Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 5 Jul 15 10:10   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> It's a cancelled picnic. So has terrorism won in some manner? Indeed it has. Reply to this message | Report message       2

Sun 5 Jul 15 13:42   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Old Navy

I think the current batch of terrorists ISIS?, ISIL?, IS?, or whatever this weeks PC title they have been given is going to be careful about upsetting the Americans. They tend to respond with B52s and drones, they also have long memories and excellent survellience when it comes to tracking down those who hurt their own folk. It is a pity that our politicians are spineless and our military capabilities have been decimated by cuts. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 5 Jul 15 13:49   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> I think the current batch of terrorists ISIS?, ISIL?, IS?, or whatever this weeks PC >> title they have been given is going to be careful about upsetting the Americans. They >> tend to respond with B52s and drones, they also have long memories and excellent survellience >> when it comes to tracking down those who hurt their own folk. and a very poor winning percentage when it comes to the end game. In fact it could be said they haven't won a war since 1945. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Sun 5 Jul 15 13:54   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Old Navy

>> and a very poor winning percentage when it comes to the end game. In fact >> it could be said they haven't won a war since 1945. >> True, but you should give them the credit for winning two at once with a little help from the Russians. Germany and Japan. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 5 Jul 15 14:54   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Duncan

>> and a very poor winning percentage when it comes to the end game. In fact >> it could be said they haven't won a war since 1945. >> There is a point of view that says that the Soviets won WW2. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 5 Jul 15 14:21   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Bromptonaut

>> I think the current batch of terrorists ISIS?, ISIL?, IS?, or whatever this weeks PC >> title they have been given is going to be careful about upsetting the Americans. They >> tend to respond with B52s and drones, they also have long memories and excellent survellience >> when it comes to tracking down those who hurt their own folk. America (and the UK) have responded with drones. The problem is (a) that any collateral damage to innocent Muslims is food and drink to ISIS and (b) the surveillance is not all that good leading back to (a). Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 14:35   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Crankcase

>> >> It's a cancelled picnic. So has terrorism won in some manner? >> >> Indeed it has. >> Ah, but then it lost again. In some manner. www.cambridge-news.co.uk/men-Luton-charged-alleged-terror-threat-RAF/story-27455274-detail/story.html Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 15:46   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Old Navy

>> Ah, but then it lost again. In some manner. >> >> www.cambridge-news.co.uk/men-Luton-charged-alleged-terror-threat-RAF/story-27455274-detail/story.html >> I hope they are very worried about extradition to the USA. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 16:00   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> >> >> Ah, but then it lost again. In some manner. >> >> >> >> www.cambridge-news.co.uk/men-Luton-charged-alleged-terror-threat-RAF/story-27455274-detail/story.html >> >> >> >> I hope they are very worried about extradition to the USA. They wont be, there is no case for extradition. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 16:04   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Old Navy

>> >> I hope they are very worried about extradition to the USA. >> >> They wont be, there is no case for extradition. >> I am not legally trained, but thought that the Americans take a dim view of terrorist threats against their armed forces. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 16:07   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

It was a threat against an RAF base. In the UK. Uk jurisdiction. UK Offence. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 16:19   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Old Navy

>> It was a threat against an RAF base. In the UK. Uk jurisdiction. UK Offence. >> We will see, "A planned terrorist attack against US personel in the UK" will get the Americans attention. I know the RAF base is leased to the Americans but if it is UK jurisdiction how come it is policed by armed USAF police? Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 16:24   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - sooty123

>> We will see, "A planned terrorist attack against US personel in the UK" will get >> the Americans attention. I know the RAF base is leased to the Americans but if >> it is UK jurisdiction how come it is policed by armed USAF police? >> Since it's their troops they cover security, but MoD plod are based there to make legal arrests. It's all covered under status of forces agreements. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 16:24   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> >> It was a threat against an RAF base. In the UK. Uk jurisdiction. UK >> Offence. >> >> >> We will see, "A planned terrorist attack against US personel in the UK" will get >> the Americans attention. I know the RAF base is leased to the Americans but if >> it is UK jurisdiction how come it is policed by armed USAF police? > Who have no jurisdiction or legality to carry or use arms outside the base. You think what you like, but they will not be extradited to the US. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 16:26   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Armel Coussine

>> "A planned terrorist attack against US personel in the UK" will get the Americans attention. I know the RAF base is leased to the Americans but if it is UK jurisdiction how come it is policed by armed USAF police? These miscreants are subject to the not-best-pleased attentions of the US and the UK. Two for the price of one. They've really done it this time. They should feel honoured. Of course some shyster may get them off. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 16:22   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - sooty123

>> It was a threat against an RAF base. In the UK. Uk jurisdiction. UK Offence. >> >> It is but the american's have far reaching laws when it comes to this sort of stuff. It's an RAF base in name only, the targets were americans. I don't know if some consipracy offence is there but it wouldn't surprise me. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 16:26   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> >> It was a threat against an RAF base. In the UK. Uk jurisdiction. UK >> Offence. >> >> >> >> >> >> It is but the american's have far reaching laws when it comes to this sort >> of stuff. They may have but they would need a UK court to extradite, and it wouldn't happen. Think Lockerbie. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 17:16   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - sooty123

>> They may have but they would need a UK court to extradite, and it wouldn't >> happen. Think Lockerbie. >> They might, wouldn't be the first time we've extradited people to the US. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 17:19   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> >> They may have but they would need a UK court to extradite, and it >> wouldn't >> >> happen. Think Lockerbie. >> >> >> >> They might, wouldn't be the first time we've extradited people to the US. Not for crimes committed in the UK against UK installations. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 17:27   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - sooty123

>> >> They might, wouldn't be the first time we've extradited people to the US. >> >> Not for crimes committed in the UK against UK installations. >> I'll take your word for it, I assume you looked at all known extradited persons to the US. But if it hasn't happened, there's a first time for everything. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 17:38   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - CGNorwich

The treaty ...............allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three). Per Wiki Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 17:45   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> The treaty ...............allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against >> US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by >> a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three). >> >> Per Wiki In 5, 10, 15 20 years time you can come back to this statement and it will be still be true. They will not be extradited. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 17:53   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Old Navy

>> The treaty ...............allows the US to extradite UK citizens ............. You are wasting your time CGN, Z is in OCLWD mode. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 18:09   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> >> The treaty ...............allows the US to extradite UK citizens ............. >> >> You are wasting your time CGN, Z is in OCLWD mode. Just come back to this point in 5, 10, 15, years time Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 17:34   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - legacylad

Am I the only one who thinks why can't they just disappear? Last seen on a flight heading to Turkey. Or not. Or maybe one evening they went for a stroll and never came back. Would save lots of time & cost Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 17:41   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> Am I the only one who thinks why can't they just disappear? Last seen on >> a flight heading to Turkey. Or not. Or maybe one evening they went for a >> stroll and never came back. >> Would save lots of time & cost You can only really run that one if you never claim to have arrested them. Before that point they are unknown, after that point they are "in the system" have an identity and can be traced Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 17:49   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - legacylad

Quite so I wonder if it ever happens though? Doubt it, too many repercussions if anyone ever spilt the beans. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 21 Jul 15 17:51   Are we going to talk about it: terror? - Zero

>> Quite so >> I wonder if it ever happens though? Doubt it, too many repercussions if anyone ever >> spilt the beans. Its happened - Called Rendition. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 7 Jul 15 11:17   10th Anniversary of London Tube and Bus Bombs - commerdriver

Didn't know whether to start a new thread for this, terrorism is terrorism so thought not in the end Was struck as I came out of Aldgate station this morning, after my regular (3 or 4 days a week at the moment) journey there of the real reply of normal people to terrorists. As usual crowds got out to carry on their journeys to work as normal, aware of those who did that same journey and others 10 years ago and lost their lives. Just thought I'd mention it, there will be a minute silence at 11:30 according to the news. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 7 Jul 15 11:26   10th Anniversary of London Tube and Bus Bombs - Dog

Been switching between LBC & Radio 5 Live, some very moving stories, people still grieving for their loss or suffering from their injuries today. A terrible, terrible thing. Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 8 Jul 15 00:39   10th Anniversary of London Tube and Bus Bombs - zippy

I left my phone in the car on a trip to London on the 7th July 2005. Drove past the station at about 07:00 but kept going and ended up driving to my meeting. I got back to the car to find several calls from someone who I thought didn't know I existed wanting to make sure that I was OK. We are now very good friends. Watching the service at St Paul's this morning was very moving as was the interview with the bus driver. Last edited by: zippy on Wed 8 Jul 15 at 00:39 Reply to this message | Report message