This is the legacy of senior politicians desperate to look like players on the World Stage by engaging in wars in far-away places that the general electorate don’t want. I worry that we’ve a cabaret artist for a Foreign Secretary who seems eager to do the same.
We have allowed hate preachers into the country and hate propaganda has been found in many mosques. Also we welcome back Jihadies that have committed attrocities in Syria with open arms. We should take their British passports away. We gave the Jihadi from Guantanimo Bay 1 million pounds. He continued his terrorist activities. Would be terrorists find it easy to travel abroad to be trained and come back into the UK. The UK has played at defence. Many laugh at our border controls. We have allowed mass immigration of people who will never share our beliefs and values.
If they’d given the people a referendum on invading Iraq instead of a referendum on leaving the EU the world would be in a much better place now. It’s truly sickening 🙁
According to the news the UK took this terroris’ts father in as a refugee from Gadafi. The terrorist travelled to Libia shortly before his attack. It just shows that there is no gratitude to the UK allowing in some refugees to flee to our country.
What are you suggesting? That the parents of the suicide bomber groomed their son for this act of violence because they hated the country that had given them refuge?
Most of the news programming of this awful event in Manchester has been speculation and guesswork, because apart from the identity of the killer and some of the victims – that poor child of eight, probably so excited to be going to a big concert and telling all her school friends – there was precious little information in the immediate wake of this horror.
So the media resort to the shocked evidence of eyewitnesses (good for emotional stimulation) and to whatever experts they can contact for comment. The better the expert, the less they are inclined to say.
So apart from the fact that it happened, the numbers and a few names, there is no news. But there is an enormous amount of comment. The problem is that it presented as news/fact, when much of it is supposition.
I hope that the police do find some hard facts and that we can learn the necessary lessons – but hating/rejecting refugees and asylum seekers is not (in my opinion) one of those necessary lessons.
Half my lifetime ago what happened in Manchester would have been unthinkable. Nowadays it’s becoming all-too-normal and people are emotional and angry … I don’t blame them, but there’s another side …
More than once I remember hearing of an ‘accident’ on the part of Anglo-American forces that bombed out of existence something like an Iraqi wedding reception, or similar. Whole family groups vaporized. Collateral Damage .. Friendly Fire … Fools with guns.
It’s not just ‘our side’ who’re angry … all the innocents are angry.
So I’m thinking that there’s two sides to this madness and it’s about time that our warmongers, like Blair and Cameron, realize that they should think about the implications of their actions … if they have that much imagination.
I’m no pacifist, but it’s rank stupidity to pick a fight that’s got nothing to do with you.
It’s easy to pick on Blair and Cameron as they were such egregious fools and incompetents, but all their fellow politicians were complicit.
Newcomer – maybe I am older than you, but I remember only too well the 1974 pub bombings in Birmingham and Guildford and the 1996 Arndale Centre bomb in Manchester – all involving attacks on young people having fun so, sadly this is not new. However this supports your view that the root cause is more likely to be in government actions or attitudes rather than anything to do with immigration.
As we near the anniversary of Jo Cox’s death I am saddened that her “More in Common” message seems to have been forgotten by some people on this blog and elsewhere.
Hester, I believe the terrorist bombs of the 70’s were very much a part of a long-running conflict in which we played a major party.
It could be argued that the ‘balkanization’ of the Middle East by the British and French after WW1 helped prompt the current problems in that region.
Personally, I blame Attila The Hun for just about everything ;0)
In addition, I’m sorry, but Immigration is a factor. I have every sympathy for people who are truly fleeing from oppression, but a constantly bleeding heart will only lead to the death of the heartworn.
PPJS, et, what we now know so far. The father of this nutcase fled Gadaffi’s Libya after the regime there exposed him as a member of Hezbola, the U.K. gave them refuge and helped remove the Libyan dictator, we housed and educated his family in Moss side where he became “radicalised” (brainwashed) he recently dropped out of uni, his Iman has now revealed he had concerns about him, his father went back to Libya, but not to lead a normal, peaceful life, he (the murderer) traveled to Syria and was one of 6000 ( yes six thousand ) islamists on U.K. Watch lists that also includes 450 jihadis who’ve returned here after fighting with I S.
His brother revealed yesterday he was aware his varvaric brother was about to commit this atrocity and it’s now known he belonged to a Moss side terror group, one of whom spent years in Quantanimo bay but was released ( with compensation) after the hug a terrorist brigade here campaigned for his release, he went on to also commit atrocity here,
How do authorities contain and eradicate this evil? Well we could start with internment?
Who would you intern? Those who had committed a crime? their families? Their friends? Everyone with the wrong colour skin or wrong religion? Those “someone” decided was a threat? Those who you think might be thinking about committing a crime? Those who threatened to commit a crime?
How long would you intern for? Life? 10 years? 20 years? How many would you intern? It is said that 2000 people may be on the terrorism watch list in the UK. Would you intern them all, or just some of them? Each person put in prison costs around £40,000 a year. So to put them all in prison would cost £80 million a year. That does not include the cost of building internment camps.
And how would you organise the internment so that the internment camps did not themselves become a training ground for radicalisation and training in terrorism, as Irish internment camps did in the 1970s? Would you keep each internee in permanent solitary confinement? Would you spread them out among the general prison population? Presumably we could only use category A or category B prisons, and there are not very many of those for so many internees.
And how would you keep worldwide public sympathy when the outcry started about internment without trial? And how would you keep defending western values and decrying dictatorships around the world when we were interning without trial or due process?
A lot of people are saying “Internment” as if it was an answer. But it is an answer that raises an awful lot of questions.
Very well put DavidofLuton.
And CK2, would you also advocate internment for right wing extremists and their sympathisers? If so, where would you draw that line, because it strikes me there are a few on here sailing close to the wind.
The answer is to be more discriminatory in who we let into the UK. As this terrorist. He went to Lybia and Syria to train to be a killer. His father is a terrorist as are all his family. We have let all the British Jihadis back into the country as trained terrorists. Our children should be protected from atrocities. I met an arab in Jeruselem who laughed at how easy it is to get into the UK and to stay as an illegal immigrant. We accept people into this country who have committed mass murder in their own countries. We have allowed hate preachers to stay and to preach hate. We have encouraged this problem. Iain, a father of a dead girl said we do not want sympathy we want action.
Very few terrorists come to the UK from abroad to commit their crimes. The vast majority (i have just looked at the list on Wiki) were either born and brought up in the UK or were resident here for many many years.
There are those who travel abroad to be trained. they do not go directly, however, but via Turkey, Pakistan etc and then cross land borders. Some are on anti-terrorist watch lists; most are not. It is incredibly hard to keep tabs on everyone who leaves and returns to the UK.
We can deny entry already to those deemed “a threat” – and we already do so regularly. In recent years over 100,000 people have been denied entry to the UK, mostly on security grounds (source: Home office figures). Thousands of these were from the EU. They myth that we currently have no control over EU nationals coming to the UK is just that – a myth.
Of course people want action in the wake of Manchester. But the action needs to be effective and needs to reduce the problem, not inflame it.
I agree with Janet. Much much more needs to be done from May, Trump et al. Time for leftie sensitivities to be left at the door. My US and Indian work colleagues can’t believe how naive, gullible and stupid we are as a nation to offer a home to these extremists. Our way of life truly is at risk
David, since the Muslim community has continuously failed to self police its followers and do nothing to halt the spread of Radicalisation (brain washing) then clearly its of little use placing any hope or trust in them to do so in the future? The responsibility for such falls firmly at the feet of government and the appropriate authorities there-in?
Who would I intern you ask ? Well I’d start with the 6000 on the watch list, especially those jihadis who’ve returned here from fighting with IS.
You ask about public opinion? Perhaps that question is better directed to the friends and relatives of the Manchester victims?
Did you see the father of the proven I S recruitment agent being interviewed on t v this morning? He continually denied his son had any involvement with I S until documents and photos were shown him proving the accusations, his response? A wry smirk to the camera !
It’s now emerging there’s an entire network of “radicalised” idiots operating in and around Manchester, so what do you want to do? Hold hands around a lit candle and sing we shall overcome until the atrocity?
I’m afraid there little hope of any improvement until there’s a complete overhaul of thinking, tougher thinking too, but that’s not likely to happen as long as the terrorist and IRA symapthizer Corbyn is leader of the main opposition party and Prince Charles continues with his sermon of asking us to have s greater understanding of Islam which he called for when opening the £100 million Islamic studies centre in Oxford!
I would do a number of things. Firstly, I would work WITH the mainstream Muslim community, rather than the government coming up with grandiose schemes to combat radicalisation then seeking the cooperation of the muslim community. Jihadists regard mainstream Muslims with as much contempt as they do Christians (theirs is not as homogeneous a community as it appears in Daily Mail editorials) and most Muslims are as keen to see an end to the radicals as anyone else since every terrorist attack leads to a backlash against all Muslims.
I would also work on neutralising the use of the internet, especially the Dark Web. Most jihadis do not need to travel to be trained or indoctrinated. Bomb making instructions and propaganda are readily available within a few mouse clicks. A lone jihadi is far harder for the authorities to detect than a terrorist cell. Secure chat rooms, Dark Web sites, Facebook and instant messenger accounts – there needs to be a lot more international cooperation and legislation needs to catch up with the technological age we live in. It is absurd that the main legislation relied upon in the UK to police the internet was drafted in the days of telegraph poles and switchboard operators. Internationally a lot could be done, if governments worked more closely together, simply by financially hitting companies that did not pull their weight in combating terrorist networks.
The final thing would be to work much harder to prevent radicalisation in the first place. Generally, the approach of the British government (called CONTEST) has not worked well, and we need to look to the continent to find better approaches. Denmark has, perhaps, the most successful programme to prevent radicalisation of young people. It is called the Aarhus Model, and the results are very promising.
Germany has adopted a different approach called “Exit to Enter”. It recognises that hate-mongers feed off the wider dissatisfaction of young people which has nothing to do with religious views – ghettoisation, poor prospects, poverty. It offers training and job prospects rather than challenging the views directly. This has not been used to combat Muslim terrorism but has shown some success in neutralising far right extremism.
There is just a few things that do not involve holding a single hand or lighting a single candle.
Let’s be clear about things, CK2. A crime of the sort that we have witnessed is horrific and if we had been able to capture the perpetrator, it would have been right at least to imprison him and possibly/probably then to expel him. However, where would he have gone and would we have thereby prevented any further atrocity? If we had executed him (an option some seem to favour), would we thereby have dissuaded others from committing similar crimes?
The crime is horrific, but simply arresting people because they look as though they might be a problem of some kind is deeply problematic. Where does the paranoia stop?
A Jew in Germany was being harangued and told that the economic problems of the country were the fault of “the Jews”. “Yes,” he replied. “And the cyclists.” “Why the cyclists?” he was asked. “Why the Jews?” he countered.
When we make scapegoats of entire sections of society of whom we disapprove, we find ourselves thinking of them as “less than human” and then as “vermin”. Next, we look for their extermination.
Count me out.
David I hear what you say and of course we are all entitled to an opinion, but its not a unique problem we have here, yesterday in the Philippines a group of fundamentalists ran a mock in a city beheading the Chief of police and then murdered 20 others, all in the name of Islam!
Most Saturdays in Cornmarket, Oxford,there is the Muslim preacher, it was nearing rememberence Sunday two years ago and I asked him where his poppy was? He said he hadn’t had time to get one, so a gave him mine and stood there while he put it on, I passed by an hour or so later, guess what ? It had gone !
About the same time one brave iman called upon his fellow preachers to openly condemn acts of terrorism by adding their name to a web list, I asked the same preacher if he had an email address? Yes he replied, “can I have it?” ” Yes, but why” he replied, “because I’m going to add it to the against acts of terrorism web site” ” no, I’m going to give it you then”
And therein lays the problem David, an ever increasing circle of violence and fear that will not be stopped by pussyfooting.
There was interment in Northern Ireland and yes one might argue that it didn’t achieve much? But it was part of a robust stance against terrorist that eventual brought about peace through negotiations, which is the only way any progress can be made in this scenario, unless GB takes a harder line by insisting the Muslim community does more to stop the spread of brain washing and acts of atrocity then things will only worsen.
Change, if it is to come about, can only ever come from within and it is the responsibility of the entire Islamic community to bring that change about ?
The internment of suspected IRA members (and a tiny number of suspected loyalists) was a very long way from the success you imply CK2. Although a total of just under 2000 people were interred (and tortured) it led to a massive escalation of violence. During the first 4 days a total of 20 civilians, 2 IRA members and 2 members of the UK armed forces died. It’s generally held that the ensuing violence and mistrust led to more than 7000 people being displaced from their homes. In the 8 months before internment there were 34 conflict related deaths. In the first 4 months of internment there were 140 deaths.
A serving Royal Marines officer at the time is quoted as saying
“It (internment) has, in fact, increased terrorist activity, perhaps boosted IRA recruitment, polarised further the Catholic and Protestant communities and reduced the ranks of the much needed Catholic moderates.”
Internment was ended in 1975 and it’s generally agreed the peace process had its beginning in 88/89 long after interment could be seen as a ‘threat’. Internment was counterproductive to the peace process in Northern Ireland and there’s no reason to believe it would be any more effective now.
Reading the thread sparks a few thoughts in my mind.
1. We’re asked to demand that the huge majority of moderate muslims take responsibility for sorting out the jehadists who commit appauling acts of violence. As we do this, we must also stand up to the bigotted people in the midst of our british society who wish to persecute all muslims because of the acts of a small proportion who, as David says, hate them at least as much as they hate us. Whilst people have freedom of speech we are entitled to call out bigotry for what it is, even when shared in the shadow of disgusting attrocities.
2. CK’s diagnosis of the impact of internment on the Irish situation sounds like garbage to me. Internment is cited by many who believe in a united Ireland as something which hardened attitudes towards Britain and led to new generations hating Britain.
3. I agree with David’s views on scandinavian approaches to mediation. The kernel of the eventual settlement over terrorism in Ireland came through a norwegian mediator. He deployed an approach that sought common cause between the opposing views, to identify areas where they agreed and could work together (eg education of young northern irish kids) and learn more about each other. This approach has been used in many areas, including some towns in the usa to get pro life and pro choice groups to remove violence from their difference in view.
It is utterly disgusting to suggest, as some naive apologists above have suggested, that somehow our elected politicians, therefore we and by dint our country’s children have somehow brought yet another atrocity upon ourselves.
The uncomfortable truth is that a sizeable population in the UK despise what is left of our fractured values and have a different moral code which cannot be fully grasped by any native Englishman brought up during post WW2 liberalism.
Our security services have an horrendous challenge separating those who are a threat, from those who support and those who are simply sympathetic. The fact is, the dividing lines are blurred.
When we faced our darkest hours, apparently Churchill said “collar the lot”, and we sent 15,000+? “aliens” to the Isle of Mann. That was then viewed as a proportional and reasonable action. If more events like this occur, and our heightened threat levels indicate they could, then maybe the penny will drop.
Just out of curiosity, Iain, who would this Norwegian be mediating with? How would we know that the people from the ‘other side’ weren’t just up for a ‘bit a banter’?
You know … it’s no longer Queensbury Rules, Old Chap.
I think the guy’s name is Torkel Upsahl – i haven’t read anything by him, but read about the techniques he used in a book called beyond the walls of resistance by a canadian guy called Rick Maurer
It wasn’t Queensbury Rules in Ireland. In the end there had to be negotiation with members of the IRA. And while the armed conflict was still continuing talks began (as I recall in the back room of a fish and chip shop). Most of us at the time were being told that there could be no negotiations with terrorists.
We don’t know whether there are negotiations at present, but at some stage there will be talks – and we will be told that we cannot negotiate with terrorists.
There have been terrible criminal acts and unfortunately there will probably be more to come. Police and security services are under massive pressure – not helped by the media and internet blame game which stokes the fire.
We have to offer a future which the angry and violent can accept, but we can never exterminate an idea. Even in a Northern Ireland where Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness end up being the Chuckle Brothers, the Ultras still wanted the violent struggle to continue.
And this is bigger than NI, so any resolution is going to demand a lot of hard negotiation. I may be a liberal (small L), but I am not an empty-headed dreamer.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, or gave the appearance of flippancy. ISIS and its supporters are different, unlike terror groups of the past. They do not have an achievable goal which can be reached via negotiation – they want to build a caliphate that will rule the world.
You cannot tackle this via discussion, just as much as you cannot achieve it via conflict upon which they thrive. They cannot and will not integrate, which therefore leaves separation as the only logical solution.
I appreciate that has unpalatable overtones, and no matter how we are provoked we should not lose our own humanity.
Do please correct me with reasoned argument if I’m wrong.
Mr Smith, I fear you have borrowed CK2’s internment rose tinted specs to look back further to WW2 internment.
Random, ‘lock anyone up who’s a bit foreign’ started in Spring 1940. By August 1940 the outcry in the country was such that they began to be released.
Just like in the case of Northern Ireland internment did not work. It is a barbaric knee jerk reaction that invariably manages to punish the innocent and strengthen the case of the guilty.
The only way to defeat IS is to remove the environment that facilitates the radicalisation of young men and women. The only way to do that is by talking to those very same people.
I agree with Mr Smith. We cannot put British charicture into an arab mentality. We coiuld talk to them all we like. They laugh at the Brfitish and call us stupid British because of our need not to offend anyone and to appease. This is not speculation I have travelled around the world. We gave 1 million of taxpayers money to Jamal al-Harith who was an inmate of Guantanimo Bay. Was he grafefull? He went on to lead an ISIS attach.
And there, Janet, in a nutshell, is the argument against internment.
Why are we even remotely surprised that a man incorrectly incarcerated (in the view of our own courts) in inhuman conditions, no doubt regularly abused and tortured is not ‘grateful’ but rather an easy target to become radicalised when he is finally released.
You say “We cannot put British character into an Arab mentality.” (I assume that’s what you meant to type?)
Are you suggesting that there is some innate ‘Arab’ nature that all people of Arab descent have? That nurture plays no part in their character and they are all lost causes, for ever, generation after generation?
If you believe that to be true, what are you proposing? That the only way to reach this, so called, ‘Arab mentality’ is through means outside of the ‘British character ‘? Should we perhaps treat them the only way they are capable (in your opinion) of understanding and start public flogging and executions? Surely that’s the very essence of the appeasement you and they despise? Surely, by your own argument, the only way of defeating the aims of IS is by staying strong to our national values of inclusiveness and fair play?
As I’ve already said. The only way to defeat IS is to stop the radicalisation of disaffected young men and women. The only way to do that is to find out the root cause of that disaffection by talking to them and I have every confidence that the answer will not be “we want a world wide caliphate” but “we want jobs and prospects and fair treatment” just like everyone else.
“Remove the environment… talking…” ah yes, the coming socialist wonderland where we will sit down with a cup of tea with daesh. Bless. As we are favouring ww2 analogies, perhaps even through the fog of corbynisty Rose tints you will remember how well waving bits of paper and proclaiming peace in our time went down. We brought the IRA to the table by bringing them to their knees first, as for Hitler…
As a starter, direct ALL foreign aid to the police and counterterrorism experts to weed out and capture all terrorism suspects. Longer term we need much tougher borders and a points system to enter the uk like in Australia
I’ve been trying to understand why some people are so vehemently against the idea of talking to communities to better understand and thus remove the situations and root causes that facilitate radicalisation and recruitment of young men and women by IS.
Here’s the best I can come up with and hopefully an argument to help them understand why it has to be a major part of any ongoing solution and how we all benefit.
I think there are those who believe the entire Muslim community (plus those who live a secular life but have their cultural and family origins in predominantly Muslim countries) are somehow collectively responsible for each and every act of terrorism. The act of talking to these communities to understand the environment that leads to radicalisation will, by definition, improve the lot of many in these communities once these talks are acted upon. Otherwise there’s no point. To those who believe in collective responsibility of the Muslim world this is anathema and tantamount to rewarding terrorists. But it’s not. Firstly the initial premis of collective guilt is entirely wrong and secondly we all (apart from the terrorist organisations) benefit in equal measure from such a discourse and it’s resulting action.
The same disaffection that leads in some to radicalisation and terrorism, in others leads to gang membership, organised crime and other forms of criminality and violence. By understanding and removing those drivers we all benefit. That’s why we need to talk and understand and react to what we learn. That’s why the best way to address this terrible curse of terrorism is to implement a fairer society that it’s in everyone’s interest to protect. Yes, of course, there will still he fanatics hell bent on wiping out the most equitable and fairest of societies but by denying them a ready pool of disaffected and disenfranchised recruits we limit their effectiveness and leave them nowhere to hide.
Steve – I have no issue at all with increasing security forces resources to identify and catch terrorists.
However, I see no reason to stop foreign aid and dont believe changing our immigration policy will have a material impact for the reasons stated in earlier posts on this thread. The recent bombers have sadly been home grown.
The police don’t have enough resources to do a thorough job. Foreign aid can wait: the countries who appreciate us will understand and know we need to sort our own country out. The countries that complain were never deserving of our aid anyway
When it comes to threats to the values that make Great Britain great, I fear the right wing far more than i fear the Jihadi terrorist.
When I hear people calling for internment on suspicion without trial, abandoning rights we have enjoyed since the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, and when I hear Katie Hopkins calling for a “final solution” over the Manchester attack, I am concerned that, in the name of security, the very values that we need security to preserve and being thrown to the wind.
Reductio. The Western World has interfiered and tried to impose Western democracy on the Middle East. The Arab world is very tribal. They only respect strength. When we get rid of dictators and try to impose democracy the country just sinks into chaos as different factions fight for power. It just does not work. No they do not just want jobs and fair treatment. They want Sharia law and a Muslim Califate. They do not respect other religeons, hence the killing of Yazidi Christians. Shia and Sunni dispise each other.
Didn’t we try rampant multi-culturalism under Blair? Did ‘talking’ work there? You’re right Reduction, I do think that to a greater or lesser degree the various strands of conservative Islam appear to be incompatible and unwilling to integrate with western Christian/atheistic culture. Taking the ‘terrorist as victim’ narrative to it’s unspoken conclusion you end up blaming all white people (specifically white men, those damned oppressors!) for operating a culture that is more successful than others, and is frankly condescending to their noble religion and contemptuous of our culture.
Who cares? It’ll play out as it will, and in the meantime I have a life to live:)
Another Steve (49) wrote “what if it was your daughter blown to bits on Monday night?”
A curious question and, of course, one that I cannot honestly answer, never having been in that position. From afar I have observed some people respond with astonishing generosity of spirit of forgiveness, and others lash out with blind rage and desire for revenge. I have no idea how I would respond. Quite possibly I would want the response to be cruel and unusual, to use the American phrase.
But that is why it is a good thing that the national response to occasions like this is in the hands of elected politicians and appointed judges, so that emotionalism is kept out of it, and we respond as a nation rather than as a mob.
“Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing punishment that is considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the person subjected to it.”
Iain & Reductio
I refer to the example of the Partion of India 1947. Internment is an emotive word, it smacks of concentration camps, torture, etc… I did not use it.
But, identification of terrorists and their support networks, however extensive, and their removal (to a country of their choice perhaps?) has to be part of the solution. Couple this with immigration vetting which separates those who genuinely want to become part of our society from those who do not.
Yet again you miss the point that you cannot reason with these people.
I agree that you can avert the radicalisation of some, but you underestimate the attractiveness and the power of the ideology which lies behind this and the danger that a poacher turned gamekeeper could become a poacher again.
Finally, not because I believe that it was the cause of this, but I believe that not one more British serviceman should be at risk in the Middle East. I do agree that we should disengage from our exploits there, unless we are specifically asked to protect a country by that country’s government.
Indian partition directly caused the deaths of between 1 and 2 million people.
Even if you ignored that and decided that would be a price worth paying, then what precisely is it that you want to partition – resettle the ‘brown people’ in Wales?
I’m not some pacifist or idealist, and I’m no less appalled by this week’s attricities than anyone else on this site, but I see no sense in ill-considered action that will make the situation far worse.
I think the partition of India arose as a recognition that whilst Christian and Hindu and Seikh could live together relatively harmoniously because of a shared value system manifested through different religions, the Muslim could not live peacefully in India. They couldn’t accept being a minority in a predominantly Hindu country as they believed their own value system should prevail over all at any cost.
I think the partition of India arose as a recognition that whilst Christian and Hindu and Seikh could live together relatively harmoniously because of a shared value system manifested through different religions, the Muslim could not live peacefully in India. They coul66dn’t accept being a minority in a predominantly Hindu country as they believed their own value system should prevail over all at any cost.
Mr Smith, try as I might I can imagine no way in which your suggestions will lead to anything other than an escalation in violence, more deaths and enough recruitment footage to keep IS in new members for decades to come.
What is it that you see happening if your plans are implemented?
The partition of India was a political expedient whose sole purpose was to achieve a British withdrawal from the sub-continent. The problems it produced arose (among other things) from assumptions about political, religious and ethnic identity that proved to have been completely cock-eyed.
One assumption (for example) was the notion that Hindus were tolerant while Muslims were not. Hindus can we as wickedly and intolerantly cruel as any other human beings.
The persecution by Hindus of Christians and Sikhs is quite well documented.
Once we lump people into categories and pigeonholes, we dehumanise them and at that point we lose our humanity too.
Yes, IS, is monstrous; but if that is all we can see, we become ourselves extremist. Just reading some of the earlier posts demonstrates this.
The gut reaction “Lock them up and throw away the key” is a perfectly understandable emotional response. But it leaves us in danger of also throwing away the Rule of Law, which is the key to a civilised society and something that citizens of the UK have died to defend in the past.
If my grandchild had been blown up at that concert, I would be wild with grief – but, as DavidofLuton has pointed out, that is the not a frame of mind from which we can make considered and appropriate public policy.
Rant all you like, but you are in danger of leaving the field to those you most hate.
Oh dear, same old ” holier than though” lefty clap trap from the mutual admiration society that has driven actual discussion and debate from the comments section of this otherwise wonderful blog!
If you actually look at how our authorities are proceeding, they are doing exactly what I suggest, however the pace at which they proceed is constantly shackled by the bleeding heart, freedom of speech brigade, who in truth are the very opposite.
“The partition of India was a political expedient whose sole purpose was to achieve a British withdrawal from the sub-continent. The problems it produced arose (among other things) from assumptions about political, religious and ethnic identity that proved to have been completely cock-eyed”
Very good, ppjs, and just about the same as what happened when the Brits and the Frogs drew straight-line borders across Arabia after WW1.
The one big difference being that in the partition of India the Brits agreed to the partition in order to achieve the a quick withdrawal and the Indians and Pakistanis had clear objectives, whereas the post-WW1 carve up of the Middle East was made without any consultation with the peoples who were going to have to live with the result.
80 people, all muslims, killed tonight in Kabul. 300 injured. Sad that there’s so little media coverage and public outcry – it’s so delressing that people dont seem to have the same empathy for human life for people who happen to live in a different country
Yes – but sad that people dont seem to understand that people in other countries are the same as us. Our politicians may differ but we’re all pretty much the same.
But I can’t care about every one of the 7.5 billion souls on this planet meaningfully, so I choose to care about those closer and closest to me, as do most I guess. I get your point Iain, but routine religiously motivated atrocities visited upon their own in third world countries, half a planet away aren’t ever going to raise the same headlines. Nor should they.
The world is mad.
This is the legacy of senior politicians desperate to look like players on the World Stage by engaging in wars in far-away places that the general electorate don’t want. I worry that we’ve a cabaret artist for a Foreign Secretary who seems eager to do the same.
same as it ever was newcomer. 🙁
We have allowed hate preachers into the country and hate propaganda has been found in many mosques. Also we welcome back Jihadies that have committed attrocities in Syria with open arms. We should take their British passports away. We gave the Jihadi from Guantanimo Bay 1 million pounds. He continued his terrorist activities. Would be terrorists find it easy to travel abroad to be trained and come back into the UK. The UK has played at defence. Many laugh at our border controls. We have allowed mass immigration of people who will never share our beliefs and values.
If they’d given the people a referendum on invading Iraq instead of a referendum on leaving the EU the world would be in a much better place now. It’s truly sickening 🙁
According to the news the UK took this terroris’ts father in as a refugee from Gadafi. The terrorist travelled to Libia shortly before his attack. It just shows that there is no gratitude to the UK allowing in some refugees to flee to our country.
Janet:
What are you suggesting? That the parents of the suicide bomber groomed their son for this act of violence because they hated the country that had given them refuge?
Most of the news programming of this awful event in Manchester has been speculation and guesswork, because apart from the identity of the killer and some of the victims – that poor child of eight, probably so excited to be going to a big concert and telling all her school friends – there was precious little information in the immediate wake of this horror.
So the media resort to the shocked evidence of eyewitnesses (good for emotional stimulation) and to whatever experts they can contact for comment. The better the expert, the less they are inclined to say.
So apart from the fact that it happened, the numbers and a few names, there is no news. But there is an enormous amount of comment. The problem is that it presented as news/fact, when much of it is supposition.
I hope that the police do find some hard facts and that we can learn the necessary lessons – but hating/rejecting refugees and asylum seekers is not (in my opinion) one of those necessary lessons.
Half my lifetime ago what happened in Manchester would have been unthinkable. Nowadays it’s becoming all-too-normal and people are emotional and angry … I don’t blame them, but there’s another side …
More than once I remember hearing of an ‘accident’ on the part of Anglo-American forces that bombed out of existence something like an Iraqi wedding reception, or similar. Whole family groups vaporized. Collateral Damage .. Friendly Fire … Fools with guns.
It’s not just ‘our side’ who’re angry … all the innocents are angry.
So I’m thinking that there’s two sides to this madness and it’s about time that our warmongers, like Blair and Cameron, realize that they should think about the implications of their actions … if they have that much imagination.
I’m no pacifist, but it’s rank stupidity to pick a fight that’s got nothing to do with you.
It’s easy to pick on Blair and Cameron as they were such egregious fools and incompetents, but all their fellow politicians were complicit.
Who’s the least worst of the current bunch?
Newcomer – maybe I am older than you, but I remember only too well the 1974 pub bombings in Birmingham and Guildford and the 1996 Arndale Centre bomb in Manchester – all involving attacks on young people having fun so, sadly this is not new. However this supports your view that the root cause is more likely to be in government actions or attitudes rather than anything to do with immigration.
As we near the anniversary of Jo Cox’s death I am saddened that her “More in Common” message seems to have been forgotten by some people on this blog and elsewhere.
Janet – just to be clear, not all of us share your belief system!
Hester, I believe the terrorist bombs of the 70’s were very much a part of a long-running conflict in which we played a major party.
It could be argued that the ‘balkanization’ of the Middle East by the British and French after WW1 helped prompt the current problems in that region.
Personally, I blame Attila The Hun for just about everything ;0)
In addition, I’m sorry, but Immigration is a factor. I have every sympathy for people who are truly fleeing from oppression, but a constantly bleeding heart will only lead to the death of the heartworn.
PPJS, et, what we now know so far. The father of this nutcase fled Gadaffi’s Libya after the regime there exposed him as a member of Hezbola, the U.K. gave them refuge and helped remove the Libyan dictator, we housed and educated his family in Moss side where he became “radicalised” (brainwashed) he recently dropped out of uni, his Iman has now revealed he had concerns about him, his father went back to Libya, but not to lead a normal, peaceful life, he (the murderer) traveled to Syria and was one of 6000 ( yes six thousand ) islamists on U.K. Watch lists that also includes 450 jihadis who’ve returned here after fighting with I S.
His brother revealed yesterday he was aware his varvaric brother was about to commit this atrocity and it’s now known he belonged to a Moss side terror group, one of whom spent years in Quantanimo bay but was released ( with compensation) after the hug a terrorist brigade here campaigned for his release, he went on to also commit atrocity here,
How do authorities contain and eradicate this evil? Well we could start with internment?
Who would you intern? Those who had committed a crime? their families? Their friends? Everyone with the wrong colour skin or wrong religion? Those “someone” decided was a threat? Those who you think might be thinking about committing a crime? Those who threatened to commit a crime?
How long would you intern for? Life? 10 years? 20 years? How many would you intern? It is said that 2000 people may be on the terrorism watch list in the UK. Would you intern them all, or just some of them? Each person put in prison costs around £40,000 a year. So to put them all in prison would cost £80 million a year. That does not include the cost of building internment camps.
And how would you organise the internment so that the internment camps did not themselves become a training ground for radicalisation and training in terrorism, as Irish internment camps did in the 1970s? Would you keep each internee in permanent solitary confinement? Would you spread them out among the general prison population? Presumably we could only use category A or category B prisons, and there are not very many of those for so many internees.
And how would you keep worldwide public sympathy when the outcry started about internment without trial? And how would you keep defending western values and decrying dictatorships around the world when we were interning without trial or due process?
A lot of people are saying “Internment” as if it was an answer. But it is an answer that raises an awful lot of questions.
Very well put DavidofLuton.
And CK2, would you also advocate internment for right wing extremists and their sympathisers? If so, where would you draw that line, because it strikes me there are a few on here sailing close to the wind.
The answer is to be more discriminatory in who we let into the UK. As this terrorist. He went to Lybia and Syria to train to be a killer. His father is a terrorist as are all his family. We have let all the British Jihadis back into the country as trained terrorists. Our children should be protected from atrocities. I met an arab in Jeruselem who laughed at how easy it is to get into the UK and to stay as an illegal immigrant. We accept people into this country who have committed mass murder in their own countries. We have allowed hate preachers to stay and to preach hate. We have encouraged this problem. Iain, a father of a dead girl said we do not want sympathy we want action.
Very few terrorists come to the UK from abroad to commit their crimes. The vast majority (i have just looked at the list on Wiki) were either born and brought up in the UK or were resident here for many many years.
There are those who travel abroad to be trained. they do not go directly, however, but via Turkey, Pakistan etc and then cross land borders. Some are on anti-terrorist watch lists; most are not. It is incredibly hard to keep tabs on everyone who leaves and returns to the UK.
We can deny entry already to those deemed “a threat” – and we already do so regularly. In recent years over 100,000 people have been denied entry to the UK, mostly on security grounds (source: Home office figures). Thousands of these were from the EU. They myth that we currently have no control over EU nationals coming to the UK is just that – a myth.
Of course people want action in the wake of Manchester. But the action needs to be effective and needs to reduce the problem, not inflame it.
I agree with Janet. Much much more needs to be done from May, Trump et al. Time for leftie sensitivities to be left at the door. My US and Indian work colleagues can’t believe how naive, gullible and stupid we are as a nation to offer a home to these extremists. Our way of life truly is at risk
David, since the Muslim community has continuously failed to self police its followers and do nothing to halt the spread of Radicalisation (brain washing) then clearly its of little use placing any hope or trust in them to do so in the future? The responsibility for such falls firmly at the feet of government and the appropriate authorities there-in?
Who would I intern you ask ? Well I’d start with the 6000 on the watch list, especially those jihadis who’ve returned here from fighting with IS.
You ask about public opinion? Perhaps that question is better directed to the friends and relatives of the Manchester victims?
Did you see the father of the proven I S recruitment agent being interviewed on t v this morning? He continually denied his son had any involvement with I S until documents and photos were shown him proving the accusations, his response? A wry smirk to the camera !
It’s now emerging there’s an entire network of “radicalised” idiots operating in and around Manchester, so what do you want to do? Hold hands around a lit candle and sing we shall overcome until the atrocity?
I’m afraid there little hope of any improvement until there’s a complete overhaul of thinking, tougher thinking too, but that’s not likely to happen as long as the terrorist and IRA symapthizer Corbyn is leader of the main opposition party and Prince Charles continues with his sermon of asking us to have s greater understanding of Islam which he called for when opening the £100 million Islamic studies centre in Oxford!
I will tackle the only question in your comment.
I would do a number of things. Firstly, I would work WITH the mainstream Muslim community, rather than the government coming up with grandiose schemes to combat radicalisation then seeking the cooperation of the muslim community. Jihadists regard mainstream Muslims with as much contempt as they do Christians (theirs is not as homogeneous a community as it appears in Daily Mail editorials) and most Muslims are as keen to see an end to the radicals as anyone else since every terrorist attack leads to a backlash against all Muslims.
I would also work on neutralising the use of the internet, especially the Dark Web. Most jihadis do not need to travel to be trained or indoctrinated. Bomb making instructions and propaganda are readily available within a few mouse clicks. A lone jihadi is far harder for the authorities to detect than a terrorist cell. Secure chat rooms, Dark Web sites, Facebook and instant messenger accounts – there needs to be a lot more international cooperation and legislation needs to catch up with the technological age we live in. It is absurd that the main legislation relied upon in the UK to police the internet was drafted in the days of telegraph poles and switchboard operators. Internationally a lot could be done, if governments worked more closely together, simply by financially hitting companies that did not pull their weight in combating terrorist networks.
The final thing would be to work much harder to prevent radicalisation in the first place. Generally, the approach of the British government (called CONTEST) has not worked well, and we need to look to the continent to find better approaches. Denmark has, perhaps, the most successful programme to prevent radicalisation of young people. It is called the Aarhus Model, and the results are very promising.
Germany has adopted a different approach called “Exit to Enter”. It recognises that hate-mongers feed off the wider dissatisfaction of young people which has nothing to do with religious views – ghettoisation, poor prospects, poverty. It offers training and job prospects rather than challenging the views directly. This has not been used to combat Muslim terrorism but has shown some success in neutralising far right extremism.
There is just a few things that do not involve holding a single hand or lighting a single candle.
PS also might be worth mentioning that since the 2010 election police numbers have dropped by 20,000 and police service budgets have dropped by 18%.
Policing is difficult without adequate budgets or numbers.
Maybe, when the hustings are held, this might be something to ask the candidates about?
Let’s be clear about things, CK2. A crime of the sort that we have witnessed is horrific and if we had been able to capture the perpetrator, it would have been right at least to imprison him and possibly/probably then to expel him. However, where would he have gone and would we have thereby prevented any further atrocity? If we had executed him (an option some seem to favour), would we thereby have dissuaded others from committing similar crimes?
The crime is horrific, but simply arresting people because they look as though they might be a problem of some kind is deeply problematic. Where does the paranoia stop?
A Jew in Germany was being harangued and told that the economic problems of the country were the fault of “the Jews”. “Yes,” he replied. “And the cyclists.” “Why the cyclists?” he was asked. “Why the Jews?” he countered.
When we make scapegoats of entire sections of society of whom we disapprove, we find ourselves thinking of them as “less than human” and then as “vermin”. Next, we look for their extermination.
Count me out.
I’d intern the politicians.
David I hear what you say and of course we are all entitled to an opinion, but its not a unique problem we have here, yesterday in the Philippines a group of fundamentalists ran a mock in a city beheading the Chief of police and then murdered 20 others, all in the name of Islam!
Most Saturdays in Cornmarket, Oxford,there is the Muslim preacher, it was nearing rememberence Sunday two years ago and I asked him where his poppy was? He said he hadn’t had time to get one, so a gave him mine and stood there while he put it on, I passed by an hour or so later, guess what ? It had gone !
About the same time one brave iman called upon his fellow preachers to openly condemn acts of terrorism by adding their name to a web list, I asked the same preacher if he had an email address? Yes he replied, “can I have it?” ” Yes, but why” he replied, “because I’m going to add it to the against acts of terrorism web site” ” no, I’m going to give it you then”
And therein lays the problem David, an ever increasing circle of violence and fear that will not be stopped by pussyfooting.
There was interment in Northern Ireland and yes one might argue that it didn’t achieve much? But it was part of a robust stance against terrorist that eventual brought about peace through negotiations, which is the only way any progress can be made in this scenario, unless GB takes a harder line by insisting the Muslim community does more to stop the spread of brain washing and acts of atrocity then things will only worsen.
Change, if it is to come about, can only ever come from within and it is the responsibility of the entire Islamic community to bring that change about ?
Oops, typo “not” missing. !
The internment of suspected IRA members (and a tiny number of suspected loyalists) was a very long way from the success you imply CK2. Although a total of just under 2000 people were interred (and tortured) it led to a massive escalation of violence. During the first 4 days a total of 20 civilians, 2 IRA members and 2 members of the UK armed forces died. It’s generally held that the ensuing violence and mistrust led to more than 7000 people being displaced from their homes. In the 8 months before internment there were 34 conflict related deaths. In the first 4 months of internment there were 140 deaths.
A serving Royal Marines officer at the time is quoted as saying
“It (internment) has, in fact, increased terrorist activity, perhaps boosted IRA recruitment, polarised further the Catholic and Protestant communities and reduced the ranks of the much needed Catholic moderates.”
Internment was ended in 1975 and it’s generally agreed the peace process had its beginning in 88/89 long after interment could be seen as a ‘threat’. Internment was counterproductive to the peace process in Northern Ireland and there’s no reason to believe it would be any more effective now.
Reading the thread sparks a few thoughts in my mind.
1. We’re asked to demand that the huge majority of moderate muslims take responsibility for sorting out the jehadists who commit appauling acts of violence. As we do this, we must also stand up to the bigotted people in the midst of our british society who wish to persecute all muslims because of the acts of a small proportion who, as David says, hate them at least as much as they hate us. Whilst people have freedom of speech we are entitled to call out bigotry for what it is, even when shared in the shadow of disgusting attrocities.
2. CK’s diagnosis of the impact of internment on the Irish situation sounds like garbage to me. Internment is cited by many who believe in a united Ireland as something which hardened attitudes towards Britain and led to new generations hating Britain.
3. I agree with David’s views on scandinavian approaches to mediation. The kernel of the eventual settlement over terrorism in Ireland came through a norwegian mediator. He deployed an approach that sought common cause between the opposing views, to identify areas where they agreed and could work together (eg education of young northern irish kids) and learn more about each other. This approach has been used in many areas, including some towns in the usa to get pro life and pro choice groups to remove violence from their difference in view.
Neatly said Reductio – I hadnt read you post when I posted mine
It is utterly disgusting to suggest, as some naive apologists above have suggested, that somehow our elected politicians, therefore we and by dint our country’s children have somehow brought yet another atrocity upon ourselves.
The uncomfortable truth is that a sizeable population in the UK despise what is left of our fractured values and have a different moral code which cannot be fully grasped by any native Englishman brought up during post WW2 liberalism.
Our security services have an horrendous challenge separating those who are a threat, from those who support and those who are simply sympathetic. The fact is, the dividing lines are blurred.
When we faced our darkest hours, apparently Churchill said “collar the lot”, and we sent 15,000+? “aliens” to the Isle of Mann. That was then viewed as a proportional and reasonable action. If more events like this occur, and our heightened threat levels indicate they could, then maybe the penny will drop.
Mr Smith, very good, but Monty Python wasn’t funny the first time around.
Just out of curiosity, Iain, who would this Norwegian be mediating with? How would we know that the people from the ‘other side’ weren’t just up for a ‘bit a banter’?
You know … it’s no longer Queensbury Rules, Old Chap.
Another Steve at post 17 isn’t me. Isn’t there some way to stop duplicate names BS?
I think the guy’s name is Torkel Upsahl – i haven’t read anything by him, but read about the techniques he used in a book called beyond the walls of resistance by a canadian guy called Rick Maurer
It wasn’t Queensbury Rules in Ireland. In the end there had to be negotiation with members of the IRA. And while the armed conflict was still continuing talks began (as I recall in the back room of a fish and chip shop). Most of us at the time were being told that there could be no negotiations with terrorists.
We don’t know whether there are negotiations at present, but at some stage there will be talks – and we will be told that we cannot negotiate with terrorists.
There have been terrible criminal acts and unfortunately there will probably be more to come. Police and security services are under massive pressure – not helped by the media and internet blame game which stokes the fire.
We have to offer a future which the angry and violent can accept, but we can never exterminate an idea. Even in a Northern Ireland where Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness end up being the Chuckle Brothers, the Ultras still wanted the violent struggle to continue.
And this is bigger than NI, so any resolution is going to demand a lot of hard negotiation. I may be a liberal (small L), but I am not an empty-headed dreamer.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, or gave the appearance of flippancy. ISIS and its supporters are different, unlike terror groups of the past. They do not have an achievable goal which can be reached via negotiation – they want to build a caliphate that will rule the world.
You cannot tackle this via discussion, just as much as you cannot achieve it via conflict upon which they thrive. They cannot and will not integrate, which therefore leaves separation as the only logical solution.
I appreciate that has unpalatable overtones, and no matter how we are provoked we should not lose our own humanity.
Do please correct me with reasoned argument if I’m wrong.
Who exactly are you proposing we separate from?
Mr Smith, I fear you have borrowed CK2’s internment rose tinted specs to look back further to WW2 internment.
Random, ‘lock anyone up who’s a bit foreign’ started in Spring 1940. By August 1940 the outcry in the country was such that they began to be released.
Just like in the case of Northern Ireland internment did not work. It is a barbaric knee jerk reaction that invariably manages to punish the innocent and strengthen the case of the guilty.
The only way to defeat IS is to remove the environment that facilitates the radicalisation of young men and women. The only way to do that is by talking to those very same people.
I agree with Mr Smith. We cannot put British charicture into an arab mentality. We coiuld talk to them all we like. They laugh at the Brfitish and call us stupid British because of our need not to offend anyone and to appease. This is not speculation I have travelled around the world. We gave 1 million of taxpayers money to Jamal al-Harith who was an inmate of Guantanimo Bay. Was he grafefull? He went on to lead an ISIS attach.
And there, Janet, in a nutshell, is the argument against internment.
Why are we even remotely surprised that a man incorrectly incarcerated (in the view of our own courts) in inhuman conditions, no doubt regularly abused and tortured is not ‘grateful’ but rather an easy target to become radicalised when he is finally released.
You say “We cannot put British character into an Arab mentality.” (I assume that’s what you meant to type?)
Are you suggesting that there is some innate ‘Arab’ nature that all people of Arab descent have? That nurture plays no part in their character and they are all lost causes, for ever, generation after generation?
If you believe that to be true, what are you proposing? That the only way to reach this, so called, ‘Arab mentality’ is through means outside of the ‘British character ‘? Should we perhaps treat them the only way they are capable (in your opinion) of understanding and start public flogging and executions? Surely that’s the very essence of the appeasement you and they despise? Surely, by your own argument, the only way of defeating the aims of IS is by staying strong to our national values of inclusiveness and fair play?
As I’ve already said. The only way to defeat IS is to stop the radicalisation of disaffected young men and women. The only way to do that is to find out the root cause of that disaffection by talking to them and I have every confidence that the answer will not be “we want a world wide caliphate” but “we want jobs and prospects and fair treatment” just like everyone else.
“Remove the environment… talking…” ah yes, the coming socialist wonderland where we will sit down with a cup of tea with daesh. Bless. As we are favouring ww2 analogies, perhaps even through the fog of corbynisty Rose tints you will remember how well waving bits of paper and proclaiming peace in our time went down. We brought the IRA to the table by bringing them to their knees first, as for Hitler…
Ideals are peaceful, history is forever violent.
Sure, invite the extremists for a sing song around the campfire. That’ll change ’em. They want us DEAD. Direct action is our only recourse
To repeat the earlier point, direct action against exactly who and with what aim?
As a starter, direct ALL foreign aid to the police and counterterrorism experts to weed out and capture all terrorism suspects. Longer term we need much tougher borders and a points system to enter the uk like in Australia
I’ve been trying to understand why some people are so vehemently against the idea of talking to communities to better understand and thus remove the situations and root causes that facilitate radicalisation and recruitment of young men and women by IS.
Here’s the best I can come up with and hopefully an argument to help them understand why it has to be a major part of any ongoing solution and how we all benefit.
I think there are those who believe the entire Muslim community (plus those who live a secular life but have their cultural and family origins in predominantly Muslim countries) are somehow collectively responsible for each and every act of terrorism. The act of talking to these communities to understand the environment that leads to radicalisation will, by definition, improve the lot of many in these communities once these talks are acted upon. Otherwise there’s no point. To those who believe in collective responsibility of the Muslim world this is anathema and tantamount to rewarding terrorists. But it’s not. Firstly the initial premis of collective guilt is entirely wrong and secondly we all (apart from the terrorist organisations) benefit in equal measure from such a discourse and it’s resulting action.
The same disaffection that leads in some to radicalisation and terrorism, in others leads to gang membership, organised crime and other forms of criminality and violence. By understanding and removing those drivers we all benefit. That’s why we need to talk and understand and react to what we learn. That’s why the best way to address this terrible curse of terrorism is to implement a fairer society that it’s in everyone’s interest to protect. Yes, of course, there will still he fanatics hell bent on wiping out the most equitable and fairest of societies but by denying them a ready pool of disaffected and disenfranchised recruits we limit their effectiveness and leave them nowhere to hide.
Fully agree Reductio.
Steve – I have no issue at all with increasing security forces resources to identify and catch terrorists.
However, I see no reason to stop foreign aid and dont believe changing our immigration policy will have a material impact for the reasons stated in earlier posts on this thread. The recent bombers have sadly been home grown.
Talk all you like. But the time now is for action. I’m on my 6th email: https://email.number10.gov.uk/
The police don’t have enough resources to do a thorough job. Foreign aid can wait: the countries who appreciate us will understand and know we need to sort our own country out. The countries that complain were never deserving of our aid anyway
When it comes to threats to the values that make Great Britain great, I fear the right wing far more than i fear the Jihadi terrorist.
When I hear people calling for internment on suspicion without trial, abandoning rights we have enjoyed since the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, and when I hear Katie Hopkins calling for a “final solution” over the Manchester attack, I am concerned that, in the name of security, the very values that we need security to preserve and being thrown to the wind.
Ramadan Mubarak, everyone.
…. are being thrown… not …. and being thrown…
Sorry – predictive text.
what if it was your daughter blown to bits on Monday night?
Steve, I understand LBC have a vacancy for someone who wouldn’t know an appropriate comment if it poked them in the eye.
Stop avoiding the question
Reductio. The Western World has interfiered and tried to impose Western democracy on the Middle East. The Arab world is very tribal. They only respect strength. When we get rid of dictators and try to impose democracy the country just sinks into chaos as different factions fight for power. It just does not work. No they do not just want jobs and fair treatment. They want Sharia law and a Muslim Califate. They do not respect other religeons, hence the killing of Yazidi Christians. Shia and Sunni dispise each other.
Didn’t we try rampant multi-culturalism under Blair? Did ‘talking’ work there? You’re right Reduction, I do think that to a greater or lesser degree the various strands of conservative Islam appear to be incompatible and unwilling to integrate with western Christian/atheistic culture. Taking the ‘terrorist as victim’ narrative to it’s unspoken conclusion you end up blaming all white people (specifically white men, those damned oppressors!) for operating a culture that is more successful than others, and is frankly condescending to their noble religion and contemptuous of our culture.
Who cares? It’ll play out as it will, and in the meantime I have a life to live:)
Another Steve (49) wrote “what if it was your daughter blown to bits on Monday night?”
A curious question and, of course, one that I cannot honestly answer, never having been in that position. From afar I have observed some people respond with astonishing generosity of spirit of forgiveness, and others lash out with blind rage and desire for revenge. I have no idea how I would respond. Quite possibly I would want the response to be cruel and unusual, to use the American phrase.
But that is why it is a good thing that the national response to occasions like this is in the hands of elected politicians and appointed judges, so that emotionalism is kept out of it, and we respond as a nation rather than as a mob.
What do you mean by a ‘cruel and unusual response’?
Google is your friend.
“Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing punishment that is considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the person subjected to it.”
Iain & Reductio
I refer to the example of the Partion of India 1947. Internment is an emotive word, it smacks of concentration camps, torture, etc… I did not use it.
But, identification of terrorists and their support networks, however extensive, and their removal (to a country of their choice perhaps?) has to be part of the solution. Couple this with immigration vetting which separates those who genuinely want to become part of our society from those who do not.
Yet again you miss the point that you cannot reason with these people.
I agree that you can avert the radicalisation of some, but you underestimate the attractiveness and the power of the ideology which lies behind this and the danger that a poacher turned gamekeeper could become a poacher again.
Finally, not because I believe that it was the cause of this, but I believe that not one more British serviceman should be at risk in the Middle East. I do agree that we should disengage from our exploits there, unless we are specifically asked to protect a country by that country’s government.
Indian partition directly caused the deaths of between 1 and 2 million people.
Even if you ignored that and decided that would be a price worth paying, then what precisely is it that you want to partition – resettle the ‘brown people’ in Wales?
I’m not some pacifist or idealist, and I’m no less appalled by this week’s attricities than anyone else on this site, but I see no sense in ill-considered action that will make the situation far worse.
I think the partition of India arose as a recognition that whilst Christian and Hindu and Seikh could live together relatively harmoniously because of a shared value system manifested through different religions, the Muslim could not live peacefully in India. They couldn’t accept being a minority in a predominantly Hindu country as they believed their own value system should prevail over all at any cost.
I think the partition of India arose as a recognition that whilst Christian and Hindu and Seikh could live together relatively harmoniously because of a shared value system manifested through different religions, the Muslim could not live peacefully in India. They coul66dn’t accept being a minority in a predominantly Hindu country as they believed their own value system should prevail over all at any cost.
Mr Smith, try as I might I can imagine no way in which your suggestions will lead to anything other than an escalation in violence, more deaths and enough recruitment footage to keep IS in new members for decades to come.
What is it that you see happening if your plans are implemented?
The partition of India was a political expedient whose sole purpose was to achieve a British withdrawal from the sub-continent. The problems it produced arose (among other things) from assumptions about political, religious and ethnic identity that proved to have been completely cock-eyed.
One assumption (for example) was the notion that Hindus were tolerant while Muslims were not. Hindus can we as wickedly and intolerantly cruel as any other human beings.
The persecution by Hindus of Christians and Sikhs is quite well documented.
Once we lump people into categories and pigeonholes, we dehumanise them and at that point we lose our humanity too.
Yes, IS, is monstrous; but if that is all we can see, we become ourselves extremist. Just reading some of the earlier posts demonstrates this.
The gut reaction “Lock them up and throw away the key” is a perfectly understandable emotional response. But it leaves us in danger of also throwing away the Rule of Law, which is the key to a civilised society and something that citizens of the UK have died to defend in the past.
If my grandchild had been blown up at that concert, I would be wild with grief – but, as DavidofLuton has pointed out, that is the not a frame of mind from which we can make considered and appropriate public policy.
Rant all you like, but you are in danger of leaving the field to those you most hate.
Oh dear, same old ” holier than though” lefty clap trap from the mutual admiration society that has driven actual discussion and debate from the comments section of this otherwise wonderful blog!
If you actually look at how our authorities are proceeding, they are doing exactly what I suggest, however the pace at which they proceed is constantly shackled by the bleeding heart, freedom of speech brigade, who in truth are the very opposite.
Actually, 64 comments – most of it respectful and avoiding puerile name calling – suggests that debate is alive and well BTL on this blog.
And as this is a private blog. If Backstreeter is unhappy he has the tools to quite easily moderate comments.
I think it has to be said, Mr Smith (and with due apologies to all) that you are talking bollocks.
I’ll get my coat.
“The partition of India was a political expedient whose sole purpose was to achieve a British withdrawal from the sub-continent. The problems it produced arose (among other things) from assumptions about political, religious and ethnic identity that proved to have been completely cock-eyed”
Very good, ppjs, and just about the same as what happened when the Brits and the Frogs drew straight-line borders across Arabia after WW1.
The one big difference being that in the partition of India the Brits agreed to the partition in order to achieve the a quick withdrawal and the Indians and Pakistanis had clear objectives, whereas the post-WW1 carve up of the Middle East was made without any consultation with the peoples who were going to have to live with the result.
I know it’s The Guardian, but this is quite a good cartoon:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2017/may/26/martin-rowson-on-the-cost-of-uk-foreign-policy-cartoon
80 people, all muslims, killed tonight in Kabul. 300 injured. Sad that there’s so little media coverage and public outcry – it’s so delressing that people dont seem to have the same empathy for human life for people who happen to live in a different country
You’ve answered your own point – they happen to live in a different country, continent, culture. Self evident really.
Yes – but sad that people dont seem to understand that people in other countries are the same as us. Our politicians may differ but we’re all pretty much the same.
But I can’t care about every one of the 7.5 billion souls on this planet meaningfully, so I choose to care about those closer and closest to me, as do most I guess. I get your point Iain, but routine religiously motivated atrocities visited upon their own in third world countries, half a planet away aren’t ever going to raise the same headlines. Nor should they.
I disagree with your perspective