7% of Brit's suport ISIS? WTF!!

paulgs1000 said:
Hmm if the horrific videos posted are real (and they certainly look it) then I see startling similarities to incidents in Europe leading up to and during the Second World War. Where do we hear the modern 'Churchill' pointing out the dangers and highlighting the possibilities?

Whatever the %ages - I would have thought the recent atrocity might have changed a few attitudes and brought into stark relief just what such organisations believe is appropriate behaviour and response. :cry:

The world seems to be in an historical time lapse where some societies and civilisations have 100s of years of development not yet experienced - development in human rights and freedoms, developments in attitudes to women and other religions, development in law and punishment. Millions have died, throughout history, to bring these changes to some parts of the world - it has always been a staggeringly brutal and bloody period of change. Does the world have time to see this occur throughout the world?

When such brutal and bloody incidents are brought onto the streets of present day UK then it's not a surprise it becomes very worrying and such %ages don't make sense. History repeating itself?
Click to expand...

Agree with most of this...

The one down side of modern day communications is that it forces the development of 3rd world countries like hot house flowers - just look at the Egyptian interpretation of democracy - elect the preferred candidate by protesting in the city square - as soon as you don't like what thy do - get rid of them by protesting in the square ....

All of the so called developed countries have black and violent pasts as the veer and haul of development into a socially tolerant and educated country happened - over a period of hundreds of years this happened - not months as most of the western democracies think should happen in places like Iraq and Afghanistan - it just can't happen this way attitudes and cultures take a long time to develop and change what we are seeing is a distortion of democracy that won't work

Don't do any harm to view Britain and Americas attitudes and actions from the other end of the telescope every so often though - look at the rock throwing at Russia over Ukraine then look at the blatant inactivity over Israels actions - confusing? - Not arf!
 
Spikey. I might even add the following thoughts/ questions. Who in the middle east would benefit from a stable region? The rank & file average middle eastern person perhaps? As well as other folks around the world that buy their oil. And who in the region would benefit from instability. Perhaps the other middle eastern countries and their oil sheiks that are already in charge of the oil. Just look at where a lot of the terrorist funding is coming from. Why would the oil sheiks want to share with the commoners or tribal enemies in the region when all the instability in the region can be blamed on the west, And thus financially line the sheiks pockets and keep the average folks from sharing in the wealth and keep them looking anywhere but towards west. The west is just a convenient diversion.

Now, I'm not discounting the fires that the UK & French started through the break up of the Ottoman Empire via the Treaty of Versailles. Which treaty the American's opposed, saying that the treaty would result in another world war. But America continued where the Brits left off when the they started to shrink their empire in the 40's. But far to many things seem to not make since in the middle east.
Just look back to Iran of the 60's under the Shah of Iran. Iran had become a modern country with universities, Women could be educated and employed. The transportation/civic infrastructure was excellent. And Iran was an ally of the west. In fact I worked around Iranian Air Force troops when I was learning to work on nuclear weapons in Illinois in 1975. Of course that's not to say that the shah was a benign leader. But Iran was pretty stable relative to the rest of the region. Most Iranians had a lot of freedom. But it was the anti west Islamist's that over threw the Shah for being a friend of the west. Last I heard. We have never had and still haven't ever put troops on the ground in Iran.
 
Iran's army is way too big to take on anyway. Last I read was that Iran was going to take arms against IS, which I guess could be a good thing but I wonder what is in it for them. Are they concerned for themselves or is there another thought behind it that I have not seen yet?

I do not understand those that live in European countries but are not from there, are joining those IS terrorists and afterwards think they can come back to their civilised society. At least by being that dim to have that ideology, they are fairly easy to find by the authorities.
 
its easily swayed misfits, with a chip on their shoulder going out there to fight

they think they will come back heroes of their community and probably will in some quarters
 
Hopefully anyone that goes over there to fight will get vapourized before getting the chance to return here. :evil:
 
Honestly, does it matter if a new Islamic state is created in the existing Arab Islamic countries....

I say let ISIS, Iraq, Iran and Syria fight it out, and whoever come out on top that is who we here work with to get what we need...

Why do we have to care or get involved in their civil war? Or why should we care who they elect to their governments?

My point is....if we were fighting here or in the USA to against a tyrannical government or one which other parts of the world does agree with then should they become involved in our affairs, through their government backed warfare?

How much worse can ISIS be than other governments or ruling powers around the world....?
Think...
- Mugabe Now and in the Past
- China taking over Tibet
- Israel and Gaza recently
- Russia invading Ukraine
....
 
The main issue here is that this is not territorial, they would never stop at "having a country" as their ideology consists of killing anyone who is not one of them. They are a terrorist group that have no borders so we have little choice in stopping them.
 
pvr said:
The main issue here is that this is not territorial, they would never stop at "having a country" as their ideology consists of killing anyone who is not one of them. They are a terrorist group that have no borders so we have little choice in stopping them.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
It seems very hard for a lot of or perhaps even most people (especially the uber liberals) in the west to realize that the morals of the Islamists are not the same morals that we have in the west. Our (generally speaking) desire in the west to just be left alone so that we can get on with our lives does not apply to radical Islamists. It's just not part of their DNA. Radical Islamists are as likely to change their moral compass to live & let live, As we Americans are likely to ban all guns and melt them for recycling.
 
pvr said:
The main issue here is that this is not territorial, they would never stop at "having a country" as their ideology consists of killing anyone who is not one of them. They are a terrorist group that have no borders so we have little choice in stopping them.
Click to expand...

Would our bombing and killing anyone we think is ISIS, that supports ISIS, or follow ISIS view is different how exactly?
 
I think we should just leave them alone. Its not our country and bombing them (and potentially killing innocents) just gives them an excuse to carry out more attacks.

Plus, its such a waste of our resources... would be better spent on our own country.
 
ut745 said:
I think we should just leave them alone. Its not our country and bombing them (and potentially killing innocents) just gives them an excuse to carry out more attacks.

Plus, its such a waste of our resources... would be better spent on our own country.
Click to expand...

Too late for that now, the hornets nest has been poked far too much to sit back and relax...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom