UK facing most severe terror threat ever, warns MI5 chief

[Morch]

18 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 More repetitive self justification from you.

 

Nothing; but they have a lot to do with the comment of Opl's about integration which I was directly addressing; as already explained to, but ignored by, you.

 

The rest of that post is more repetitive self justification from you.

 

I have presented much evidence to support my claim; you have presented none to support your disparagement of that claim; nothing at all.

 

Maybe a challenge is in order?

 

You find as many statements from different Muslims, whether they be political leaders, religious leaders, representative groups or simply individuals, supporting Islamic terrorism as you can.

 

Let's see how that figure matches up to the ones denouncing Islamic terrorism already produced by myself and others.

 

You can keep on posting "repetitive self justification" to your little heart's content. It doesn't mean anything in the context of my posts and replies to your faulty arguments. That you cannot address them in any meaningful way is to be regretted, but not unexpected.

 

There is no real instance in which bringing in Westerners living in Thailand applies to the topic at hand. Other than the usual application of deflection tactics, that is.

 

As for the rest of your post, lets try this again:

 

You made strong claims about there being a "vast majority" and a ratio of "1-100" with regard to Muslims having negative views on Islamic terrorism. My point is not diametrically opposed to yours, as I do not and have never denied that there are such Muslims, even many of them. Rather, I'm suggesting that your comments are either exaggerations or at the very least, not demonstrated by what you (incorrectly) refer to as "evidence".

 

There were explanation provided in previous posts explaining the faults in your arguments, which you have failed to address, other than by repeating the same sort of irrelevant comments, and throwing a by now trademark tantrum.

 

On the off chance that you still don't get it (as is apparent from the inane "challenge" above): making my point does not require that I provide such a list as you imagine. I am not making the claim you imagine I'm claiming. What I say is simply that you cannot reliably demonstrate your strong claims, and that it would be better if statements would be qualified or exhibit a more cautious attitude. Compiling such a nonsense list as you "challenge" would be tantamount to accepting your own faulty logic and premise - ultimately failing to "prove" anything.

 

I'm frankly quite at a lose as to what you don't get about the above.

 

[Morch]

18 hours ago, 7by7 said:

At least this is one subject you are prepared to admit to knowing nothing about!

 

<snip>

 

Bizarre.

 

Seems like you can't even follow your own arguments. On this topic, for example, your stance is the "know-it-all", holding forth with decisive statements,  whereas mine is related to a more cautious approach favoring qualified claims.

 

Generally, I avoid posting extensively on topics I'm not interested in or not well enough acquainted with. Most times, I actually have a pretty good grasp of the discussions I partake in, but even then, the approach highlighted above is often evident. 

 

And as usual, you go overboard with your proclamations. I did not actually "admit" or even say I know "nothing" about the subject. What I actually posted had to do with specifics relating to the subject - such as how policy papers and statements by officials stack against means applied to deal with the problem and how progress was evaluated. Not a big surprise you didn't actually address these points.

 

[7by7]

19 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Does their religious books say kill the infidel too in or is that propaganda.

Following Scott's injunction, I can't comment on the religious books of other faiths.

 

As for the instruction to 'kill the infidel' in the Quran, have a read of Does the Quran Really Sanction Violence Against ‘Unbelievers’?

Quote

A careful and unbiased study of these and other verses, in their proper context, will reveal that the exhortations to fight “idolaters” and “unbelievers” are specific in nature and are not general injunctions for the murder of all those who refuse to accept Islam as their way of life.

Of course, Islamic terrorists also take these verses out of context in order to use them as a perverted justification for their atrocities. Either out of ignorance or in a deliberate attempt to brainwash others. I suspect the puppet masters belong to the second group, while the foot soldiers, for want of a better term, belong to the former.

 

Let's not forget, that whilst those carrying out the actual atrocities may be motivated by their perverted religious beliefs, those behind it all, those pulling the strings and their financiers, are motivated by politics, greed or both.

[7by7]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

More of the usual derailment of topic when lacking the ability to support an argument.

 

 

Thus speaks the master of diversion and obfuscation!

 

You either dismiss the arguments of others with endless, meaningless waffle whilst refusing to provide a shred of evidence to support your own arguments, or you make comments like the above or comments like

On ‎27‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 6:27 AM, Morch said:

More of your usual trolling

 

Your refusal to provide a single piece of evidence to back up your own assertions speaks volumes.

 

Are you really so arrogant that you believe people will simply take your word without any such evidence?

[7by7]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

What I actually posted had to do with specifics relating to the subject - such as how policy papers and statements by officials stack against means applied to deal with the problem and how progress was evaluated. Not a big surprise you didn't actually address these points.

Except, of course, I did address them!

 

More than once; for example

21 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The extreme teachings of faith schools is a problem, one which Ofsted has, regrettably, ignored too much in the past. But as the two examples you gave, plus the one I gave, show, this is changing.

 

Here's more on this: Is Ofsted scrutinising faith schools properly?

 

Of course, if any faith school is acting as a 'terrorists breeding room' as you put it, then the police and security services should, and do, become involved. For example: Inside abandoned UK Islamic school shut down after terror raid that was ‘almost bought by Abu Hamza to use as a jihadi training camp’

 

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by 7by7

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Following Scott's injunction, I can't comment on the religious books of other faiths.

 

As for the instruction to 'kill the infidel' in the Quran, have a read of Does the Quran Really Sanction Violence Against ‘Unbelievers’?

Of course, Islamic terrorists also take these verses out of context in order to use them as a perverted justification for their atrocities. Either out of ignorance or in a deliberate attempt to brainwash others. I suspect the puppet masters belong to the second group, while the foot soldiers, for want of a better term, belong to the former.

 

Let's not forget, that whilst those carrying out the actual atrocities may be motivated by their perverted religious beliefs, those behind it all, those pulling the strings and their financiers, are motivated by politics, greed or both.

 

What "puppet masters" or "those behind it all, those pulling the strings and their financiers, are motivated by politics, greed or both." are you on about? Care to provide any clear example? As a rule, is Islam divorced from politics?

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

Thus speaks the master of diversion and obfuscation!

 

You either dismiss the arguments of others with endless, meaningless waffle whilst refusing to provide a shred of evidence to support your own arguments, or you make comments like the above or comments like

 

Your refusal to provide a single piece of evidence to back up your own assertions speaks volumes.

 

Are you really so arrogant that you believe people will simply take your word without any such evidence?

 

I have posted on topic and directly addressed points raised by yourself. 

 

There was a clear explanation on the grounds your arguments were found faulty. It is rather simple and does not require anything by way of links (what you, for some reason, consider "evidence"). That you can't or won't grasp the point is obvious. Can't understand it for you, sorry. As for won't, can't make you drink.

 

Take my word for what? That you cannot reliably demonstrate your "vast majority" or "1-100" claims? That what you consider "evidence" is not quite what this actually means? It's like arguing with a 5 year old:

 

- "My dad is the strongest in the world!"

- "You can't know that without pitting him against all other dads in the world."

- "So bring your dad to fight my dad!"

- "Eh?"

 

 

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Except, of course, I did address them!

 

More than once; for example

 

 

 

Of course you did nothing of the sort. You just think you did. You seem to imagine that posting links is the answer to anything. But what I was after is this - considering the issue of Islamic indoctrination keeps cropping up, and knowing that there are policies dealing with it and bodies tasked with tackling such issues - how do both fare when compared to the actual state of things, and by what metrics are such things analyzed.

 

The links in your post do not provide a clear answer. Both actually detail failures, in the sense that wrongdoing went on for quite a while, without being addressed. And one of them is your usual off-topic foray using a community not known for involvement in religiously motivated terrorism as a deflection.

 

 

 

 

[joeyg]

On 10/27/2017 at 12:53 PM, smutcakes said:

You are aware that India is 80% Hindu rather than muslim? 

14.7% actually.  Most of my "tour" was in and around West Bengal  that is 32.8% muslim.  Not sure what your point is but as always.  Thank you.

[7by7]

On ‎28‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 10:59 AM, Morch said:

What "puppet masters" or "those behind it all, those pulling the strings and their financiers, are motivated by politics, greed or both." are you on about? Care to provide any clear example? As a rule, is Islam divorced from politics?

 It all depends on which theory you prefer.

 

Some say that when Al-Qaeda were opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that they were originally armed and funded by the CIA on the basis  of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

 

Similar theories are put forward about the creation and funding of ISIS.

 

Others say that the Saudi's are behind it all, to spread their political power through the Middle East.

 

I've even seen claims that ISIS is a creation of Mossad!

 

But if ISIS, for example, is simply  the creation of a bunch of religious fanatics in the desserts of Syria and Iraq; where are they getting their funding from? Someone's got to be behind them.

 

Yet again, you dismiss the theories of others: what is yours?

 

Who do you believe is behind ISIS and similar groups?

 

Where do you think they get their money from?

 

Will you answer this time? Or yet again post condescending obfuscation, like the two posts of yours which follow the one I've quoted here?

 

You don't care for links which provide clear statements from people who condemn Islamic terrorism.

 

You don't care for links which show that the issues of extremist and ultra conservative indoctrination in faith schools in the UK is being addressed; especially as they show the truth that this issue is not confined to one particular religion.

 

You don't care for links which show that where faith schools, or any organisation, in the UK have advocated or encouraged actual terrorism they have, rightly, been closed by the authorities and, where appropriate, people have been arrested, charged and, if found guilty, punished.

 

You definitely don't care for links which show that all of the above actions, and more, have been helped by, if not resulted from, information received by the police, security services or others from the local Muslim community.

 

It is you who refuses to drink; not I.

[joeyg]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 It all depends on which theory you prefer.

 

Some say that when Al-Qaeda were opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that they were originally armed and funded by the CIA on the basis  of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

 

Similar theories are put forward about the creation and funding of ISIS.

 

Others say that the Saudi's are behind it all, to spread their political power through the Middle East.

 

I've even seen claims that ISIS is a creation of Mossad!

 

But if ISIS, for example, is simply  the creation of a bunch of religious fanatics in the desserts of Syria and Iraq; where are they getting their funding from? Someone's got to be behind them.

 

Yet again, you dismiss the theories of others: what is yours?

 

Who do you believe is behind ISIS and similar groups?

 

Where do you think they get their money from?

 

Will you answer this time? Or yet again post condescending obfuscation, like the two posts of yours which follow the one I've quoted here?

 

You don't care for links which provide clear statements from people who condemn Islamic terrorism.

 

You don't care for links which show that the issues of extremist and ultra conservative indoctrination in faith schools in the UK is being addressed; especially as they show the truth that this issue is not confined to one particular religion.

 

You don't care for links which show that where faith schools, or any organisation, in the UK have advocated or encouraged actual terrorism they have, rightly, been closed by the authorities and, where appropriate, people have been arrested, charged and, if found guilty, punished.

 

You definitely don't care for links which show that all of the above actions, and more, have been helped by, if not resulted from, information received by the police, security services or others from the local Muslim community.

 

It is you who refuses to drink; not I.

Thank You.

[Grouse]

On 27/10/2017 at 12:53 PM, smutcakes said:

You are aware that India is 80% Hindu rather than muslim? 

India has more Muslims than Pakistan

[Grouse]

Any chance of getting back on topic?

 

Box is correct

 

We should not allow these bearded wonders back in (probably shaven now anyway - softies)

 

How much is an armed drone? Can one buy one?

[Morch]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 It all depends on which theory you prefer.

 

Some say that when Al-Qaeda were opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that they were originally armed and funded by the CIA on the basis  of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

 

Similar theories are put forward about the creation and funding of ISIS.

 

Others say that the Saudi's are behind it all, to spread their political power through the Middle East.

 

I've even seen claims that ISIS is a creation of Mossad!

 

But if ISIS, for example, is simply  the creation of a bunch of religious fanatics in the desserts of Syria and Iraq; where are they getting their funding from? Someone's got to be behind them.

 

Yet again, you dismiss the theories of others: what is yours?

 

Who do you believe is behind ISIS and similar groups?

 

Where do you think they get their money from?

 

Will you answer this time? Or yet again post condescending obfuscation, like the two posts of yours which follow the one I've quoted here?

 

You don't care for links which provide clear statements from people who condemn Islamic terrorism.

 

You don't care for links which show that the issues of extremist and ultra conservative indoctrination in faith schools in the UK is being addressed; especially as they show the truth that this issue is not confined to one particular religion.

 

You don't care for links which show that where faith schools, or any organisation, in the UK have advocated or encouraged actual terrorism they have, rightly, been closed by the authorities and, where appropriate, people have been arrested, charged and, if found guilty, punished.

 

You definitely don't care for links which show that all of the above actions, and more, have been helped by, if not resulted from, information received by the police, security services or others from the local Muslim community.

 

It is you who refuses to drink; not I.

 

So you do not have a clear answer as such, but rather postulate that there are such shadowy figures pulling strings and which are somehow alien to Islam?

 

There's actually quite a bit of information on ISIS's financial and logistical issues, most of it was detailed on topic dealing directly with ISIS. They had various, and considerable sources of income from territories controlled. Not quite as baffling or mysterious as you put forth.

 

And the same old nonsense again: you make a claim, it gets challenged, and somehow your default answer is that a similar claim needs to be raised in order to fault yours. Well, it doesn't work this way, sorry. You're the one making the claim, you need to back it up. I'm not making any comments about someone being behind AQ/ISIS and pulling their strings, you are. Hope that's clear by now.

 

As for the rest of your rant - it gets tiresome explaining the same thing over and over again. I have no issue, as such, with the links you posted. My point was that they do not fully match or demonstrate the arguments and claims raised. You may insist otherwise, but it wouldn't change anything.

 

Nowhere did I claim that there aren't Muslims condemning Islamic terrorism. Just that your take is exaggerated and practically impossible to demonstrate.

 

Nowhere did I claim that issues were not addressed in UK faith schools. Just that the links provided did not answer the questions raised as to how successful are such efforts and how progress is being measured.

 

I've no idea what your last bit of imagination is about, as the issue wasn't raised in this topic. If you refer to previous topics - pretty much the same thing. Not that things do not happen, just that the link provided do not match the overblown, hyperbolic claims you make.

[Opl]

"Not all extremist activity is direct attack planning. UK-based Islamist extremists are supporting terrorism by:

• Radicalising individuals to believe in the legitimacy of joining a terrorist network or carrying out a terrorist attack;
• Fundraising for terrorist networks, often through criminal activity such as diverting money donated to legitimate charities;
• Helping radicalised individuals to travel abroad to join a terrorist group and potentially receive training. Some of these individuals may receive direction to plan an attack back in the UK."

The threat is constantly developing, presenting major challenges for the UK's intelligence agencies and the police.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/international-terrorism

 

 

Edited October 29, 2017 by Opl

[joeyg]

10 hours ago, Opl said:

"Not all extremist activity is direct attack planning. UK-based Islamist extremists are supporting terrorism by:

• Radicalising individuals to believe in the legitimacy of joining a terrorist network or carrying out a terrorist attack;
• Fundraising for terrorist networks, often through criminal activity such as diverting money donated to legitimate charities;
• Helping radicalised individuals to travel abroad to join a terrorist group and potentially receive training. Some of these individuals may receive direction to plan an attack back in the UK."

The threat is constantly developing, presenting major challenges for the UK's intelligence agencies and the police.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/international-terrorism

 

 

There you go again using facts and objective reality to make your point.  That's not how it's done here...

[cliveshep]

The obvious original solution was ignored for some purblind political reason and it is almost certainly now too late.

 

If you don't want the local soi dogs to get into your garden, dig it up, fight with your own dogs, poop everywhere you close the gate to keep them out! They are untrained, destructive and often quite vicious.

 

Much the same can be said for the vast hordes of male economic migrants who flooded into the country through open borders, un-vetted, un-checked  and un-registered

 

And I'll go for broke here - most are Muslim.

 

One more nail in my PC coffin - of late almost ALL atrocities in the UK are committed by Muslim migrants.

 

Can't any fool in our Government correctly add two plus two?

 

Any other non-EU Government would deport the lot to ensure internal security and safety for their citizens. Our Government have chosen to put migrants first on the priority list and pensioners, the NHS for citizens and general welfare of the voting public somewhat lower than animal rights it seems!

 

We vote, they ignore. We need a Government that does more than pay lip-service to the people's wishes. And NO - not Commie Corbyn and his dopy lot!

Edited October 30, 2017 by cliveshep

[Kwasaki]

I would ask the MI5 chief whether his talking to MI6. ?

[cliveshep]

Ha - talking is ALL they ever  do. Its not the Intelligence services that need to talk to each other, it's the Government that needs to commit to action that rounds up these Islamic invaders and boot them back out and sod the EU and HR. They are not and probably never have been refugees, indeed many of them probably created refugee problems before they came to Europe.

 

Talk is cheap, hot air is all politicians have, it is their stock-in-trade. Instead of sneakily donating our woefully under-resourced and under-funded military to the EU while everyone looks at Catalonia and Spain and fails to notice they could use that same military to good advantage to secure borders and round up economic migrants from Somalia, Syria, Eritrea, Syria, Turkey, Irag, Afghanistan etc and send them packing. 

[Opl]

"Couple planned terror attack after meeting on dating site, court hears. 

Munir Mohammed and Rowaida El-Hassan are accused of preparing terrorist acts between November 2015 and December 20163. Prosecutor Anne Whyte QC said: “This is a case which reflects the age in which we live. It demonstrates the relative ease with which acts of terrorism can be prepared, thanks to the internet. "

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/30/terror-attack-couple-dating-site-court-hears-munir-mohammed-rowaida-el-hassan

[joeyg]

11 minutes ago, Opl said:

"Couple planned terror attack after meeting on dating site, court hears. 

Munir Mohammed and Rowaida El-Hassan are accused of preparing terrorist acts between November 2015 and December 20163. Prosecutor Anne Whyte QC said: “This is a case which reflects the age in which we live. It demonstrates the relative ease with which acts of terrorism can be prepared, thanks to the internet. "

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/30/terror-attack-couple-dating-site-court-hears-munir-mohammed-rowaida-el-hassan

Those radical Mormons at it again.