David Cameron urged to fight extremism by means of 'British values'

[cup-O-coffee]

Many Islamic extremists - including ISIS - are seeking to establish a worldwide Caliphate - an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader - and a majority of Muslims across the world support establishing one. Going home and hiding our heads in the sand might be no solution at all.

You must like Big Government, yes?

The US Military can be anywhere in the world in hours. Our tactical weapons can be there even sooner. Our intelligence, if properly handled and turned patriotic, can provide the intel to target what needs to be hit, and hence keep them honest. Next to the Israelis, no one beats our Intel.

On the other hand, with their factories which produce plutonium wiped out, it is a matter of semantics to keep them within their own borders and fighting amongst themselves, which they have been doing for thousands of years regardless of whether you are there or I am here.

Pull out. Ignore them. Tell them to behave. No more beheadings or kidnapping of people outside of their borders.

I suggest you re-evaluate my suggestion.

Keep our troops at home defending our countries from illegal aliens crossing our borders, and keep the enemies in their homes thinking about their own immediate concerns (i.e. looking up into the sky and giving a prayer to Allah that only the rain falls today).

Ban all campaign donations to politicians from outside the USA, and add the requirement that all donations must be a matter of public record and not from entities that are against the US Constitution. That way we do not run the risk of electing another pro-Muslim sock puppet who gets millions of dollars of campaign monies from Muslim and communist organizations, and then negotiates with mass murdering terrorists, and adds to their ranks whilst our soldiers are dying on foreign soil and in VA hospitals to protect Corporate oil and the rights of Islamic murderers.

So damn easy to do.

I doubt we'll ever see a Normandy beach invasion - Islamic Fundamentalist style - on the shores of Virginia.

Head in the sand. Ha Ha. Is that how you see it? Then why does a wise man sleep sound at night with all of his sons safe and armed, knowing that any burglar is going to get his head blown off if he breaks in? Why does the wise man think it is stupid and futile to send his sons all around the neighborhood and camp out in front of everyone's houses and police the neighborhood and get his neighbors angry at him and throw rocks in his window or firebomb his car?

You don;t have to have your head up your enemy's ass to get him to respect you and give you a wide berth when he sees you walking down the street, or pass in front of your house on the other side of the street.

[Ulysses G.]

I doubt we'll ever see a Normandy beach invasion - Islamic Fundamentalist style - on the shores of Virginia.

Probably not. More likely an Iranian nuke in New York City - Twelver Shīa Muslim style - unless we stop them over there and soon.

[kingalfred]

I was going to say" time to get tough" with these militant muslims but its too late . The genies out of the bottle, the horse has bolted. Unless the Uk says it will deal with these people,whatever any misnamed "human rights or European state body" tells it. The Jihadist bandwagon will role on. This is WAR . How soul destroying that a Trillion $$$ , 10 years and thousands of allied lives,and Iraq army is not capable of defending itself against a terrorist group.

[Credo]

We could probably reduce the number of bases, but as long as we have embassies in countries we will need to have backup available. We will need to have embassies as long as we do any type of business with countries. We will need embassies as long as citizens continue to visit countries, marry people from those countries, adopt children from those countries and interact with those people at all.

We also have friends and allies, along with enemies, and we don't want to be too far away from them.

[wigantojapan]

Did notice this came from "Voice of Russia" a country well known for it's acceptance of other views, in places such as Chechnya.... or "if there's a Russian there, it must be part of Russia" (Ukraine).... Pussy Riot, anyone?

possibly it was reported on voice of Russia because the BBC has been selective in its reporting of events in the UK or should i say the non reporting for example 50.000 people showing the British value of free speech in the form of a demonstration that started from outside the BBC.

It took over a day before it was reported in any form on MSM

https://www.google.co.th/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmikesivier.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F06%2F21%2Fask-the-bbc-why-it-didnt-cover-the-anti-austerity-demo-heres-what-you-can-expect%2F&ei=qkmoU6zHE8b28QWY7IL4AQ&usg=AFQjCNFTpBlATiMY3FNrzZJWx-WUIxM-Dg.

[7by7]

Of course, the above post has anything to do with the topic; but some people are desperate to ride their favourite hobby horses given the slightest excuse.

So, in the interests of fairness:-

All news outlets are selective in their reporting; even in these days of 24 hour rolling news channels they can't report everything.

But some people, such as the site linked to above whose accusations of bias can only be met with the reply "Dear pot, yours kettle," want the gullible to believe that if a news outlet didn't report their particular favourite 'news' item, such as the above example or a handful of people demonstrating outside BBC Scotland, this means that they must be biased and/or government controlled.

Those of us who actually live in the UK know that the difficulties and problems faced by many in these hard times are regularly reported upon and discussed by the media, print and broadcast, in the UK.

[wigantojapan]

well apart from flying a flag, which some people perceive to be a British value can anyone add to what British values are?

[englishoak]

well apart from flying a flag, which some people perceive to be a British value can anyone add to what British values are?

Sure.

I. The rule of law. Our society is based on the idea that we all abide by the same rules, whatever our wealth or status. No one is above the law - not even the government.

II. The sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. The Lords, the Commons and the monarch constitute the supreme authority in the land. There is no appeal to any higher jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal.

III. The pluralist state. Equality before the law implies that no one should be treated differently on the basis of belonging to a particular group. Conversely, all parties, sects, faiths and ideologies must tolerate the existence of their rivals.

IV. Personal freedom. There should be a presumption, always and everywhere, against state coercion. We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.

V. Private property. Freedom must include the freedom to buy and sell without fear of confiscation, to transfer ownership, to sign contracts and have them enforced. Britain was quicker than most countries to recognise this and became, in consequence, one of the happiest and most prosperous nations on Earth.

VI. Institutions. British freedom and British character are immanent in British institutions. These are not, mostly, statutory bodies, but spring from the way free individuals regulate each other's conduct, and provide for their needs, without recourse to coercion.

VII. The family. Civic society depends on values being passed from generation to generation. Stable families are the essential ingredient of a stable society.

VIII. History. British children inherit a political culture, a set of specific legal rights and obligations, and a stupendous series of national achievements. They should be taught about these things.

IX. The English-speaking world. The atrocities of September 11, 2001, were not simply an attack on a foreign nation; they were an attack on the anglosphere - on all of us who believe in freedom, justice and the rule of law.

X. The British character. Shaped by and in turn shaping our national institutions is our character as a people: stubborn, stoical, indignant at injustice. "The Saxon," wrote Kipling, "never means anything seriously till he talks about justice and right."

[7by7]

All good points, englishoak, and I'd like to comment on a couple.

II. The sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. The Lords, the Commons and the monarch constitute the supreme authority in the land. There is no appeal to any higher jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal.

This has now been usurped by the European Court of Justice; which is now the highest court of appeal in Europe and can overrule decisions by the a member state's Supreme Court and also rule that laws made by the a member state's Parliament are illegal.

VIII. History. British children inherit a political culture, a set of specific legal rights and obligations, and a stupendous series of national achievements. They should be taught about these things.

New residents from outside the EEA do have to learn this, which I think is right; but British schoolchildren don't, which I think is wrong.

[Steely Dan]

This article from the commentator nails it, the west has been in denial for far too long.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5046/confronting_the_islamic_threat_to_the_west

A greater effort must be made to control the threat of Islamic terrorism. Indifference to the threat, let alone acquiescence, is not an option for Western survival. An official British report published in mid-June 2014 illustrates the need for action.

There is some hope however, and that is the populations of European nation states are aware of the threat living within as can be indirectly confirmed by the recent European Union election results.