http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28823281

Islamic State militants could grow strong enough to target people on the streets of Britain unless action is taken, David Cameron has warned.

The PM, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, said a "humanitarian response" to IS was not enough and a "firm security response" was needed.

It comes as Church leaders expressed concern that the UK had no "coherent" approach to tackling Islamic extremism.

Cameron has made no secret of his wish that Britain should send troops to fight IS. A grim prospect...... but can we just sit back and hope airdrops and bombing missions will do the trick?

These fanatics must be stopped massacring the innocent in the name of Islam. So many Muslims (Shias, I suppose) think of their religion as a religion of peace, and yet these Sunni extremists kill and maim without mercy anyone who gets in their way, even the Christians and Yasidis in Northern Iraq whose only sin is to be there.

What is the answer to these murderers?

There are claims many ISIS terrorists are citizens of both the US and the UK.

Should they survive battle there will always be a threat of them returning home to take up the Jihad yet again.

There are said to be 2,000 British citizens fighting for IS. I haven't seen a figure for Americans.

Islamic State militants could grow strong enough to target people on the streets of Britain unless action is taken, David Cameron has warned.

It's hardly a new threat. Sticking strictly to the UK:

- Iranian Embassy Siege in 1980

- Abu Nidal killed Israeli Ambassador '82

- Pan Am 103 '88

- Car bomb outside Israeli embassy '94

- Two lots of London bombings - one "successful", the other not '05

- Plot to behead British Moslem soldier '07

- Edinburgh airport bomb attack '07

- Plot to bomb EDL rally '12

- Soldier beheaded on the streets of London '13

(And that's just from memory.)

It's not only the devout Moslems of Islamic State that want to drown us all in our own blood.

For as long as we continue to bury our heads in the sand, nothing will change. Until such time as we acknowledge that 'in the name of' is a meaningless statement, nothing will change. Due to our unwillingness to accept 'as a direct result of' or 'as a precept of', nothing will change.

When we are sitting there in a cave suffering from radiation sickness we cannot say we did not know about the issue nor how to fix it.

When whites do report a racist attack, the police response is luke warm at best. It was in the local mainstream media, but I can't find it now.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b7e_1371329131

It comes as Church leaders expressed concern that the UK had no "coherent" approach to tackling Islamic extremism.

In a rational world such a statement would relive said church of its tax exempt status but anyway. This whole identifier of 'extremism' in the context of Islam (and all others) is a misnomer and should be offensive to any educated person. Why should people who follow the words of their own flavour of good book such as the Taliban or Creationist's be considered extreme rather than those who just pick and choose the bits that they find appealing?

I could go on and discuss arguments both for and against but this would require multiple quotes which is limited to 6 (or 5?) but that is not enough, resulting in breaching T&Cs regarding legibility.

3. If possible please proofread your post first, poor grammar and spelling can make the post difficult to understand.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Anyway, might pop over to the support sub forum.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/iraqi-bishop-warns-that-west-will-suffer-from-islamism-19159/

Some interesting comments by the Chaldaean Archbishop of Mosul, now an exile in Erbil.

Archbishop Nona appealed to western media to “try to understand us.”

“Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles.”

“You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values.”

“If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/iraqi-bishop-warns-that-west-will-suffer-from-islamism-19159/

Some interesting comments by the Chaldaean Archbishop of Mosul, now an exile in Erbil.

Archbishop Nona appealed to western media to try to understand us.

Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles.

You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values.

If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.

Hey IB, hope all is good up there.

The idea of enemy in the midst is so old as to be undated but nevertheless it still rings true.

not only for the sake of non-muslim citizens but also in the interest of law abiding Muslims countries should implement a zero tolerance policy starting with handing out harsh prison sentences and if applicable deportation of hate preachers or other wrongdoers.

the pussy footing must stop!

not only for the sake of non-muslim citizens but also in the interest of law abiding Muslims countries should implement a zero tolerance policy starting with handing out harsh prison sentences and if applicable deportation of hate preachers or other wrongdoers.

the pussy footing must stop!

I agree but it is the same religiosity in society that commands us to do nothing. When the Fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie in '89 there was little outcry and leaders of large religions such as the Pope agreed that the author was blasphemous while fawning over the senile geriatric leader of Iran. I don't care what the religious believe as it is no business of mine or rather that it is someone else's personally held belief. But the thing is, it's far from a personally held belief because it has an effect on other peoples lives. Hence, religion poisons everything.

I was in NZ a couple of years back just before the Earthquake having lunch with a group of Methodist ministers One lady brought up that she was having an issue with people calling her for a massage which she presumed to be due a wrong number being printed on calling cards. She was one of the more elderly ministers that had minions and he went on about how the phone company would not do anything about it even though his boss (her) was a minister. This idea of special treatment for people who are willing to believe practically anything for less than dubious reasons permeates society and will ultimately be why this pussyfooting will not stop.

not only for the sake of non-muslim citizens but also in the interest of law abiding Muslims countries should implement a zero tolerance policy starting with handing out harsh prison sentences and if applicable deportation of hate preachers or other wrongdoers.

the pussy footing must stop!

Why bother? Western civilisation is doomed. Moslems will simply outbreed the original peoples of the West.

The only solution would be to reverse the years of Moslem immigration. That couldn't be done by offering Moslems money to return to their family's original country. After all, who would voluntarily go to back to live in some Islamic hell hole he left for the comforts and freedoms of the West?

The only practical solution I can think of (other than forced deportation, which no mainstream politician would advocate) would be to impose a sort of "reverse jizyah". That is, impose a swinging tax upon all Moslems if they refuse to give up their religion and adopt modern, secular values. Make it economically impossible for them to continue living in the West.

Unfortunately, before politicians the West abandon political correctness and wake up to the very real threat to civilisation, Moslems will be so influential in society than nothing will be done.

Farewell, enlightenment. It was nice knowing you.

not only for the sake of non-muslim citizens but also in the interest of law abiding Muslims countries should implement a zero tolerance policy starting with handing out harsh prison sentences and if applicable deportation of hate preachers or other wrongdoers.

the pussy footing must stop!

Why bother? Western civilisation is doomed. Moslems will simply outbreed the original peoples of the West.

The only solution would be to reverse the years of Moslem immigration. That couldn't be done by offering Moslems money to return to their family's original country. After all, who would voluntarily go to back to live in some Islamic hell hole he left for the comforts and freedoms of the West?

The only practical solution I can think of (other than forced deportation, which no mainstream politician would advocate) would be to impose a sort of "reverse jizyah". That is, impose a swinging tax upon all Moslems if they refuse to give up their religion and adopt modern, secular values. Make it economically impossible for them to continue living in the West.

Unfortunately, before politicians the West abandon political correctness and wake up to the very real threat to civilisation, Moslems will be so influential in society than nothing will be done.

Farewell, enlightenment. It was nice knowing you.

generalisations like yours are most of the time wrong. in Germany we have ~4 million Turks and German citizens with Turkish ancestry. only a miniscule fraction causes "islamic problems" and it would be utter nonsense to call Turkey an "islamic hellhole".

Hammond rules out alliance with Assad against IS, demonstrates the government doesn't recognise the seriousness of the threat.

not only for the sake of non-muslim citizens but also in the interest of law abiding Muslims countries should implement a zero tolerance policy starting with handing out harsh prison sentences and if applicable deportation of hate preachers or other wrongdoers.

the pussy footing must stop!

Why bother? Western civilisation is doomed. Moslems will simply outbreed the original peoples of the West.

The only solution would be to reverse the years of Moslem immigration. That couldn't be done by offering Moslems money to return to their family's original country. After all, who would voluntarily go to back to live in some Islamic hell hole he left for the comforts and freedoms of the West?

The only practical solution I can think of (other than forced deportation, which no mainstream politician would advocate) would be to impose a sort of "reverse jizyah". That is, impose a swinging tax upon all Moslems if they refuse to give up their religion and adopt modern, secular values. Make it economically impossible for them to continue living in the West.

Unfortunately, before politicians the West abandon political correctness and wake up to the very real threat to civilisation, Moslems will be so influential in society than nothing will be done.

Farewell, enlightenment. It was nice knowing you.

generalisations like yours are most of the time wrong. in Germany we have ~4 million Turks and German citizens with Turkish ancestry. only a miniscule fraction causes "islamic problems" and it would be utter nonsense to call Turkey an "islamic hellhole".

I think a similar statement would be true of most Western countries. Wild generalisations like AyG's are generally wrong, and are indeed a hindrance to those people who are trying to sort out the dangerous Islamists from the ordinary decent Muslims. It's this separation of sheep from goats which is making things so difficult.

I have no Middle Eastern experience, but I have lived in Malaysia, and have Muslim friends in several countries. None of them seem to have these murderous tendencies.

Why bother? Western civilisation is doomed.

We are all doomed from birth anyway so why bother even taking a breath?

We can either be Christian, and Western, in our beliefs, or we can sacrifice those beliefs at the behest of terrorists, and eradicate the scourge of tolerance and open-mindedness from our society. Millions of immigrants from all over the world have indicated their preference. How many people migrate permanently to the theocracies of the Middle East?

If this war is to be won by intolerance, ignorance and prejudice, then we should surrender now, because we cannot hope to match our opponents.

My recommendation is that we find an alternative way of winning the war

SC

It comes as Church leaders expressed concern that the UK had no "coherent" approach to tackling Islamic extremism.

In a rational world such a statement would relive said church of its tax exempt status but anyway. This whole identifier of 'extremism' in the context of Islam (and all others) is a misnomer and should be offensive to any educated person. Why should people who follow the words of their own flavour of good book such as the Taliban or Creationist's be considered extreme rather than those who just pick and choose the bits that they find appealing?

I sadly agree. I do not see extremism in many places. The concept of extremism is a total fabrication of the west in an effort to explain that which cannot be explained with western reason, as it labels and assigns meaning to things. All of these "extremists" may say any number of things to the west, and they are usually canned phrases such as "...for your occupation of our lands" or "for our brothers and sisters in Palestine," etc. These things make sense. They appeal to the concept of cause and effect. When things don't have easily identifiable causes it produces even greater anxiety. And this is the rub of it- the easily identifiable cause is totally removed from the worldview of our leaders. It is so... over the top in regard to western decorum and sensibilities that people will only whisper the problem is "Islam," or "koran" in small public policy circles.

We all know the canned cliches that the "extremists" state are their reasons but now its time to look further online; it is time to find out what exactly they're saying to each other? What do these "extremists" say to other muslims? Even the jihadis have local audiences they target for validation, conversion, or intimidation. They do not sell them cliches and throw-away phrases that they use for western audiences. To a group... to a man... they cite Sura, Hadith, and other exegesis from the voluminous Islamic scholarly tradition. They will always state openly, if we listen, translate, and process it, why they are doing this.

The rise of "extremists" is simply one more period of Islamic expansion in a long list of bloody subjugation of neighbors, now occurring for the first time in the modern age (previously artificially deferred by Ottoman/British/Russian-USA hegemony). Amidst all our technology, all our self assigned ethical superiority, are we really surprised that millions of people who assert that the most righteous age was the 7th century are laboring to return us to that era? If you want to know what is going to happen tomorrow look at what happened yesterday. Islam maintains a detailed, mandated, social blueprint for how to spread Islam as a duty, by war, and how this expresses the most upright and just state of a being a good muslim, in accordance with emulating the life of their prophet- (hadith).

When one realizes that the reason "moderate" muslims are silent is because they are deferring commenting against appropriately cited scripture, then the "extremes" and "moderate" we assign to Islam come into sharp, distinct focus, and we must readjust our peripheral markers; extremists are actually just right of center! Everyday, for every single terrorist attack for which the majority remain silent, they become complicit. Every day, silence supports jihad and informs muslim youth that jihad is passively if not actively condoned. In other words, "extremists" are rarely operating without a compass.

Do we as human beings continue to give Islam a pass because the label "religion" has consistently been used for this ideology/religion? This label incidentally serves as our collective "T" cell and with it knocked out of commission...

When do we have the conversation:

1) What constitutes a "religion?"

2) In so labeling a "religion" as such what are we as states saying the title "religion" implies?

a) Are religions provided a wider berth from oversight?

b) Does this berth extend to the actions of its adherents who profess to act in the religions' name?

c) Does removing state label of "religion" practically change anything?

d) How do religions perceive their relationship with the state?

3) Under what grounds are collective national support for the label "religion" withdrawn and what does this actually constitute.

3a) Are religions and its adherents held to a different standard then similarly situated citizens not invoking the status of "religion" or "In the name of" as applied to treason, threats of treason, insurrection, threats of insurrection, insurgency, threats of insurgency, or inciting violence?"

4) Is there a precedent or path that defines a post-religion labeling era insofar as the protections of state are withdrawn?

5) Why do we forfeit to "religion" the same duties and responsibilities required of any citizen, in any country?

Do not participate or advocate with/in groups that seek the destruction of the state.

Do not fund/advocate/participate in any group that calls for violence against others, or seeks to injure or deprive other citizens of fundamental and protected rights, etc.

It comes as Church leaders expressed concern that the UK had no "coherent" approach to tackling Islamic extremism.

In a rational world such a statement would relive said church of its tax exempt status but anyway. This whole identifier of 'extremism' in the context of Islam (and all others) is a misnomer and should be offensive to any educated person. Why should people who follow the words of their own flavour of good book such as the Taliban or Creationist's be considered extreme rather than those who just pick and choose the bits that they find appealing?

I sadly agree. I do not see extremism in many places. The concept of extremism is a total fabrication of the west in an effort to explain that which cannot be explained with western reason, as it labels and assigns meaning to things. All of these "extremists" may say any number of things to the west, and they are usually canned phrases such as "...for your occupation of our lands" or "for our brothers and sisters in Palestine," etc. These things make sense. They appeal to the concept of cause and effect. When things don't have easily identifiable causes it produces even greater anxiety. And this is the rub of it- the easily identifiable cause is totally removed from the worldview of our leaders. It is so... over the top in regard to western decorum and sensibilities that people will only whisper the problem is "Islam," or "koran" in small public policy circles.

We all know the canned cliches that the "extremists" state are their reasons but now its time to look further online; it is time to find out what exactly they're saying to each other? What do these "extremists" say to other muslims? Even the jihadis have local audiences they target for validation, conversion, or intimidation. They do not sell them cliches and throw-away phrases that they use for western audiences. To a group... to a man... they cite Sura, Hadith, and other exegesis from the voluminous Islamic scholarly tradition. They will always state openly, if we listen, translate, and process it, why they are doing this.

The rise of "extremists" is simply one more period of Islamic expansion in a long list of bloody subjugation of neighbors, now occurring for the first time in the modern age (previously artificially deferred by Ottoman/British/Russian-USA hegemony). Amidst all our technology, all our self assigned ethical superiority, are we really surprised that millions of people who assert that the most righteous age was the 7th century are laboring to return us to that era? If you want to know what is going to happen tomorrow look at what happened yesterday. Islam maintains a detailed, mandated, social blueprint for how to spread Islam as a duty, by war, and how this expresses the most upright and just state of a being a good muslim, in accordance with emulating the life of their prophet- (hadith).

When one realizes that the reason "moderate" muslims are silent is because they are deferring commenting against appropriately cited scripture, then the "extremes" and "moderate" we assign to Islam come into sharp, distinct focus, and we must readjust our peripheral markers; extremists are actually just right of center! Everyday, for every single terrorist attack for which the majority remain silent, they become complicit. Every day, silence supports jihad and informs muslim youth that jihad is passively if not actively condoned. In other words, "extremists" are rarely operating without a compass.

Do we as human beings continue to give Islam a pass because the label "religion" has consistently been used for this ideology/religion? This label incidentally serves as our collective "T" cell and with it knocked out of commission...

When do we have the conversation:

1) What constitutes a "religion?"

2) In so labeling a "religion" as such what are we as states saying the title "religion" implies?

a) Are religions provided a wider berth from oversight?

b) Does this berth extend to the actions of its adherents who profess to act in the religions' name?

c) Does removing state label of "religion" practically change anything?

d) How do religions perceive their relationship with the state?

3) Under what grounds are collective national support for the label "religion" withdrawn and what does this actually constitute.

3a) Are religions and its adherents held to a different standard then similarly situated citizens not invoking the status of "religion" or "In the name of" as applied to treason, threats of treason, insurrection, threats of insurrection, insurgency, threats of insurgency, or inciting violence?"

4) Is there a precedent or path that defines a post-religion labeling era insofar as the protections of state are withdrawn?

5) Why do we forfeit to "religion" the same duties and responsibilities required of any citizen, in any country?

Do not participate or advocate with/in groups that seek the destruction of the state.

Do not fund/advocate/participate in any group that calls for violence against others, or seeks to injure or deprive other citizens of fundamental and protected rights, etc.

Nice one. A Jihad against Islam would put down all the aces in their hands.

Either we are tolerant Christians, or we are not.

The fundamentalists do not choose where we stand int he Jihad, we do.

I do not think that our ignorance, stupidity and prejudice can prevail, so I recommend we fund another path to peace

SC