Does Britain have a jihadi problem?

[jacky54]

I think the jihadists in the UK are the same as the ones around the world, their beliefs and methods the same and their aims the same. This is why over 500 have gone to join ISIS surely? What can be done about the jihadist problem in the UK? government has so far come up with few ideas and their plan to issue these jihadist fighters with ASBO's on their return says a lot about the way they think and that has let this problem develop under our noses for the past 25 years. Nothing much can be done about Jihadist websites, they have to be tackled in the mosques that have given rise to them and IMO there should be no more independent Islamic Schools and those that are already around should not be able of opt out of govt inspection.

[mccw]

The government could black list a lot more of these hate preachers. They seem to be able to identify and classify "extremist" preachers as having spoken at this or that mosque or university; yet can not stop them in the first place?

Black list them.

Fire the people who invited them. Or lock them up/ deport them.

Baby steps.

How about tracing all the people using extremist web sites and deporting them too?

[jacky54]

Cannot do, they would just scream human rights, victimisation and freedom of religion. Of course while never intending to extend these rights to anyone if they ever came to power themselves. needs somebody with backbone and Cameron is not that man. How long did it take them to send Abhu Hanza to the USA? if they can'nt even extradite for ten years one man who preached hate, what hope is there?

[simple1]

No one has denied that there are Islamism terrorists and extremists; least of all the Muslim governments fighting them as we speak!

That's a big part of the problem. Muslim governments are wimping out about fighting the bad guys. ISIL is generating reams of bad publicity for Islam, and slaughtering Muslims but what are regional governments doing to dynamically counter ISIL? Very little. Syria is hamstrung. Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman and Iran are cowering behind their walls. Iraq and the Kurds are doing something, but only because it's right in their face. the biggest do-nothings are the Saudis. They've got the most money, the slickest military, yet the best they can do is call out to Uncle Sam and say, "help! You must send your army to fight these bad guys!"

The main reason Saudis and all the rest of the wafflers aren't doing anything tangible: They're afraid of the image of pitting Muslim against Muslim. Cowards.

I believe finalised contributions, or not, by the Muslim member countries of the coalition will be announced in a few days, so a bit early to comment on this matter.

Iran already has ground forces engaged in Iraq, from what I've read supporting the Iraqis and Kurds. At some point Iraqi Kurds, as will the PKK, will demand formal recognition of territory held / gained by them; I assume this will add more fuel to the fire.

Other than a token gesture, I question whether the US would actually want Saudi Arabia to be militarily engaged in Iraq. Though I bet the Saudis will be delighted to have the opportunity to engage with Assad forces, at least by air, apparently US would be pleased with this outcome.

An unbelievably complex situation with consistently shifting alliances!.

Edited September 15, 2014 by simple1

[canman]

No one has denied that there are Islamism terrorists and extremists; least of all the Muslim governments fighting them as we speak!

That's a big part of the problem. Muslim governments are wimping out about fighting the bad guys. ISIL is generating reams of bad publicity for Islam, and slaughtering Muslims but what are regional governments doing to dynamically counter ISIL? Very little. Syria is hamstrung. Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman and Iran are cowering behind their walls. Iraq and the Kurds are doing something, but only because it's right in their face. the biggest do-nothings are the Saudis. They've got the most money, the slickest military, yet the best they can do is call out to Uncle Sam and say, "help! You must send your army to fight these bad guys!"

The main reason Saudis and all the rest of the wafflers aren't doing anything tangible: They're afraid of the image of pitting Muslim against Muslim. Cowards.

"They're afraid of the image of pitting Muslim against Muslim. Cowards."

Exactly!

So you have all these ME countries not wanting to engage these islamists because the don't want to be seen fighting other muslims. They have their own constituencies which they have to answer to who believe this would be a case of muslim on muslim.

Yet we have these western dhimmi leaders and others such as the apologists on this board insisting these islamists are not muslims!

[7by7]

I was asked what 'nasty' bits there were in the New Testament, I answer and am then accused of a diversionary tactic by the people who asked the question.

They obviously didn't like the answer.

No one has denied that there are Islamism terrorists and extremists; least of all the Muslim governments fighting them as we speak!

I asked you to show if the New Testament promoted violence and your response was so far off I didn't respond. But if you would like we can look at you the quotes you gave. My comments in blue

Matt 10:34

I did not come to bring peace to the earth; I did not come to bring peace but a sword

Jesus predicting His message will bring division as many will not receive it.

Matt 12:30

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Jesus saying Those that reject him will be ultimately rejected

Matt 13:40-42

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus explaining about judgement at the end of the world

John 3:36

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jesus Once again talking about people who reject God and that God will reject them

Luke 19:27

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

These are the words of a king in an allegorical parable about people who waste opportunities. The allegory refers to judgement

The other thing you added were some words of Martin Luther, which is not from the New Testament and I do not know the context or issue he was speaking about.

So all you could find about promoting violence in the New Testament was related to God's judgement at the end of the world.

You failed dramatically to make your point I wouldn't call it a diversionary tactic, just facile.

You would think that a guy (Jesus) from that part of the world, in that era, would have at least some violence in His ideology. But amazingly he was all about forgiveness and love. Not quite the same as the man from Mecca who by lifestyle and word is clearly the polar opposite. And the fruit of that tree is everywhere now.

You mention some Christians are using the Bible to promote hate and do harm. Well they are wrong and the Christian community is quite good at calling them on it, and distancing themselves from it. None of these wrong minded movements have any traction or are causing any global disruption.

So, what you are saying is that the nasty bits in the Bible are allegorical and not to be taken literally; but the nasty bits in the Koran are proof of the evil of Islam and all Muslims!

The mainstream Muslim community is also very good at calling the jihadists wrong; but whenever that is mentioned on this, or similar topics, they are branded liars!

[jacky54]

Can you not get more than 5 nasty bits from the bible, there are 109 calls for violence in the Koran, but it's not just the comparison of two books is it as you well know. One of the most important comparisons are the two lives, Jesus and Mohamed, don't think you ever responded to that one. The life of Mohamed was one of multi marriages including a 6 year old, organising attacks on trade caravans, attacks on other tribes and religions, murder, duplicity and the owning and raping of slaves. All this would not be so important if his one+ billion followers did not see him as the perfect man to be emulated.

[Ulysses G.]

So, what you are saying is that the nasty bits in the Bible are allegorical and not to be taken literally; but the nasty bits in the Koran are proof of the evil of Islam and all Muslims!

I thought what he was saying is, that Jesus never advocated violence, but Muhammad did.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

No one has denied that there are Islamism terrorists and extremists; least of all the Muslim governments fighting them as we speak!

That's a big part of the problem. Muslim governments are wimping out about fighting the bad guys. ISIL is generating reams of bad publicity for Islam, and slaughtering Muslims but what are regional governments doing to dynamically counter ISIL? Very little. Syria is hamstrung. Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman and Iran are cowering behind their walls. Iraq and the Kurds are doing something, but only because it's right in their face. the biggest do-nothings are the Saudis. They've got the most money, the slickest military, yet the best they can do is call out to Uncle Sam and say, "help! You must send your army to fight these bad guys!"

The main reason Saudis and all the rest of the wafflers aren't doing anything tangible: They're afraid of the image of pitting Muslim against Muslim. Cowards.

"They're afraid of the image of pitting Muslim against Muslim. Cowards."

Exactly!

So you have all these ME countries not wanting to engage these islamists because the don't want to be seen fighting other muslims. They have their own constituencies which they have to answer to who believe this would be a case of muslim on muslim.

Yet we have these western dhimmi leaders and others such as the apologists on this board insisting these islamists are not muslims!

Remember the opinion poll of Saudis that found 92% of respondents thought IS were true to Islamic law and values? Well you would well think twice about pitting your military against that and expecting no mutiny. Of course any Western leaders polled would assert IS are not a true representation of Islam. Note that just because an overwhelming majority of those polled believe IS were following the blueprint of the Koran does not mean they all approve of this, many no doubt emphatically do not, see Egypt and the ousting of the Muslim brotherhood for an illustration of this. Still I expect many steps backward being made when the call to mobilize is made. P.S Turkey are already chickening out.

[7by7]

Hitler was a Catholic who justified much of his policy on Catholic teachings; particularly the anti Semitism which led to the Holocaust.

Was he a Catholic or a monster?

I believe he was no more a true Catholic than the jihadists are true Muslims.

This is one of your usual distortions of history. Hitler was born a Catholic, but his father was not a believer and Hitler stopped going to church when he became an adult. Most historians agree that Hitler was anti-Christian and Goebbels wrote in his diary that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity." Shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch." He used his supposed Christian beliefs to manipulate the public, but he was not a true believer.

The jihadists are the exact opposite. They have a literal belief in the Koran and do what it commands. The jihadists are true Muslims, whether one agrees with their methods, or not.

The jihadists, are using Islam to further their political ideology in exactly the same way that Hitler used Christianity.

Both being guilty of perverting their religion.

Hitler's Christianity.

Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

My point being that evil men can, and do, pervert any religion for their own ends; just as Hitler did with Christianity and just as IS are doing with Islam.

Blaming all Muslims for the actions and beliefs of IS is as stupid as blaming all Christians for the actions and beliefs of the Nazis!

[7by7]

Can you not get more than 5 nasty bits from the bible.........

Five nasty bits after a very quick look; I've posted more, especially on what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, previously.

But, as I said before, having a life, job and family means I don't have as much time as others do to trawl for quotes to back up my arguments.

[Ulysses G.]

The jihadists, are using Islam to further their political ideology in exactly the same way that Hitler used Christianity.

Again, Hitler did not believe in Christianity and said that he was going to destroy it. That is perverting a religion for political gain.

The jihadists believe that they are doing is the will of Allah and can easily back it up with passages in the Koran to justify what they are doing. You can argue that their interpretation is wrong, but there are plenty of Muslims who think that they are exactly right.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

quote name="7by7" post="8389597" timestamp="1410781612"]

The jihadists, are using Islam to further their political ideology in exactly the same way that Hitler used Christianity.

Again, Hitler did not believe in Christianity and said that he was going to destroy it. That is perverting a religion for political gain.

The jihadists believe that they are doing is the will of Allah and can easily back it up with passages in the Koran to justify what they are doing. You can argue that their interpretation is wrong, but there are plenty of Muslims who think that they are exactly right.

I suggest that you read the link in my last but one post.

If you don't believe that, a quick search will provide plenty of evidence on Hitler's religious beliefs and how he perverted them to promulgate his evil regime.

Just as IS and other Islamic jihadists are doing now.

[Ulysses G.]

I've already read plenty about Hitler's religious beliefs. He was not a believer and said that he wanted to stamp out Christianity. Is that not clear enough for you?
Your jihadists - on the other hand - are completely convinced that they are doing the will of Allah and are on their way to paradise and 72 virgins as a reward.

By the way, a link to what is essentially an anti-Christian website, trying to blame Christianity for Adolf Hitler's sins, is not very convincing to anyone, other than apologists for radical Islam.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Credo]

Britain doesn't seem to have a big jihadi problem now but it will when these fighters get back from the ME.

[Munsterman]

Don't let them back. A few well placed high explosives from on high around the Iraq / Syria border. No fighters to come back.

[7by7]

I've already read plenty about Hitler's religious beliefs. He was not a believer and said that he wanted to stamp out Christianity. Is that not clear enough for you?

What is clear is that you are, as ever, ignoring evidence which you don't care for; in this case direct quotes from Hitler himself!

Instead you are, again, relying on the unreliable!

Hitler's table talk and other extraneous sources

Those who deny Hitler as a Christian will invariably find the recorded table talk conversations of Hitler from 1941 to 1944 as incontrovertible evidence that he could not have been a Christian. The source usually comes from the English translation (from a French translation) edition by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, with an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper.

The table-talk has Hitler saying such things such as: "I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie. . .", "Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity".

The problem with these anti-Christian quotes is that the German text of the table-talk does not include them, they were made up by François Genoud, the translator of the French version, the very version that English translations rely on! (More on this below).

Even if you believed the table-talk included the anti-Christian quotes, nowhere in the talk does Hitler speak against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. On the contrary, the table-talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. Hitler did, of course criticize organized religion in a political sense (as do many Christians today), but never in a religious sense. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manifold............

But whether he believed in Christianity himself is irrelevant; he perverted and used Christianity to further his aims.

Your jihadists - on the other hand - are completely convinced that they are doing the will of Allah and are on their way to paradise and 72 virgins as a reward.

Probably true for the foot soldiers, just as the average Nazi believed Hitler's perverted form of Christianity; but their leaders? They have a political agenda more than a religious one.

[Ulysses G.]

I've already read plenty about Hitler's religious beliefs. He was not a believer and said that he wanted to stamp out Christianity. Is that not clear enough for you?

What is clear is that you are, as ever, ignoring evidence which you don't care for; in this case direct quotes from Hitler himself!

The old "wrong translation" scam. Does anyone ever translate anything right when it comes to radical Islam or Adolf Hitler? They are just "misunderstood".

Read Goebbel's Diaries about Hitler's hatred of Christianity or are they the "wrong translation" too?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[H1w4yR1da]

The mainstream Muslim community is also very good at calling the jihadists wrong

Right right!

I've been watching all the 'moderate' muslims rally and demonstrate in western capitals against Jihad, beheadings and the supposed hijacking of their 'peaceful' religion on CNN and BBC over the weekend.:rolleyes:

BTW, Hitler has nothing to do with this thread. It's just another attempt to cast the spotlight off Islam.

Edited September 15, 2014 by H1w4yR1da

[7by7]

Ulysses G, resorting to your usual tactic when proven wrong, I see.

H1w4yR1da, I, and others, have posted many times about what mainstream Muslims are doing and saying about this issue.

The only response you and your mates ever come up with is to call them liars!

The similarities between Hitler and Christianity and IS and Islam are obvious for all to see; except those with a closed mind.

Using a perverted form of their religion to further their political aims.

But, as you and your mates have lost that argument, you now call it irrelevant; another oft used tactic by you and them.

[canuckamuck]

I asked you to show if the New Testament promoted violence and your response was so far off I didn't respond. But if you would like we can look at you the quotes you gave. My comments in blue

Matt 10:34

I did not come to bring peace to the earth; I did not come to bring peace but a sword

Jesus predicting His message will bring division as many will not receive it.

Matt 12:30

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Jesus saying Those that reject him will be ultimately rejected

Matt 13:40-42

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus explaining about judgement at the end of the world

John 3:36

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jesus Once again talking about people who reject God and that God will reject them

Luke 19:27

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

These are the words of a king in an allegorical parable about people who waste opportunities. The allegory refers to judgement

The other thing you added were some words of Martin Luther, which is not from the New Testament and I do not know the context or issue he was speaking about.

So all you could find about promoting violence in the New Testament was related to God's judgement at the end of the world.

You failed dramatically to make your point I wouldn't call it a diversionary tactic, just facile.

You would think that a guy (Jesus) from that part of the world, in that era, would have at least some violence in His ideology. But amazingly he was all about forgiveness and love. Not quite the same as the man from Mecca who by lifestyle and word is clearly the polar opposite. And the fruit of that tree is everywhere now.

You mention some Christians are using the Bible to promote hate and do harm. Well they are wrong and the Christian community is quite good at calling them on it, and distancing themselves from it. None of these wrong minded movements have any traction or are causing any global disruption.

So, what you are saying is that the nasty bits in the Bible are allegorical and not to be taken literally; but the nasty bits in the Koran are proof of the evil of Islam and all Muslims!

The mainstream Muslim community is also very good at calling the jihadists wrong; but whenever that is mentioned on this, or similar topics, they are branded liars!

You are obviously arguing now for the sake of having a last word. Clearly I said nothing like that.

I did say one of the quotes you used was from an allegory; which made it a poor choice on your part.

You were asked to point out where the New Testament promoted violence and the best you could do was find references to the final judgement by God, which of course will be quite unpleasant. But that is in no way an excuse for us humans to do violence.

As for what you call nasty bits. I guess the stuff you don't agree with you can call nasty. No one will cut your head off for it.

The big picture is that much of the Koran is a call to arms, and much of the New Testament is about forgiveness and acting in love. and none of it condones violence is an acceptable option. In fact it says "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

The founder of your pet ideology was a barbarian warlord who advocated all manner of disgusting behavior. And the namesake of Christianity spent his time telling us to love our neighbors and to leave judgement to God.

The two religions are incomparable except for some basic similarities like monotheism and Abraham.

In fact there is no religion on the planet in the same league as Islam. 270 million deaths in their name so far, and they may have a shot at doubling or tripling that in the next decade.

We can't stop them because we made rules against the kind of discrimination that would be necessary to wage war on them.

[Ulysses G.]

The similarities between Hitler and Christianity and IS and Islam are obvious for all to see; except those with a closed mind.

The similarities between Hitler and radical Islam are obvious for all to see anyway.

[chiang mai]

Oh wait, now we're down to comparing individuals against entire religions!

It's time for for many to leave this forum, if such a concept is allowed.

[Scott]

Further off-topic posts will be deleted. This has ceased even being a discussion.

[chiang mai]

You think!

[Steely Dan]

The mainstream Muslim community is also very good at calling the jihadists wrong

Right right!

I've been watching all the 'moderate' muslims rally and demonstrate in western capitals against Jihad, beheadings and the supposed hijacking of their 'peaceful' religion on CNN and BBC over the weekend.:rolleyes:

BTW, Hitler has nothing to do with this thread. It's just another attempt to cast the spotlight off Islam.

Indeed the march of the moderates dwarfed that protesting over Gaza.....Hang on.

[jacky54]

Ulysses G, resorting to your usual tactic when proven wrong, I see.

H1w4yR1da, I, and others, have posted many times about what mainstream Muslims are doing and saying about this issue.

The only response you and your mates ever come up with is to call them liars!

The similarities between Hitler and Christianity and IS and Islam are obvious for all to see; except those with a closed mind.

Using a perverted form of their religion to further their political aims.

But, as you and your mates have lost that argument, you now call it irrelevant; another oft used tactic by you and them.

Not true that the only response was that they are liars, it was also said many times that so called moderates do not protest enough. If you watched the ex jihadist vid that I posted yesterday from CNN you will have heard the ex jihadist say the the council of British Muslims and other 'protesters' complain more about Israel and his own conciliatory organisation than Islamic extremism. It is well accepted that Taqiyya is a part of Islam, so it's not our fault if a religion which allows lies to be told under certain circumstance produces people that tell lies, is it?

I cannot see anything that links Hitler and Christianity to Radical Islam, however, the links between Hitler, National Socialism and hard line Islam in the middle east in the 1930's are well documented.

[loogkreung]

It's the attitudes of people like 2 posters on here that decry all of Islam, just because of a minority, that is the bigger problem everywhere, unfortunately.

Is it though? I'm undecided whether it's Islamic extremism or in fact Islam.

Both the same in my opinion, the 'extremist' is just more honest and sincere in living out the call from Islamic scripture

Yes, very true. There's no difference between Islamic fundamentalism and the fundamentals of Islam. I wish I could say, like so many others, that it's just a cult, and it's extremist followers are more like David Karesh, than normal people, but they aren't. Like you said, they're normal people following scripture to its twisted conclusion.

[mccw]

If talking about Hitler; actually he was an occultist. Used rune majic from some Austrian Dr dude who name I forget right now, but this guy claimed to have rediscovered it's "true" meanings and magical uses during a vision of them in the fires of the underworld.

There is a book which covers this majical system named "futtark". Maybe you can find on amazon, I bought it a while ago out of interest.

Looking at example of Jesus life and teaching clearly Hitler was not following the message of the man.

Where as the fundamentalist Muslims are fully enacting the example as blazed by the man creator of Islam himself; Mr war monger Mohammad.

So one group of say extremist Christians who point to Old Testament part to justify xyz or words of writers for this or that are indeed misrepresenting Jesus. But the same can not be said for those calling Jihad in name of Islam when Mohammad is the one prophet calling for global Jihad himself.

Logic check your self 7by7; seriously; connect the dots.

British Muslims; or "moderate" Muslims face this problem. They can't seriously call the fundamentalists strait wrong because they are following what Mohammad said to do. All the moderates can say is best we not do such things in the modern world; but if they do this obviously it's like they are the ones really going against the words of the Koran which they are not comfortable to do; find it difficult to do; and any clerics can out talk them and threaten them with death etc if they do so.

It's also the reason that if the moderates win in one place this year then there is always the chance for this same problem to rise again.

So to fix the Jihadi problem some serious measures must be taken to catch and limit the teaching of Islam as a whole; across the UK in any sort of fundamentalist setting. Like china only allow government approved moderate Islamic education with a context and respect for other peoples and cultures.

No more segregation or exclusive Muslim only school.

Make it illegal to send kids overseas for "Islamic education".

[simple1]

No one has denied that there are Islamism terrorists and extremists; least of all the Muslim governments fighting them as we speak!

That's a big part of the problem. Muslim governments are wimping out about fighting the bad guys. ISIL is generating reams of bad publicity for Islam, and slaughtering Muslims but what are regional governments doing to dynamically counter ISIL? Very little. Syria is hamstrung. Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman and Iran are cowering behind their walls. Iraq and the Kurds are doing something, but only because it's right in their face. the biggest do-nothings are the Saudis. They've got the most money, the slickest military, yet the best they can do is call out to Uncle Sam and say, "help! You must send your army to fight these bad guys!"

The main reason Saudis and all the rest of the wafflers aren't doing anything tangible: They're afraid of the image of pitting Muslim against Muslim. Cowards.

"They're afraid of the image of pitting Muslim against Muslim. Cowards."

Exactly!

So you have all these ME countries not wanting to engage these islamists because the don't want to be seen fighting other muslims. They have their own constituencies which they have to answer to who believe this would be a case of muslim on muslim.

Yet we have these western dhimmi leaders and others such as the apologists on this board insisting these islamists are not muslims!

Remember the opinion poll of Saudis that found 92% of respondents thought IS were true to Islamic law and values? Well you would well think twice about pitting your military against that and expecting no mutiny. Of course any Western leaders polled would assert IS are not a true representation of Islam. Note that just because an overwhelming majority of those polled believe IS were following the blueprint of the Koran does not mean they all approve of this, many no doubt emphatically do not, see Egypt and the ousting of the Muslim brotherhood for an illustration of this. Still I expect many steps backward being made when the call to mobilize is made. P.S Turkey are already chickening out.

The latest media reports are claiming the US has not requested ground forces contributions from coalition Arab countries, perfectly logical to me as without doubt would further complicate the political landscape. The Iraqi government has also stated that any Arab government military aircraft would require their permission to engage and by no means certain permission would be granted, again to me logical taking into account Iraqi political considerations.

US has excluded Iran from the coalition, how this will work out with Iranian forces already engaged on the ground, is unclear.