Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Poland has a similar foreign policy to France and Britain, yet... watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    No I'm saying don;t be an apologist for skinheads and petty xenophobia. 4 muslims out of the countless thousands in France shot up people. The rest did not. Most have never fired a gun or committed a violent crime.

    If we're going to inflate an act of violence as representing a mortal threat to the west, we might as well just drone-strike ourselves because 4 fundamentalists versus the uncounted violent crimes committed by people not in the name of Islam far outweigh that.


    I couldn;t care less for Islam, I DO however care about not being a tool. Stay classy.
    No but they do plenty of other horrible stuff:

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/49...n-islamization
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Immigrants are attracted to wealthy countries. Poland is still recovering from communism so hardly can be compared to Britain/France.

    Some muslim immigrants feel that it might be a good idea to try and destroy the nation which has given them their prosperity. This because they are biological ********s.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    Most are indeed law abiding; we can keep saying this till we are blue in the face... but the debate still has to be had (it cannot be shut down anymore).

    Also the second part is unfortunately contentious, support for ISIS is worrying high - 1 in 7 of all youth in this country the last poll found.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014...ses-with-isis/
    This article is interesting. It would indeed be alarming if 1/7 young people supported IS, but it is quite unbelievable. Support for other muslim extremists (e.g. Anjem Chourdary) remains satisfyingly low and I don't think that 1/7 young people in Britain are muslim.

    However, they may be a lot of young muslims who agree with IS, but do not openly support them as they would risk their freedom, especially at a time when the govt is so up tight on the issue.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallDuck)
    This article is interesting. It would indeed be alarming if 1/7 young people supported IS, but it is quite unbelievable. Support for other muslim extremists (e.g. Anjem Chourdary) remains satisfyingly low and I don't think that 1/7 young people in Britain are muslim.

    However, they may be a lot of young muslims who agree with IS, but do not openly support them as they would risk their freedom, especially at a time when the govt is so up tight on the issue.
    Unbelievable why, because it is so unpleasant if true?

    That's what the poll found, which would mean 14% of young people.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously because they don't have a large muslim population.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    Unbelievable why, because it is so unpleasant?
    No. As I said, because support for radicalism at home is very low. If it is true, I think we need to way more to tackle this issue right now.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallDuck)
    No. As I said, because support for radicalism at home is very low. If it is true, I think we need to way more to tackle this issue right now.

    I don't know what that claim is based on...

    I've given a reputable poll which was reported in all the mainstream press.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    I don't know what that claim is based on...

    I've given a reputable poll which was reported in all the mainstream press.
    How about this?

    https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Anjem_Choudary
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    I'd just like to point out that our foreign policy should not be dictated by Islamists. If they fight back, we shouldn't cower away, we should defeat them.

    In other words, I'm sceptical of two claims. I'm sceptical that Islamists attack the US, UK and France for their foreign interventions (rather than their kuffar), and furthermore I'm sceptical that even if this were the case, it should have any bearing on our foreign policy, any more than the German plan to invade Britain should have dictated British policy against Germany.

    Remember that the jihad operates internationally and its targets are innocent civilians everywhere. It may have hit the headlines that France suffered this awful attack, and yes, it is more significant when it occurs in the free world, but who mourns for the tens to hundreds of innocents killed every day in parts of Africa and South Asia by the many jihadist groups operating there? It might seem tempting to some in the West to withdraw from all conflicts and let the barbarians "kill each other" so-to-speak, but this depraved attitude is really a call for surrender. It is saying "let the innocents be killed, then we can say we played no part in their deaths". Tempting? Maybe. Moral? Certainly not.
    South Asian here, I live in Pakistan and I'm here to say please let "the barbarians" fight it out and never intervene in a third world country again. Thank you.

    Also thanks for acknowledging that were humans. We mourn too, we still haven't recovered from Peshawar.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Hard to see what that poll is showing, I'm not sure anything inconsistent with what I have said.

    I think we are getting to a point where people can sense that Enoch Powell was right when he warned us almost half a century ago, and that everything he prophesied will come to pass, the politicians acknowledge it in private but will not admit it in public.

    Prophetic:

    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    I'd just like to point out that our foreign policy should not be dictated by Islamists. If they fight back, we shouldn't cower away, we should defeat them.

    In other words, I'm sceptical of two claims. I'm sceptical that Islamists attack the US, UK and France for their foreign interventions (rather than their kuffar), and furthermore I'm sceptical that even if this were the case, it should have any bearing on our foreign policy, any more than the German plan to invade Britain should have dictated British policy against Germany.

    Remember that the jihad operates internationally and its targets are innocent civilians everywhere. It may have hit the headlines that France suffered this awful attack, and yes, it is more significant when it occurs in the free world, but who mourns for the tens to hundreds of innocents killed every day in parts of Africa and South Asia by the many jihadist groups operating there? It might seem tempting to some in the West to withdraw from all conflicts and let the barbarians "kill each other" so-to-speak, but this depraved attitude is really a call for surrender. It is saying "let the innocents be killed, then we can say we played no part in their deaths". Tempting? Maybe. Moral? Certainly not.
    I don't want to sound mean, but almost all of these "interventions" have so far only worsened the situations in these regions. What's more, there is a startling disproportion between American, British and French interventions in regions rich in resources to those that have nothing to offer.

    Bad things are happening all around the world, but sending troops won't miraculously solve third world problems. Humanitarian aid, education, free trade are ways that can help them develop on their own and only this can end their problems once and for all.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blank_Planet)
    I don't want to sound mean, but almost all of these "interventions" have so far only worsened the situations in these regions. What's more, there is a startling disproportion between American, British and French interventions in regions rich in resources to those that have nothing to offer.

    Bad things are happening all around the world, but sending troops won't miraculously solve third world problems. Humanitarian aid, education, free trade are ways that can help them develop on their own and only this can end their problems once and for all.
    How do you introduce education, free trade and human rights to a country ruled by a brutal dictator, without toppling him first?

    By the way, I don't actually think that foreign interventions are done for humanitarian reasons primarily. But if a democracy is willing to topple a dictator, I say hey, why not - who cares why they want to do it, as long as they do it correctly and don't **** it up afterwards (as they did in Iraq, by going in, cleaning out the rubbish, letting it then fall to pieces again and finally withdrawing in 2011, leaving it a broken mess).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Niassuh)
    South Asian here, I live in Pakistan and I'm here to say please let "the barbarians" fight it out and never intervene in a third world country again. Thank you.

    Also thanks for acknowledging that were humans. We mourn too, we still haven't recovered from Peshawar.
    Of course by "barbarians" I refer to the Taliban et al. - the kind of people who go into a school and murder 130 innocent children.

    Why are you against the West fighting such a diabolical organisation?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    It's terrorism threat is currently zero (active in both Iraq and Afghanistan). Furthermore France and Britain responded to mass immigration with polar opposite policies (secularism and multiculturalism respectively), yet both have an Islamism problem. Does this not suggest that it is mass immigration itself that is the problem?
    muslims just hate everyone but want to target the big countries where they can have the most impact
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Of course by "barbarians" I refer to the Taliban et al. - the kind of people who go into a school and murder 130 innocent children.

    Why are you against the West fighting such a diabolical organisation?
    I'm against western intervention in the form of war, drones, bombing or aid because it ultimately harms the locals more than it damages terrorism. Look at drones, for every 1 terrorist killed, 50 civilians die.

    http://mic.com/articles/16949/predat...-drone-warfare

    That's just unacceptable, are Pakistani civilians just collateral then? I needn't go into detail about the fiasco in Iraq and the complete destruction of Afghanistan's infrastructure, do I? And what has this murder of Pakistani, Afghan, Iraqi, Yemeni, Sudanese and many other civilians done? You've still got the Paris shootings. Nothing has changed.

    I oppose even military aid, like funding because the inevitable result is western power putting pressure on MENASA countries to carry out unsuccessful policies. There's this thing in Pakistan called Zarb-e-Azb. It was a military operation to clear North Waziristan (province of Pakistan) from terrorists, backed by the Western powers of course.
    It was a disaster.

    http://www.tanqeed.org/2014/07/her-h...th-waziristan/

    In fact it was Zarb-e-Azb, and not education, that triggered the Peshawar massacre and every Pakistani knows that. So basically I'm saying, leave it to us. Western countries don't suffer because of the Taliban a fraction as much as we do and yet they're constantly acting like the biggest victims who can hence dictate our domestic policy. Yeah, the Pakistani government is ****ed up. Yeah, the army keels pushing the wrong solutions but how long do you think local people will stand up to this? They won't and Pakistanis are mobilising against terrorism right now. The solution to terrorism is grassroots, save money on your predator drones, is all I'm saying.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Niassuh)
    I'm against western intervention in the form of war, drones, bombing or aid because it ultimately harms the locals more than it damages terrorism. Look at drones, for every 1 terrorist killed, 50 civilians die.

    http://mic.com/articles/16949/predat...-drone-warfare

    That's just unacceptable, are Pakistani civilians just collateral then? I needn't go into detail about the fiasco in Iraq and the complete destruction of Afghanistan's infrastructure, do I? And what has this murder of Pakistani, Afghan, Iraqi, Yemeni, Sudanese and many other civilians done? You've still got the Paris shootings. Nothing has changed.

    I oppose even military aid, like funding because the inevitable result is western power putting pressure on MENASA countries to carry out unsuccessful policies. There's this thing in Pakistan called Zarb-e-Azb. It was a military operation to clear North Waziristan (province of Pakistan) from terrorists, backed by the Western powers of course.
    It was a disaster.

    http://www.tanqeed.org/2014/07/her-h...th-waziristan/

    In fact it was Zarb-e-Azb, and not education, that triggered the Peshawar massacre and every Pakistani knows that. So basically I'm saying, leave it to us. Western countries don't suffer because of the Taliban a fraction as much as we do and yet they're constantly acting like the biggest victims who can hence dictate our domestic policy. Yeah, the Pakistani government is ****ed up. Yeah, the army keels pushing the wrong solutions but how long do you think local people will stand up to this? They won't and Pakistanis are mobilising against terrorism right now. The solution to terrorism is grassroots, save money on your predator drones, is all I'm saying.
    Arguing that the present policy is bad is not an argument against all kinds of intervention in general. I would say that despite the mistakes that have been made, if a country's government is failing to prevent its citizens becoming terrorists, other people should intervene to stop them, as a matter of principle. When a civilian is accidentally killed by a drone strike, the rational person to blame for their death is first the terrorist, then the local or national government which is failing to tackle terrorism effectively (which can and often does mean doing the opposite).

    Anyway, we haven't seen any more atrocities in the West on the scale of 9/11 yet, so they must be doing something right.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Arguing that the present policy is bad is not an argument against all kinds of intervention in general. I would say that despite the mistakes that have been made, if a country's government is failing to prevent its citizens becoming terrorists, other people should intervene to stop them, as a matter of principle. When a civilian is accidentally killed by a drone strike, the rational person to blame for their death is first the terrorist, then the local or national government which is failing to tackle terrorism effectively (which can and often does mean doing the opposite).

    Anyway, we haven't seen any more atrocities in the West on the scale of 9/11 yet, so they must be doing something right.
    What...? Those are just a few examples. Look at any intervention in history, hell look at UN peacekeepers in Africa and you'll see they all hurt the local population more than they help (in the case of UN peacekeepers, they raped local girls at an astounding rate). Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, USA shelling in Syria. You think an already beleaguered population wants to put up with more bombing, but this time from the "good guys"?

    What are you honestly? Do you seriously not blame America for their "surgical" drone strikes killing 50 civilians for every "terrorist"? You're blaming the Pakistani civilian government...fine...but not America? So if someone gets shot you blame them instead of the person pulling the trigger?

    I'm against intervention in principle, because it always harms locals, because it is always just a cover for imperialism. Don't try to pretend you're making the moral choice and then hand wave the deaths of civilians in America's imperial wars. 9/11 happened every year before the Afghanistan war, right? It was only when the USA invaded and decimated that country to remove the problem they created that the 9/11s stopped. Stop with the white saviour bull**** and leave us alone. We're never given a choice in this. Our lives are never important. If a few hundred children have died in drone strikes, so what? America's drones are "surgical" so they're all collateral.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Disaffected youth latch onto idiotic behaviour.

    Nothing new here. Sadly pur Pakistani community (and that's where most of the Muslims are) haven't done to gods a job at integrating and aren't exactly seen by many as being hard working and diligent. Therefore they get left behind in the job market compared to the Asian or indian community.

    I genuinely thinly though that we're starting to see the Muslim community turn on these nutters now.
    Most British Muslims aren't Pakistani, and most that have gone to Syria/Iraq aren't either http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...eath-toll.html

    Furthermore, the ones who are educated and diligent are actually more likely to be attracted to Radical Islam than the ones that aren't. If you look at the profile of a lot of these British Islamists, lots of them are studying at university or have decent jobs. Lots of top uni's in this country have problems with their isoc's doing questionable things or inviting radical speakers.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ravenous)
    Most British Muslims aren't Pakistani, and most that have gone to Syria/Iraq aren't either http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...eath-toll.html

    Furthermore, the ones who are educated and diligent are actually more likely to be attracted to Radical Islam than the ones that aren't. If you look at the profile of a lot of these British Islamists, lots of them are studying at university or have decent jobs. Lots of top uni's in this country have problems with their isoc's doing questionable things or inviting radical speakers.
    Most Muslims in the UK originate from Pakistan, and I nnever said anything about Syria.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Most Muslims in the UK originate from Pakistan, and I nnever said anything about Syria.
    38% according to the 2011 census.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.