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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gen. AIDEED)
    Three points on that: (1) Nobody needed Assad to be informed that Islamic terrorists would hit the west, (b) the west has rather famously and controversially stood apart from Syria's internal affairs until ISIS started to spill over into Iraq, (3) this doesn't make Assad's a good regime - less bad than an ISIS one, certainly, but not good.

    I'm not convinced Islamic countries are capable of installing what we in the west would think of as a "good" regime. The only people capable of imposing sensible rule of law are the generals and dictators; without them the religious nutjobs take over. Democracy simply isn't wanted.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Three points on that: (1) Nobody needed Assad to be informed that Islamic terrorists would hit the west, (b) the west has rather famously and controversially stood apart from Syria's internal affairs until ISIS started to spill over into Iraq, (3) this doesn't make Assad's a good regime - less bad than an ISIS one, certainly, but not good.

    I'm not convinced Islamic countries are capable of installing what we in the west would think of as a "good" regime. The only people capable of imposing sensible rule of law are the generals and dictators; without them the religious nutjobs take over. Democracy simply isn't wanted.
    And Assad is a terrorist too.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Has the "New Hebdon Magazine" thread been deleted? Whyyy o.O
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Three points on that: (1) Nobody needed Assad to be informed that Islamic terrorists would hit the west, (b) the west has rather famously and controversially stood apart from Syria's internal affairs until ISIS started to spill over into Iraq, (3) this doesn't make Assad's a good regime - less bad than an ISIS one, certainly, but not good.

    I'm not convinced Islamic countries are capable of installing what we in the west would think of as a "good" regime. The only people capable of imposing sensible rule of law are the generals and dictators; without them the religious nutjobs take over. Democracy simply isn't wanted.
    I think you need to educate yourself on who is funding rebel groups such as FSA to fight the Syrian regime since the start of the civil war.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-syrian-rebels
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    if someone drew my mum giving a bj to a random guy, I would kill that artist.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.vox.com/2015/1/10/7524731...-charlie-hebdo
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    True. Unfortunately the incompetence of the Iraqi army and the disunity in Iraq and Syria have presented them with an opportunity to establish some territorial gains. Thank goodness the Kurds didn't succumb. The Iraqis now have a tough task in pushing them back and need to establish and maintain political unity to put themselves in a position to do so.
    I sometimes wonder whether this can ever happen within the current borders of Iraq, given the situation between Shia and Sunni Muslims there. People seem to believe more in tribalism than democracy. Perhaps if the Western occupation had lasted longer (and Assad had been toppled in 2011), we wouldn't have seen the rise of ISIS.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    These are not 'anti-muslim' attacks, they are terror attacks.

    These are attacks on a civilian population of France to incite terror and spread political ideology.

    It is the very definition of terrorism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Attacks on the property of the thing you oppose are perfectly inline with post Glorious Revolution Protestantism. However mass murder isn't. There is nothing wrong or bad about these criminal acts. They aren't an attempt to attack the very state of France. Unlike the attacks by the Muhammadanism Puritans supported by the terrorist groups of ISIL and Al Qaeda.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    In the same way we Muslims don't want to be associated with ISIS, we must not associate these anti-Islamic attackers with the whole of France. This is the mentality which fuels these acts of terrorism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNotMe)
    In the same way we Muslims don't want to be associated with ISIS, we must not associate these anti-Islamic attackers with the whole of France. This is the mentality which fuels these acts of terrorism.
    You know maybe if the French state was actually anti-Islam and forces its will upon Muslims these problems of terrorist or attacks on property wouldn't be as bad as they are. Maybe these attackers you call anti-Islam are actually the ones trying make Islam constrain itself within the French state. Maybe the problem is the secularist French government which protects Muslims from having to improve.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In an op-ed piece in the paper, Turkish writer Mustafa Akyol calls on the Muslim world to ease its concept of blasphemy.

    "Rage is a sign of nothing but immaturity," he says. "The power of any faith comes not from its coercion of critics and dissenters. It comes from the moral integrity and the intellectual strength of its believers."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30812155
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Majority should not be blamed for what the minority did.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No, my conversions are banal and would be of no interest to spooks.

    We really shouldn't be interested in preserving the privacy of people whose conversations would be of interest to our spies.

    There are two real issues here. The first is that in the great balancing exercise of listening into telephone conversations as against catching terrorists wishing to kill us, there really isn't a fair fight. The answer is obvious.

    However, the second is mission creep and this is where politicians have gone wrong so many times in the past and show no sign of getting it right in the future. Catching murderers, child abusers and people who put their rubbish out on the wrong day is important. However, none of these poses an existential threat to our way of life. Extraordinary powers should be entrusted to extraordinary agencies to combat extraordinary threats. It is when they become a routine part of law enforcement that the general public reacts and says these powers should not exist.

    The government should make a solemn pledge that this material is for spooks' use only. It should not be available to PC Plod or the man from the Council no matter how useful it would be to his investigation. It isn't the case that we must catch criminals at all costs. That is why we have rules of evidence. That is why we have limits on interrogation techniques.
    Hi Nulli, thanks for your answer. I couldn't agree more with you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If the "terrorists" had waited, Charlie Hebdo was down to 30,000 editions anyway and might have slowly gone bust, but no ... they shot themselves and their fanaticism, well and truly dead in soooo many ways!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    There are two real issues here. The first is that in the great balancing exercise of listening into telephone conversations as against catching terrorists wishing to kill us, there really isn't a fair fight. The answer is obvious.
    I'm not sure that's true. The excess mortality rate due to terrorism seems to be in the region of 1/year. For a population of 60,000,000, that is negligible. There are all sorts of things people do that incur risks of that magnitude in exchange for tiny benefits. You might as well outlaw jaywalking or eating fewer than five portions of veg a day.

    (Original post by Aj12)
    These extremists aren't exactly known for their knowledge of the West, Bin Laden was convinced the USA was about to break apart. Frankly this was an incredibly predictable reaction to any one who knows anything about how the Western world functions.
    True, but look at what we do in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine, making decisions on the assumption that every human being wants to live under a peaceful secular social democratic state. Their false beliefs about the West are probably just as intuitive to them as our false beliefs about them are to us.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I'm not sure that's true. The excess mortality rate due to terrorism seems to be in the region of 1/year. For a population of 60,000,000, that is negligible. There are all sorts of things people do that incur risks of that magnitude in exchange for tiny benefits. You might as well outlaw jaywalking or eating fewer than five portions of veg a day.
    I am afraid that you are viewing "everything through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe."

    One cannot contain and manage the threat from persons dedicated to the overthrow of a political order. The threat has to be neutralised either by defeat or their genuine abandonment of their plans of overthrow.

    Revolutionary warfare is not susceptible to economic analysis.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I am afraid that you are viewing "everything through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe."

    One cannot contain and manage the threat from persons dedicated to the overthrow of a political order. The threat has to be neutralised either by defeat or their genuine abandonment of their plans of overthrow.

    Revolutionary warfare is not susceptible to economic analysis.
    Killing 1/60,000,000 of the population cannot overthrow the political order. The military threat posed by terrorism is negligible. It is a quality of life issue.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    there is a difference between free speech and being rude. I would never go up to some random person in the street and exercise my right of free speech and call them a fat heifer.

    I agree with murdoch as all Muslims should work together to combat extremism.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 22, 2015
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.