ccfc92
Well-Known Member
You're right. So why are we/communities/the government so scared to tackle radical-Islam, when you can have White, Black, Asian muslims....?
There are lots of complex reasons I'm sure - I feel one potential solution can be linked to education and how we can ensure that these young men (and women!) feel they are part of a wider British community and they are valued as much as every other person born on these shores.
When we discuss groups of people in this country (especially white people) we talk about them being English, Irish, Scottish - rarely Catholic, Protestant, Atheist... When groups of people from Asian descent are discussed - the go-to word is Muslim. A religion is not a nationality, and too easily the press gloss over the nationality and go straight to the religion.
Deport them where?
I'll be honest, and arrogant I guess, I hadn't heard much of this "Wahhabism" before this thread and thank those who have mentioned it, so I can read up on it.
I've done a bit of research myself, and from what I can gather, it's a splinter of Islam formed in the middle ages, sanctioned by a small % of Saudis in the 1980's.
Is there much evidence (I couldn't find any) that the majority of Saudis/Saudi government sanction Wahhabism today? Thanks in advance.
They spend billions exporting around the world mate.
Exporting what, exactly?
You certainly don't need to deport or lock up law abiding citizens.
The first thing I would do is ban sharia courts/council/laws. There is one law for all citizens...not local religious groups having a different law.
I would ask moderate followers of Islam to denounce all forms of violence publicly on prime time tv and in all mosques. Show both muslims and the rest of society that we do not tolerate or excuse any acts of extremist violence.
I would outlaw all religious schools (catholic, Jewish, etc as well). Integrate our children from the earliest of ages.
I would look at 'ghetto' type areas and look at dispersing people more evenly in our cities.
Again integrate rather than allow people to segregate.
Anyone (of any faith or no faith) who promotes or threatens extremism to be taken out of society until they are appropriately assessed etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"The US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades Riyadh has invested more than $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsh intolerance of its Wahhabism. EU intelligence experts estimate that 15 to 20 per cent of this has been diverted to al-Qaida and other violent jihadists."
If the US recognises this, why do they/we trade with them still?
"The US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades Riyadh has invested more than $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsh intolerance of its Wahhabism. EU intelligence experts estimate that 15 to 20 per cent of this has been diverted to al-Qaida and other violent jihadists."
If the US recognises this, why do they/we trade with them still?
You certainly don't need to deport or lock up law abiding citizens.
The first thing I would do is ban sharia courts/council/laws. There is one law for all citizens...not local religious groups having a different law.
I would ask moderate followers of Islam to denounce all forms of violence publicly on prime time tv and in all mosques. Show both muslims and the rest of society that we do not tolerate or excuse any acts of extremist violence.
I would outlaw all religious schools (catholic, Jewish, etc as well). Integrate our children from the earliest of ages.
I would look at 'ghetto' type areas and look at dispersing people more evenly in our cities.
Again integrate rather than allow people to segregate.
Anyone (of any faith or no faith) who promotes or threatens extremism to be taken out of society until they are appropriately assessed etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
oil and arms. Buying one from them and selling the other to them.
Because US needs oil and needs to export arms. If they had no oil trump, Obama and bush would be crawling to the Saudis they would have obliterated them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Doesn't the US have it's own oil reserves though? Same here, with the North Sea oil reserves?
the US is moving away from it's reliance on Saudi oil, I think due to fracking. But they've just won a massive arms contract with the Saudis.
You don't think there may have been a little undue pressure to focus minds on making this decision...you know to wanting those who make us feel more safe in charge given there is an election in our midst?i just received an email through our Birmingham council colleagues confirming that the threat level is now critical. The email states that an attack is not only highly likely but imminent. Scary stuff.....
Or maybe countries like ours & the US (WE) should stop interfering in the goings on of other countries. WE sponsor rebels, in various countries, that commit various activities that WE would call terrorist if we were on the receiving end.That little twat has unsurprisingly just come back from Libya.
Trump may be onto something with banning travellers from those danger areas.
That's a statement...he asked for evidenceThey spend billions exporting around the world mate.
US Energy Information 'In total energy, the U.S. was over 61% self-sufficient in 2013. In May 2011, the country became a net exporter of refined petroleum products. As of 2014, the United States was the world's third-largest producer of crude oil, after Saudi Arabia and Russia. and second largest exporter of refined products, after Russia.'Because US needs oil and needs to export arms. If they had no oil trump, Obama and bush would be crawling to the Saudis they would have obliterated them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or maybe countries like ours & the US (WE) should stop interfering in the goings on of other countries. WE sponsor rebels, in various countries, that commit various activities that WE would call terrorist if we were on the receiving end.
Like who sponsored the Arab-Spring? That went well - depending on how you look at it.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
You don't mean like parking tanks around Heathrow do you?You don't think there may have been a little undue pressure to focus minds on making this decision...you know to wanting those who make us feel more safe in charge given there is an election in our midst?
Call me a cynic
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Yes...it is the form of help that is the problem isn't it? Interventions seem selective though. Ukraine, Crimea - attract expressions of disgust; Rwanda - all brushed under the carpet until massacres were reported...then relatively token efforts; Iraq - all out war based upon a falsehood.Just out of interest, and purely hypothetical, if there was a country, let's pick.... Italy for example.
There are corrupt governments, factions fighting each other, innocent lives being lost, children slaughtered etc, would you be happy with the UK not acting/helping?
Fellas from Nuneaton been arrested in connection with Mondays attack
Another fine example...I personally would feel much more reassured being IN the tank of course.You don't mean like parking tanks around Heathrow do you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?