Fox92 Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 So random that they use Beatle names... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 After so many years managing the the very real and well orchistrated threats from the various factions in Northern Ireland the UK Security Services are probably as good as it gets in terms of prevention and monitoring of terrorists threats. But its the home grown nutter that slips through, the one that does not join Jihad, does not get trained by the baddies but sits at home working out how he can make big bangs using everyday materials. We may all have differing views on whats happening in far off lands but at some point we may have to confront a home grown offshoot of these fights. I have absolutely no doubt we will be having to fight a home grown IS group at some point in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 For? They have been around for a while, problem is they know appear to have become a genuine force across Iraq and Syria. Thank god we didn't arm them, Cameron was a whisker away from doing so. I've no idea really, a political gain, wanting to get some legislation through parliament, being influenced by an external power... I'm not really one for conspiracies although our foreign policy has been utterly bizarre of late. We seem to pick a side in a conflict completely at random. I wouldn't be surprised if there is an attack on the UK, but most likely a relatively low tech one by some home grown terrorist(s). The way Cameron has been talking you would have thought we were in danger of being overrun by a Muslim horde. There's literally hundreds of extremist groups in the non-civilised world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 I've no idea really, a political gain, wanting to get some legislation through parliament, being influenced by an external power... I'm not really one for conspiracies although our foreign policy has been utterly bizarre of late. We seem to pick a side in a conflict completely at random. I wouldn't be surprised if there is an attack on the UK, but most likely a relatively low tech one by some home grown terrorist(s). The way Cameron has been talking you would have thought we were in danger of being overrun by a Muslim horde. There's literally hundreds of extremist groups in the non-civilised world. Could you give us the actual quote that would lead you to that assumption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 For? They have been around for a while, problem is they know appear to have become a genuine force across Iraq and Syria. Thank god we didn't arm them, Cameron was a whisker away from doing so. I've not had chance to look into this much, but the stuff on Wikipedia is truly alarming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Finances Even if the details are vague, it seems clear that Islamic State (IS) has access to a hell of a lot of funds and weaponry. Was Cameron ever planning to arm ISIS/Islamic State? I know that the UK was considering arming the Free Syrian Army, the moderate opposition, and was planning air strikes against Assad until he lost the parliamentary vote, but don't remember that. However, it's pretty likely that many of those arms would have ended up with Islamic State. What's happened to the Free Syrian Army now? Islamic State seems to have risen from being a minority faction to the dominant force across several countries! While they seem to have acquired a lot of military hardware in the field, a lot of this must be explained by the large influx of funds from the Gulf states, particularly Saudi and Qatar. What have the Western powers done to pressurise Saudi and Qatar to ensure that neither they nor their private citizens fund these murderous extremists? Or are we too scared of upsetting the Saudis and jeopardising our oil supplies and looking forward to the Qatar World Cup so much, that we have done next to nothing?!? There's an interesting article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-what-the-west-has-given-syrias-rebels-8756447.html It is a year old, but that actually makes it MORE interesting, as it dates from when IS were just starting to rise in prominence....seems well-researched, too. I don't know enough to say what we could or should have done, but surely we should have been making it a priority to prevent the flow of massive amounts of cash from Saudi/Qatar to murderous Islamist terrorists - and viewing them as the No. 1 target for any air strikes, however bad Assad's lot are? Even if it could have been worse if we had armed the rebels, the West seems to have cocked this up big-time by not tackling IS earlier and could pay a massive price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 Saudi and Qatar have got the Western World by the balls, there's no way we could put pressure on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 Quite frightening reading and with that amount of finance behind you anything is possible. Alf, the group we were preparing to arm along with the FSA was the Al Nusra front, which appears now to be one of the main players within IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 Could you give us the actual quote that would lead you to that assumption? No it was about a month ago. Also it was on the radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 No it was about a month ago. Also it was on the radio. It shouldn't be too hard to find if gave such a damning indication of what you described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 Saudi and Qatar have got the Western World by the balls, there's no way we could put pressure on them. Assuming you're referring to Western dependence on OPEC oil, I certainly take your point re. Saudi. The Gulf states also boast a lot of financial wealth that could jeopardise global economic stability, I suppose. Even so, surely the West has some influence to persuade them not to fund global terrorism? They need a thriving market for their oil, after all... Not sure the same constraints apply with Qatar, anyway. Here are Wiki figures for global oil production & exports, and Qatar isn't a big player: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_exports Those lists certainly make the case for developing alternative sources of energy, though, be that nuclear, renewables, fracking or whatever. I mean, top 5 oil exporters: Saudi, Russia, Iran, Iraq & Nigeria....hardly secure, reliable sources of supply! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exeter Fox Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 When it comes to oil, some sources indicate that it's not as bigger deal as sometimes made out. Look here for example, there are only 2 middle eastern countries in the top 7 US oil suppliers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 Even if we don't buy directly from the Saudis, if they stop production the price of oil goes through the roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 2 September 2014 Share Posted 2 September 2014 I honestly think we should just leave them alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Walsh5 Posted 3 September 2014 Share Posted 3 September 2014 Another man has been beheaded http://news.sky.com/story/1329061/reports-second-us-journalist-beheaded-by-is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 3 September 2014 Share Posted 3 September 2014 Our overreliance on 'black gold' coming back to hit us in the face. Again. It's almost like we like the thrill of dealing with the risk of religious and ideological sociopaths and those who fund them (both in the ME and Russia), because I really don't see much changing in our reliance on the stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 3 September 2014 Share Posted 3 September 2014 Errbody wanna reduce reliance on oil, ain't nobody wanna start driving dem electric cars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA LAZAROU Posted 3 September 2014 Share Posted 3 September 2014 If the governments are so clever how come we did not have a " Red Alert " before the London Tube and bus bombings ? and if they had given out a warning that day would that have stopped commuters ? absolutely pointless scaremongering for no apparent reason. Still we have " Red Alerts " if it looks like it's going to rain on the weather forecasts so we may as well do the same boll*ks with terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 3 September 2014 Share Posted 3 September 2014 Errbody wanna reduce reliance on oil, ain't nobody wanna start driving dem electric cars ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 3 September 2014 Share Posted 3 September 2014 If the governments are so clever how come we did not have a " Red Alert " before the London Tube and bus bombings ? and if they had given out a warning that day would that have stopped commuters ? absolutely pointless scaremongering for no apparent reason. Still we have " Red Alerts " if it looks like it's going to rain on the weather forecasts so we may as well do the same boll*ks with terrorism. good question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 3 September 2014 Share Posted 3 September 2014 ???? Errbody wanna reduce reliance on oil. Ain't nobody wanna start driving dem electric cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 3 September 2014 Share Posted 3 September 2014 Errbody wanna reduce reliance on oil. Ain't nobody wanna start driving dem electric cars. Translation for Ken (Southern US English to English English, I think): "Everybody wants to reduce reliance on oil but nobody wants to start driving electric cars" A fair point on our short-sightedness as consumers, though most people couldn't afford an electric car (yet) - and successive governments haven't been active enough in guiding our economy away from an over-dependence on oil imports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 3 September 2014 Share Posted 3 September 2014 Translation for Ken (Southern US English to English English, I think.)... I'd guess it was a (poor) attempt at black southern US English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 3 September 2014 Share Posted 3 September 2014 I'd guess it was a (poor) attempt at black southern US English. I guessed it was something like that. I was just using a little payback. My offbeat SOH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 3 September 2014 Share Posted 3 September 2014 "Offbeat" is certainly one way to describe it, ya heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 3 September 2014 Share Posted 3 September 2014 One of my favourite comedians was Spike Milligan and favourite quote 'I told you I was ill' so that is how I describe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.