Like the oafish Blair, Cameron is intent on waving dick in the Middle East...

Britain is committed to working with the United States to wipe out the Islamic State militant group from Syria and Iraq, Prime Minister David Cameron said in an interview on Sunday.

"I want Britain to do more," he told the NBC television network's Meet the Press programme. "I'll always have to take my Parliament with me."

Cameron made his comments after the London-based human rights group Reprieve released documents on Friday that showed British pilots have taken part in US-led airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria. The British military now has parliamentary permission to carry out airstrikes against the jihadists only in Iraq. Parliament voted against attacks in Syria in 2013.

Cameron told NBC that his government is discussing how its fight against the militants could be expanded...

(Link)

...which practically guarantees that vengeful Islamic militancy in the UK will be fueled rather than doused.
________________________________

Some astute remarks made by Russell Brand a few weeks earlier...

mrjonno wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I wonder if Cameron will apply his zeal to other religious schools?

No because Middle Class C of E schools are popular (they have a chav filter that stops plebs going to them)

I suppose when the inevitable C of E theocratic rogue state is established in the middle east, and which regularly commits and / or supports terrorist killings and atrocities, and westerners in the thousands not only support it but travel to join the cause, we might expect the PM to similarly denounce C of E extremism.

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:

mrjonno wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I wonder if Cameron will apply his zeal to other religious schools?

No because Middle Class C of E schools are popular (they have a chav filter that stops plebs going to them)

I suppose when the inevitable C of E theocratic rogue state is established in the middle east, and which regularly commits and / or supports terrorist killings and atrocities, and westerners in the thousands not only support it but travel to join the cause, we might expect the PM to similarly denounce C of E extremism.

They wont have to will they? They will perpetuate the stupid belief system in Britain which in normal conditions of education would have died. Which will have more impact on Britain than any scaremongering by Cameron and co.

Really I think the law already provides ample justification for clamping down on "extremism". The minute some preacher - or some youtube wannabe - instigates violence, arrest him. When mosques (or other religious places) have persistent problems with these messages, close them.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:

mrjonno wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I wonder if Cameron will apply his zeal to other religious schools?

No because Middle Class C of E schools are popular (they have a chav filter that stops plebs going to them)

I suppose when the inevitable C of E theocratic rogue state is established in the middle east, and which regularly commits and / or supports terrorist killings and atrocities, and westerners in the thousands not only support it but travel to join the cause, we might expect the PM to similarly denounce C of E extremism.

They wont have to will they? They will perpetuate the stupid belief system in Britain which in normal conditions of education would have died. Which will have more impact on Britain than any scaremongering by Cameron and co.

You won't find many religious people in British C of E schools whether pupils or teachers, you also won't find kids of poor people either. The Tories can't (yet) get away with calling schools 'Welfare oink free schools for the middle classes' but that is basically what free/academy and C of E schools are. They know it and the parents who send their kids there know it but no one wants to quite say it

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:

mrjonno wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I wonder if Cameron will apply his zeal to other religious schools?

No because Middle Class C of E schools are popular (they have a chav filter that stops plebs going to them)

I suppose when the inevitable C of E theocratic rogue state is established in the middle east, and which regularly commits and / or supports terrorist killings and atrocities, and westerners in the thousands not only support it but travel to join the cause, we might expect the PM to similarly denounce C of E extremism.

3 or 4 hundred years ago...The "hippy christians" were burning people alive.

It suits the right wing and warmongers to focus on islam and ignore the rest. It suits institutions like the c of e as well.

Until Liz dies it will be spinning hay to get its base as solid as it can.

Charles wants to be defender of Islam faith more than Lizzy.

Peter Brown wrote:David Cameron has set out the government's strategy to defeat the "poison" of Islamist extremism.

He pledged to tackle extremist ideology and "the failures of integration" which he said had led to hundreds of Britons joining Islamic State (IS) militants.

Among a number of proposals, the PM promised to allow parents to have their children's passports cancelled if they feared they were at risk.

He also pledged to look at social housing to prevent further segregation.

He said the government's strategy included plans to:
◾Enable the communications watchdog Ofcom to clamp down on foreign TV channels broadcasting extremist messages
◾"Incentivise" schools to become more integrated
◾Demand that internet service providers do more to remove extremist material and identify those responsible for it
◾Overhaul the strategy to tackle extremism in prisons
◾Consult on introducing lifetime anonymity for the victims of forced marriages
◾Create a new review by civil servant Louise Casey into boosting opportunity and integration for minority groups
◾Urge universities to do more to challenge the views of extremist speakers they choose to give a platform to
◾Set up a new engagement forum
◾Launch a study looking at how extremism spreads
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33590305

All sounds very laudable, but he still doesn't get that spitting out the 'Islamist' tag-line is pissing off a lot of regular, non-terrorist Muslims. Why are youngsters trying to slope of to Syria in the hope of living the life of a Islamic Warrior? Well part of the reason has got to be that they feel their beliefs place them on the fringe of society. While politicians from all quarters continue to characterise the problem as one of Islamists and not simply terrorists or criminals then impressionable British Muslims are going to fall prey to the disingenuous rhetoric of disingenuous ideologues who tell them that Cameron et al are bent on a war against Islam. Basically, even in outlining these measures I think Cameron is promoting sectarianism - perhaps unwittingly, but perhaps not.

What's wrong simple with tight gun control and police surveillance, you will never stop people wanting to harm other people. That is what as a species we do.

This simple playing to the Daily Mail crowd trying to pretending you can make the world any safer than it already is

Or maybe pull the fuck out of the middle east and let the ME countries lead instead of the west which are hated? Sanders plans on making SA take the lead with support from the west but not there leading the fight. What does everyone think of that as an idea?

That going to stop people trying to kill each other for other reasons (more worried about being killed for my wallet than for being an infidel)

It's the normal state of affairs for people trying to butcher each other, as a society we only make it harder for them to succeed

This isn't just a Middle-East issue. You may have noticed that quite a lot of Muslims live in other parts of the world. If we want to challenge this brand of religious extremism we won't do it by carpet bombing IS, first we have to win the war of ideas.

Education is the answer especially here in the west.

and not educating too

THWOTH wrote:This isn't just a Middle-East issue. You may have noticed that quite a lot of Muslims live in other parts of the world. If we want to challenge this brand of religious extremism we won't do it by carpet bombing IS, first we have to win the war of ideas.

Yes but a start would be not having white Christians invading a place they've been invading for centuries - at least if the region is working together to come to a solution that should have a positive affect on ideas. Surely people in the ME would rather not have the US in there dictating things and would rather have a ME country or countries? It would be a good starting point.

Another good starting point would be to hold talks with all the countries and political powers and see what "they" want - poll the populace, work on a solution that benefits everyone.

james1v wrote:

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:

mrjonno wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I wonder if Cameron will apply his zeal to other religious schools?

No because Middle Class C of E schools are popular (they have a chav filter that stops plebs going to them)

I suppose when the inevitable C of E theocratic rogue state is established in the middle east, and which regularly commits and / or supports terrorist killings and atrocities, and westerners in the thousands not only support it but travel to join the cause, we might expect the PM to similarly denounce C of E extremism.

3 or 4 hundred years ago...The "hippy christians" were burning people alive.

That's certainly true, and it's also true that there are still Christians committing atrocities today (e.g. the Lord's Resistance Army), but I fail to see how it's relevant here.

Maybe in 3 or 4 hundred years from now (although I expect sooner than that), the extremist Islamists won't be burning people alive either (or beheading innocent people, or throwing suspected homosexuals from buildings, or taking slaves, or stoning adulterers, or crucifying children etc etc), but that's irrelevant to the problem now.

I think it's common for secularists and many moderate religious people in the West to discount religious motivations for these kind of movements; they cannot comprehend how someone can take religion (something that is to them fairly benign, a vague belief in a benevolent creator, or a social group) so seriously as to actually kill people for it. This entirely ignores the fact that their stated motives are explicitly religious, and their inspiration can be directly drawn from their religious scriptures.

Education, or lack thereof, alone cannot be the reason for this brand of extremism. One only has to look at the fact that many of them (e.g. high-profile terrorists such as 7/7 bombers, 9/11 hijackers, the leaders of these movements) are college or university educated - doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers. As of February, there are estimates that around 3,400 ISIS fighters are from Western nations, including 600 from the UK, were all of them bereft of Western education?

Similarly, do we really think that pulling out of the Middle East will solve the issue? You don't have to do much research to discover that most of the victims of ISIS are in the Middle East, the vast majority from Iraq and Syria. These are not people killed because of their Western affiliations - they are killed as infidels or apostates who do not adhere to the strictly fundamental version of Islam that ISIS enforces.
Not only that, but they claim that all Muslims are obliged to join their movement - any that don't are axiomatically apostates and deserving of death worldwide. In addition, like many Abrahamic faiths they have apocalyptic prophecies. Unlike many Abrahamic faiths their stated aim is to enact those prophecies, and welcome conflict from US-led forces as a harbinger of the return of God's rule over earth.

Political and social issues do have a role to play in these movements, I don't deny it, but certainly Islam has something to do with them. They are undoubtedly extremely devout in their beliefs, and consistently justify their goals, actions and beliefs by reference to the Quran and Hadith. Suicide bombing, for example, would be nigh impossible to justify without the sincerely held belief that you will be rewarded for your actions in the afterlife. Quite why some commentators, particularly in the West, steadfastly refuse to believe these people when they cite their religion as their motivator I cannot comprehend.

Teague wrote:

THWOTH wrote:This isn't just a Middle-East issue. You may have noticed that quite a lot of Muslims live in other parts of the world. If we want to challenge this brand of religious extremism we won't do it by carpet bombing IS, first we have to win the war of ideas.

Yes but a start would be not having white Christians invading a place they've been invading for centuries - at least if the region is working together to come to a solution that should have a positive affect on ideas. Surely people in the ME would rather not have the US in there dictating things and would rather have a ME country or countries? It would be a good starting point.

Another good starting point would be to hold talks with all the countries and political powers and see what "they" want - poll the populace, work on a solution that benefits everyone.

I don't disagree with any of that. The development of local democratic institutions and processes seems key here, but beyond that this issue of dogmatic insistence still needs to be addressed. I's somewhat ironic that in Western democracies giving people the freedom to develop their own ideas and to disagree with Western democracy it is also giving people the freedom to go abroad as inspired acolytes and return as trained and tainted terrorists intent on undermining the very freedom and tolerance which benefited them directly. I don't think we can meet this challenge only with force, we must offer a better alternative to an exclusive theocracy brought about through violence, and as much of a 'no-brainer' that seems to most of us it does involve actually talking to people and acknowledging their hopes and fears and addressing their concerns. Promising to kill more of them than they can kill of us just plays into the hands of those who justify their own use of violence on grounds that they are the potential or actual recipients of it.

This is where I think Cameron and his government have got things very wrong - it's all bluster and threat and crackdowns and control orders and removing people's rights and civil liberties; it only deals retrospectively with the symptoms and doesn't pro-actively address the causes.

Teague wrote:Or maybe pull the fuck out of the middle east and let the ME countries lead instead of the west which are hated? Sanders plans on making SA take the lead with support from the west but not there leading the fight. What does everyone think of that as an idea?

Sanders wants Saudi Arabia to take the lead? That sounds like a horrible idea.

edit: I realize now you mean military taking the lead...I thought at first you meant politically leading the Middle East.

If Saudi Arabia wants to take responsibility for the fight against ISIS I think that is fine, but there would be problems wth Assad and Iran if they send in ground troops. And I doubt Saudi Arabia is very motivated to fight ISIS, they are both Sunni fundamentalists and ISIS is the main enemy of Iran, which suits the Saudis. I think the bets choice for defeating IS in Iraq and Syria is a wide coalition of different forces, each with their own zones to police. Turkey and Kurdish forces (the YPG and Peshmerga) will also be involved. And Assad's military with its Iranian and Hezbollah support will also stake their claims, wether Assad will still be in charge or not. Also Iraq has to get its shit together and build a political and military consensus of sunni and shia interests.

mindhack wrote:

duvduv wrote:It is so ludicrous. Here is the representative of the British Empire that has done untold damages for centuries around the world worrying about a bunch of kids in Iraq and Syria who have none of the weapons and power of the British Empire! It's laughable. Cameron supports Saudi brutality, Israeli brutality, and the Brits have been right there with their Sykes-Picot agreement to destroy the Ottoman Empire, to push Germany into the ground, to create havoc in China, India, Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Ireland, and he's all hot and bothered about those kids in Syria and Iraq. BTW, what happened to his earlier boogeyman, Ayman Al Zawahiri, of Al Qaida, who was a "worldwide threat" just a year or two ago?!

Yes, empire-state building is often not a pretty affaire, but the Brits have hardly been unique in their efforts. The Sykes-Picot agreement for example was signed by empire builders from France, Italy and Russia. Also, it's a different time. There'e no British Empire anymore.

But what are you actually saying here?

Surely you're not suggesting Cameron should do nothing about British citizens getting killed and committing atrocities, because the British Empire has done bad things in the past?

Perhaps he thinks that "original sin" is actually a thing. Those sunbathers deserved what they got for some stuff that Queen Victoria supported.