Another one that hurts

Hi Modulous,As this thread's originator I have a natural wish that it keep to a constructive path, but as a participant I have little power to do that, so I sought to explain what I thought was being missed. I wasn't trying to play the blame game, which never ends well. I was just trying to suggest that making your points in the way you did would naturally draw the types of responses you received.I do think that simple humanity demands a great deal of concern about any deaths anywhere anytime. Our power to do anything will naturally vary widely, and sometimes there will be difficult choices about this many deaths of this people versus that many deaths of that people, but a blas response to human death is difficult to both fathom and accept.I agree that western entry into the Middle East caused many problems, but a withdrawal now won't solve them. Once you poke a hole in a piece of paper, withdrawing the piercing instrument doesn't fix the hole.--Percy

so any ideas, then?

No big solutions, no. I do believe that removing dictators/fascists/whatever creates power vacuums that are highly destabilizing, e.g., Yugoslavia after Tito and Iraq after Sadaam. In other words, if you think the dictator was bad, wait'll you see what comes after his fall. I think Asad has to stay.And I do like the idea of cutting off ISIS's sources of income. That rebel groups in places like Libya, Mali and Nigeria are pledging allegiance to ISIS, and that terrorists are increasingly taking their commands from ISIS, can't be because ISIS's brand of Islam is so attractive. It's because ISIS has money. My opinion, anyway.--Percy

It's not that I don't disagree {see my comments regarding the Alawite situation, Assad is the head of the Alawite clan}, but that does put us in the position of supporting a Shia who oppresses Sunnis. IT puts us in opposition to the ever increasingly extremist moderates who want Assad gone. It puts us in cahoots with Iran.So its messy, yes?Personally, I'm leaning more towards focussing on Iraq and doing our best to avoid getting directly involved in the Syrian civil war. Of course, that leaves open the possibility of ISIS consolidating in Syria and overwhelming it. I guess oil is the best avenue. While national funding is still helping them, I think oil is their biggest source. Also, ISIS have a brain drain problem. With all the people dead or fleeing, they have a lower proportion of engineers and the like to repair damaged wells than a 'state' of similar geographic expanse. This might be a way to exploit the weakness they created for themselves. That said, they aren't entirely stupid, and they do have people who can do the job...and Saudi Arabia {who are no doubt helping them sell the stuff taking a hefty cut in the process} definitely does. So it may just be a setback.Do you have a long term vision for the region?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I do think we need to do more to encourage integration of Muslims.I do say that we should criticise the bad ideas that some Muslims have. I also say that we should enforce the laws that exist that are designed to control some of those bad ideas.You seem to think that these are insignificant things.They're not, it's a radical change from the situation a few years ago where there was a climate of non-interference in cultural practices by our institutions and comments on it by public and media was considered non-PC, even racist.Recent changes in local authority and police practices following the Yorkshire abuse cases, the changes to medical, social services and school's reporting systems plus the CPS and police prioritising monitoring and protection of FGM cases, the actions to intervene in forced marriages, 'honour' crimes and so on mark a real change in both policy and practice.Actively seeking out cultural crimes sends a very strong message to those who live here and those that would like to come, that these are not our values and we won't put up with them.I'm concerned also about how Islam is being taught here in the UK and it was interesting to see that the state is considering the inspecting of Madrassas which seems to me to be a good start.There have been several reports of Imams teaching radicalism inside our prisons and other reports of uneducated Imams being run rings around by radicalised prisoners. Similarly there's a concern that Imams are being imported from the home countries to preach in our mosques which reinforces the links to primitive Islamic interpretations and practices. It's quite difficult to know what to do about this. Prison Imams are licensed but that licensing system seems to be at least partially inadequate. I don't like the idea of government licensed religious teachers in ordinary mosques so perhaps the best we can do is control the immigration of Imams better, monitor their deployment and maybe even fund education and training by moderate Muslims of their own Imams.Pretty much all the above is quite negative and intrusive and without other more positive actions to encourage moderate Muslims it's going to be resented. Some resentment can't be helped because we're dealing with immoderate people with extreme ideas, but we don't want to alienate all Muslims.The UK Prevent Strategy "depends on a successful integration strategy, which establishes a stronger sense of common ground and shared values, which enables participation and the empowerment of all communities and which also provides social mobility". That sort of stuff requires far more work in Muslim communities and our public bodies.These positive steps are less obvious, Muslim communities already receive very large advantages from being here - education, health, economic benefits, democratic freedoms and so on. Our country and culture is freely available to them. As is the freedom not to accept it and live a separate life within the law. This is perfectly correct as the majority are full UK citizens working and paying taxes like everyone else and are welcome additions to the diversity and economic growth of our country.But it can't all be the UK majority continually imposing constraints; to work in the long term change must come from within Muslims themselves and I think a lot of progress has been made here. But it will take generations, all we can do is continually project our values and those of the moderate Muslim majority.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Hi Mod, Sorry Mod, I think this might be unknowable. Unfortunately, I have yet to read any source with all inclusive numbers. This is too complex for me to give bestimates.ISIS is getting funding from, but I don't know the percentages:
1. contributions from public and private Saudi Arabia, and other gulf states (Qatar, Kuwait) often in secret money-laundrying (see Kuwait links below)
2. military funding/weapons from UK/US to Saudi to ISIS
3. oil selling/smuggling
4. stealing bank deposits in North Iraq
5. ???If I come across a future source, I'll post the info here. Until then, perhaps these links can help give an outline of the problem:From my previous posts:

quote:

---

UK training Saudi forces used to crush Arab spring
UK training Saudi forces used to crush Arab spring | Saudi Arabia | The Guardian

​

Saudis’ UK-made war jets outnumber RAF’s
Saudis’ UK-made war jets outnumber RAF’s

​

Britain urged to stop providing weapons to Saudi Arabia
Amnesty calls for suspension of arms transfers as group says it has evidence of war crimes in Yemen conflict
Britain urged to stop providing weapons to Saudi Arabia | Arms trade | The Guardian

​

Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country
Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country | The Independent | The Independent

---

Maybe some of these articles will help. I cut and paste the most germane points, but again, this is too complex for me to adequately express in a forum, sorry . . .

quote:

---

To really combat terror, end support for Saudi Arabia

​

While there is no evidence to suggest Qatar’s regime is directly funding Isis, powerful private individuals within the state certainly are, and arms intended for other jihadi groups are likely to have fallen into their hands. According to a secret memo signed by Hillary Clinton, released by Wikileaks, Qatar has the worst record of counter-terrorism cooperation with the US.

​

And yet, where are the western demands for Qatar to stop funding international terrorism or being complicit in the rise of jihadi groups? Instead, Britain arms Qatar’s dictatorship, selling it millions of pounds worth of weaponry including crowd-control ammunition and missile parts.

​

There are other reasons for Britain to keep stumm, too. Qatar owns lucrative chunks of Britain such as the Shard, a big portion of Sainsbury’s and a slice of the London Stock Exchange.

​

To really combat terror, end support for Saudi Arabia | Owen Jones | The Guardian

​

ISIS Is Likely Receiving Funding From People Living In Countries Allied With The US

​

But again, don’t expect Britain to act.Our alliance with the regime dates back to 1915, and Saudi Arabia is the British arms industry’s biggest market, receiving 1.6bn of military exports. There are now more than 200 joint ventures between UK and Saudi companies worth $17.5bn.

​

Over the last two and a half years, Kuwait has emerged as a financing and organizational hub for charities and individuals supporting Syria’s myriad rebel groups," the report said, adding thatmoney from donors in other gulf nations is collected in Kuwait before traveling through Turkey or Jordan to reach the insurgents.

​

Everybody knows the money is going through Kuwait and that it’s coming from the Arab Gulf, Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told The Daily Beast. Kuwait’s banking system and its money changers have long been a huge problem because they are a major conduit for money to extremist groups in Syria and now Iraq.

​

ISIS Receiving Funding From U.S. Allies

​

ISIS’s original piggy bank was Saudi Arabia

​

Meyer says he has no doubt about where ISIS gets its funding. The most important source of ISIS financing to date has been support coming out of the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia but also Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, Meyer told Deutsche Welle. The Gulf states’ motivation in financing groups like ISIS was to support their fight against the regime of President Bashar al Assad in Syria, according to Meyer. Three quarters of the Syrian population are Sunni Muslims, but Syria is ruled by an elite drawn mostly from the Alawite minority. The Alawites are an offshoot of Shiite Islam.

​

ISIS’s original piggy bank was Saudi Arabia | Money Jihad

​

Qatar and Saudi Arabia 'have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam'

​

"This is a time bomb that, under the guise of education, Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really. And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money and that must stop," said Gen Shaw. "And the question then is 'does bombing people over there really tackle that?' I don't think so. I'd far rather see a much stronger handle on the ideological battle rather than the physical battle."

​

Qatar and Saudi Arabia 'have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam'

---

The following article should be read by everybody. It spotlights the hypocrisy of condemning terrorism while the west knowingly supports it:

quote:

---

Saudi Bankrolling of al-Qaeda Well Known to U.S. Government

​

a Dec. 30, 2009 State Department cable which stated that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."

​

Saudi Bankrolling of al-Qaeda Well Known to U.S. Government

---

BTW, your (our?) ongoing debate in this thread reminds me of a section in Al Franken's book: "Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." It highlights the frustration of conversing with simple/hypocritical-thinkers who need to believe that only OTHER people commit evil . . .

quote:

---

Our National Dialogue on Terrorism

​

Franken: Why do they hate us?

​

American/British voter: They hate us because they're evil.

​

Franken: That's it, huh? That's the entire story?

​

American/British voter: Yes. They're evil. And they hate us because of our freedoms.

​

Franken: They hate us because of our freedoms?

​

American/British voter: But really because they're evil.

​

Franken: I know they're evil. I was just thinking that maybe if we understood what specifically seemed
to trigger the

​

American/British voter: Why are you apologizing for the terrorists?

​

Franken: I'm not. They're evil. You have no quarrel there. It's just that maybe if we understoo

​

American/British voter: Why are you on the terrorists' side?

​

Franken: I'm not! I hate the terrorists. I was just
saying we might be able prevent the next

​

American/British voter: Three thousand Americans dead. How can you defend al Qaeda?

​

Franken: Believe me, I was not defending them. What they did was horrific and inexcusable. They're evil. I was just

​

American/British voter: Then why are you apologizing for them?

​

Franken: I'm not. I'm trying to say that maybe there are lessons we can —

​

American/British voter: Why do you hate America?

---

I don't get that.
I see that you and Modulous both agree on your statement I've quoted.Then I see that you say if we don't put this as the highest-priority-ever... then we're all horrible people.
Where I see Mod saying that if we keep the priority of this at the same level we had it at a month ago... high, but there's still lots of other things that are higher... then we can move forward in this fight against terrorism.I agree with Mod that this isn't an issue to take an extreme stance on.
The whole problem is that some people are already taking an extreme stance and causing these horrible things in the first place. You can't solve this problem by taking an extreme stance in response. That only serves to fuel the fire they feed on.Mod's not saying things are insignificant. He's just saying they're not-as-significant-as-some-knee-jerk-reactions-are-yelling-about.
That doesn't make them insignificant.
That doesn't even make them less significant.They're still very significant and very important.Just not extremely so.This is the attitude shift that has to happen to combat this problem. The extreme-stance response doesn't work. It hasn't worked for the last 10-15 years.

I'm not following this - sorry. Mod agrees - as he has to - that people living in the UK must obey UK law. But I think he believes that this is not a significant point. I do. I don't say that and I don't think that. Well I read it as nothing more needs to be done. Which he says and implies repeatedly. As do I. But I disagree with anyone who plays down the threat. Which he repeatedly does. I have never suggested any extreme stance or response. Sadly he has said just that. However, I don't for a moment that he means it that way, it's just that he's come across as an apologist for the actions of extremists and dug a big hole for himself. I don't think he meant too, he just got carried away with a dumb argument full of factual errors and fallacies in an attempt to say that 'they' are just like 'us'. Which 'they' are not. I fail to see what could be more extreme that attacking a major western city and putting all of Europe on high alert. Full scale war on home territory apart. I don't disagree at all. But I suspect what you mean by an extreme stance is invading a country. Most of what I'm referring to is about solving the problems on our home ground by education and reform.

I agree... but only in my context Which I think is causing a lot of communication problems.The problem was not extreme in the sense of how many people died. This is trivially true.
The problem was certainly extreme in the sense of how our illusion of safety was attacked and destroyed.These two things seem to be getting mixed up and cross-talked and it's causing a lack of focus.People are rightfully and understandably shaken and upset by having our safety threatened and torn away.
But we have to be careful to focus on that issue. Or else we'll end up spending our efforts on other problems that are less harmful. Such a waste of time will only lead to more problems threatening our safety.Bringing up deaths and the pain and suffering involved is part of what happened.
But the deaths and physical pain/suffering involved, although horrible in it's own right, is not very extreme on the scale of such subjects. In fact, it's kind of on the lower end of the scale.
The more we dwell on the deaths and physical pain/suffering... the less we dwell on the actual issue at hand that needs correcting.We should be honest about being scared and angry that the safety we thought we were free to enjoy everyday is not quite what we thought it was.Understanding that this is the real issue will help us focus on the right solutions.We deserve to have such safety.
Not "we" as in "Major Western Cities"... but "we" as in "people"... everyone. Seems like a great place to focus efforts to me.

Um. I know what you're trying to say, but in the context of our society, men with assault weapons simultaneously targeting cafes, football stadia and music halls, killing 130 people and hospitalising more, in an iconic Western capital city IS extreme. We must not start downplaying that by comparing it to thousands or even tens of thousands of deaths elsewhere. That looks like callous complacency - even if it's not meant that way. Our reality of safety was shattered. I don't think it is. I'm fully aware of the differences but reject the comparison. Again, we mustn't try to underplay the importance of this by comparing it to much worse things. It's a simple fact of real life that a tragedy close to home has far more impact than one far away. That can't be wished away, it's the human conditional response to danger, risk and our ability to empathise. It's this spurious equalising argument I object to.Of course the world would be a better place if wealth, freedom opportunity and democracy was everywhere. 'We' have made a good stab at improving 'our' lives through it and 'they' are trying to take it from us. That's 'their' stated mission through holy jihad.

I'm pretty sure we do that. What did you have in mind?I suggest we, at the same idea, try to understand how moderate Islam handles the idea in question, so we can amplify it. Which should go without saying. No I don't, I already knew that you want to ' 'improve' things and criticize ideas we don't like more.'' I was asking if you had some specific ideas for improving things in the direction you feel they should go. And you think there should be more? More of the same things, or new policies? What do you suggest? What does it mean to 'actively seek out a cultural crime'? Well yes, many activities involving children should have some independent supervision, regulation or inspections etc. Do you have a sense of the scale of the problem? Any idea on how we can improve things? I mean it would be illegal or us to focus on Imams, obviously. So if someone meets all the normal criteria, on what grounds would we forbid them? The government disagrees with their religious perspective? Sounds bad to me. Exactly. I too would like us to do things better than we are. As would everyone, its almost tautological. The problem is that things that seem like easy solutions, are usually not. So far, you seem to be in agreement with me.Sounds great. Agreed. Absolutely. Absolutely. Here is my position:The Muslims here? We need to work on mutually integrating with them. We learn to tolerate the beliefs we disagree with, and they learn to play by the rules in so far as advocating their beliefs. {I don't have any specific proposals for improvement - } I expect most of the work will be done with time and exposure.

Yeah, hiding money trails is probably not hard for Saudi Arabia, especially with assistance from certain nations with and excess of morally corrupt experienced creative accounting geniuses. Ransom, drugs, money laundering, 'temporary marriage licences'... I expect they've locked up quite a few rackets at this point. Haha. Yes, that's how it feels sometimes.Well it looks like Saudi Problem isn't going away anytime soon. The current government is unlikely to change course on their relationship. But you are right - this is something that needs raising in consciousness as much as possible so that the next time round, some politicians may try to include dealing with it in their platform and maybe....maybe, we'll do something about it. Too late, obviously. Much too late.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yes, you obviously do. But you haven't said why you do. Is it just to argue? Because you feel hurt? Do you have a good reason? No, it can't be wished away.
But, as you hinted at in your previous message, it certainly can be educated away.
That's what intelligence and education does... it helps us deal with and control our instinctual responses. Ha ha... "spurious equalising" Wanting to treat all people equally is spurious?
That's all I said... all people deserve to have a safe place.Of course, those who attack others forfeit such a right of their own. But we all start out with the same basic rights. Or we should, anyway.But, again, what sort of sliding slope to you suggest if you don't think we should treat each other equally?

Yes, it's messy. My only point was that history tells us that outsiders removing dictators makes things messier. I used Tito as an example earlier, but to argue against my own point there's a counterexample in Franco. He rose to power through civil war, but after his death a democracy reemerged in Spain. And then there's Ceaușescu in Romania. After his execution a democracy emerged there, too. So the argument that Asad should stay is maybe not as strong as I originally thought. Not really. I'm mainly just noting that the more the west screws around with the Middle East the more screwed up it becomes.--Percy

I have said several times that a body count argument fails - it's simplistic and emotive. It wouldn't matter if the body count was equal, we'd still be more concerned with deaths in our own countries than elsewhere. If it was otherwise, we'd have spent as much on curing malaria as we have on cancer.It does not help the man whose leg has been amputated to hear that the man in the next bed lost both his legs. We suffer our own pain.In the case of terrorism, it's not about body count at all - except that there has to be some death and the more the better. The purpose is to cause fear and reduce the freedoms of your enemy. A bombing in Paris or London or New York has a disproportional effect. You may wish it was different, but it isn't and it will never be.Our enemies have a death cult, they hold life cheap. They have no fear of killing other Muslims as that puts them into heaven. They kill themselves because they get into heaven. Our society worships life and goes to extraordinary lengths to prolong it. Please note - I'm not extending this analysis beyond the fanatics, 'ordinary' Muslims are as fond of life as the rest of us, and it's a tragedy when they too are killed in the war. Of course not. You miss the point. Ideas and values are not equal. Some are better, far better than others. In this case, the West's ideas about freedom, democracy and fraternity are far better than theocracy, dogma and terror. Again. I have never said, nor do I think that, as a general goal, we shouldn't treat people equally. In fact the opposite. I have repeatedly said that UK Muslims should be treated exactly the same as any other UK citizen.