ISIS...Islamic State Victims

The Church of England has been involved in sponsoring enough wars in its history Clive, indeed, its even stoked a few of them up quite deliberately.

You can dig into Miliband if you want, doesn't bother me, but the Daily Mail tried it and fell flat on their faces remember. It would be a mistake though if you think I'm some sort of Labour supporter who is going to spring to the defence.

I certainly don't believe Miliband is significantly more in touch than Cameron, perhaps marginally more so, but nothing significant. I suspect Miliband would make many of the same mistakes as he'd ultimately depend on the advice he gets from his civil servants who tend to be drawn from the same set.

Certainly the programme 'preventing violent extremism' was a Labour party programme (now called 'prevent' incidentally) but it was dreamt up in a hurry in Whitehall. Can you imagine how helpful is was going to work directly in a community 'at risk' targeting 'vulnerable' muslims with that badge hanging around you? Hello, I'm from a programme called preventing violent extremism, and I've come to spy on you thick mussy's who we've decided are all potential terrorists, if you aren't already. We'll stick a few cameras up and hold diversionary activities to see if any of you are showing an uncanny ability in circuit board assembly. Here's you own internet which we'll moni.... help you learn how to use. Then if you have any doubts about anyone you know please grass them up to your friendly preventing violent extremism officer and we'll haul special branch in as quickly as we can

Cameron succeeded in opposition by adopting the language of the zeitgeist that was supplied to him by Andy Coulson, since Coulson's been otherwise engaged it's noticeable how he's reverted to type and become much more stilted and wooden
 
marble said:
William Hague seemed quite a balanced foreign secretary, certainly compared to his years at Tory opposition leader.
I think he was learning a lot on the job and would have applied himself to his position on Syria with considerable thought as others have.
Click to expand...

William Hague was one of the worst Foreign Secretary's this country has ever had. Luckily for the Tories Foreign Policy hasn't been a vote loser since the cold war. I can't think of a more inept FS in my life time (and that includes Jack Straw). I put Peter Carrington in the unlucky category before anyone nominates him.

Don't confuse him desperately trying to young Churchill impression and sounding terribly, terribly earnest as being balanced

I regarded him as the best negative predictor in Foreign policy on the planet. If ever you weren't sure about an issue, simply look at what Hague said, whatever Hague said, say the opposite, 9 times out of 10 you'll be right.

With Hague it was one misjudgement after another

It started badly for him when it emerged in his first few months that he'd engaged a 'chum' as his SPAD who had no foreign policy experience, but was in his mid 20's. In order to save money Hague and his chum decided they should sleep in the same bedrooms. It ended of course with him sahring a platform with Angelina Jolie who had decided for him that rape in war zones was the biggest issue facing humanity and that Hague was going to throw the UK's weight into resolving this (as the Nigel Evans proved that same week - he couldn't even get a hold of rape in his own party)

He made catatsrophic errors on Egypt and Libya, both democracies (according to him) that he helped establish. He was diving into Syria calling for all out war before the final sarin partical had even degraded. Make no mistake, Hague would have got us right in up to our necks, albeit he'd have been embarassed because the American's backed off. He was also throwing in with some stupid idea that the Ukraine is better long term strategic allie for us than Russia.

He told the world that he had it on good authority that Gadaffi was in Venezuela at the same time as he also told lies about the botched helicopter landing at a time of non intervention. You might also recall he cocked up the British evacuation of Libya and Phillip Hammond had to dig him out

He told lies to us about Edward Snowden explaining that the UK government wasn't involved in spying, and was frankly contradicted by the American's who told as that we were .... but this is why

Hague was/ is a muppet of monumental proportions and so far as I can see doesn't have a single success to his name anywhere in his political life
 
I havent read beyond first line warbler but thats enough for a response

forget it. its irrelevant . Completely

the c of e does not promote war and genocide and disgusting human rights now

end of
 
Look deeper and Clive and you might begin to understand some the dynamics and temporal horizons involved, and in doing so you'll start to see both the double standards and folly of your own short sighted position that all you need to do is drop a democratic on these countries and everything will be tickety boo

Your position is that which the ever sanctimonious John Simpson tried using on Saif Gadaffi and fell flat on his face when Gadaffi asked him to draw out the timeline that had finally got the west to where they are today, and how reasonable it was to expect that emerging nations would achieve this within a generation?
 
Actually Clive it's worth going over this 'journey' but try and do so from the position of a simple minded peasent who has only ever known two things in life, an authoritarian despotic government, and a strong religious pillar. When the former is taken away, there is little doubt what he'll fall back on for his security, but let's examine the English model and overlap democracy with religion

1096 - the first crusade
1215 - Magna Carta (not democracy as we would understand it, but perhaps an early concession towards it)
1272 - the last crusade

So that's roughly about 175 years. The crusades are probably not disimilar in context to the stage islam is in at the moment, which is I believe about 800 years younger than christianity, which by coincidence is also the same time period that brings us up to today

The later medieval period is of course dominated by wars in which the church played a significant part

1530's - The English reformation and split from Rome (think Sunni & Shia for your paralell).
1553 - Catholic restoration (and reprisals)
1558 - Act of uniformity
1559 - Elizabethean settlement and adoption of book of common prayer
1642 - Civil war culminating from the book of common prayer being rejected, and the divine right of kings
1645 - Parliamentary victory gives us another nudge towards democracy (4 centuries on from Magna Carta)
1688 - Glorious revolution protestantism finally established
1746 - Jacobites defeated at Culloden, albeit there'd been no shoratge of other battles from the Boyne to Prestonpans during this period

650 years now from the first crusade and about 200 from the split from Rome, we enter a period of European wars and empire building. Religion didn't cause these as such, but it helped frame the alliances

1832 - Great Reform Act (anothert step towards democracy, nearly 200 years after the primacy of parliament over the monarch is established)
1918 - Representation of the peoples act on the back of word war 1
1928 - Universal suffrage

There have of course been amendments to democracy regarding voting age in the 1960's or was it 72? The latest tweak of course involves prisoners

The question I'm tempted to ask you to consider however given our own very long and turbulent journey, is how realistic are you and David Cameron being to expect a country like Libya to be a fully functioning western style democracy in 2 years? It took us about 8 centuries, and heaven knows how many wars and factionalised splits in between

Just look at the void that needs filling in these countries you're trying to impose this model on. What do you think is the likely outcome when a totally confused and disorientated population are asked to make decisions. They fall back on what they know and think they trust; religious orthodoxy, as it brings some semblance of order into their lifes.

Ripping up the existing structures and then throwing them a ballot box is massively irresponsible under these conditions, but if we're going to go down this route (and it has a lot of merit to it by way of aspiration I'll certainly conceed) we need to think about it a bit more carefully. The west make far too many assumptions that they think they know what these folk want
 
Warbler said:
The Church of England has been involved in sponsoring enough wars in its history Clive, indeed, its even stoked a few of them up quite deliberately.
Click to expand...
Hundreds of years ago, perhaps. What relevance has that with today?
The C of E isn't preaching Holy War from its pulpits nowadays, and I haven't read of C of E adherents shouting "Christ Is Great" as they run around beheading infidels.
 
Read the post above please for the temporal explanation. If you want to play 800 years of catch up, then fair enough. I don't, and especially with the changes in wepaons technology

The point I'm making, or asking you to consider is the time frames involved, and what the British / CoE went through on this journey. Now try and extrapolate from history and over lay it onto Islam

Incidentally what is the difference between

"Allahu Akbah"
and
"God Bless America"
 
Last edited:
A good number of eastern european states had democracies "within two years" . Add to that spain and portugal. South american states. Shall we go on?

I can take the point about the clueless peasant but arent we setting the bar a bit low?
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
Read the post above please for the temporal explanation.
Click to expand...
The post is a history lesson, no less and no more.
I'm asking you why you bring the C of E into a debate on the current religious intolerance and hatred we are witnessing in muslim lands? Are you inferring that the C of E is somehow comparable in its behaviour?

It may have taken a long time for democracy to mature in England, but that was then. That was when there was no template elsewhere to act as a model. Everywhere was the same.
But now in the modern age, there are patterns and precedents for newly independent countries to follow. How do you explain how it did not take centuries for, say, post-feudal Japan to develop into a democracy within a couple of years? What about the newly independent states of Eastern Europe?


Edited to say I cross-posted with Clive. I wasn't cribbing his ideas, honest guv. :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
Read the post above please for the temporal explanation. If you want to play 800 years of catch up, then fair enough. I don't, and especially with the changes in wepaons technology

The point I'm making, or asking you to consider is the time frames involved, and what the British / CoE went through on this journey. Now try and extrapolate from history and over lay it onto Islam

Incidentally what is the difference between

"Allahu Akbah"
and
"God Bless America"
Click to expand...

One is shouted during murder and beheadings by creatures that need to be liquidated, the other is quoted by the people who will do it!
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
But now in the modern age, there are patterns and precedents for newly independent countries to follow. How do you explain how it did not take centuries for, say, post-feudal Japan to develop into a democracy within a couple of years? What about the newly independent states of Eastern Europe?
Click to expand...

You can't seriously hold up Japan as a model. God forbid what the extended consequences are there. In fact Japan is a very good example of the dangers of what happens when power vacuums open up and the military fills them

The states of eastern europe were coming from a backdrop of communism not religious dogma. They might have been soviet satellites, but the soviet model of governance was democratic, what it wasn't, was partisan (not that we need political parties, they're just corruptions of people's will rather than an expression of it)

Indeed, were probably more progressive than any others in that they took the view that in all probability this 'God thing' , you know, it doesn't exist and therefore we won't build huge tracts of our society around it, nor will we legitimise it by allowing it into ranks of government
 
Warbler said:
You can't seriously hold up Japan as a model. God forbid what the extended consequences are there. In fact Japan is a very good example of the dangers of what happens when power vacuums open up and the military fills them
Click to expand...
No, I meant Japan after the end of WW2.
Sorry.
 
We can talk about India too with more "factions" than imaginable. And sub Saharan Africa where democracy is taking hold because they know that whatever the flaws the alternative is far worse. God knows they know it

If I followed a religion such as c of e or Buddhism say I would be pretty disgusted that there is this continual urge to bracket all branches of all religions under the same banner. It's become a bit of a mantra on the left and needs challenging head on.
 
Warbler said:
You can't seriously hold up Japan as a model. God forbid what the extended consequences are there. In fact Japan is a very good example of the dangers of what happens when power vacuums open up and the military fills them

The states of eastern europe were coming from a backdrop of communism not religious dogma. They might have been soviet satellites, but the soviet model of governance was democratic, what it wasn't, was partisan (not that we need political parties, they're just corruptions of people's will rather than an expression of it)

Indeed, were probably more progressive than any others in that they took the view that in all probability this 'God thing' , you know, it doesn't exist and therefore we won't build huge tracts of our society around it, nor will we legitimise it by allowing it into ranks of government
Click to expand...

Am I reading this right? Soviet system was democratic?
 
India was the one that occurred to me as being the best example, although you'd be hard pressed to argue that it's been anything other than a melting pot and has been a long way from being smooth or incourruptable. The example of India would actually be an argument against in my book as I frnajly daren't think what can of worms you'd be opening up simultaneously across the region if they all went that way together. I should perhaps also point out (for better or worse) India did have the civilising effects of the British empire to set them a template, so things like massacres, riots, and corrupt trading companies becoming a state within a state they had experience of

I think sub Saharan Africa is poor example, and for every Mozambique or Botswana there Zimbabwe, Rwanda, CAR's, Chad's, Sudan's, Kenya, Uganda. You might note incidentally that a lot of these also had the civilising effects of empire to show them the way (which they ignored)

Japan post ww2 isn't post feudal either. Japan went through that stage about 1870, and only really announced their arrival on the world stage with a naval victory over the Russians under Tojo

As regards challenging religion head on Clive, I'll invite you to give me any evidence you can find that this God thing actually exists before I'm personally prepared to countenance the fact that it has any legitimacy - over to you - I'm looking forward to this one :whistle:
 
Excuse me? I do know that they did not have free and fair elections and that any attempt to step outside the narrow party line was gulags or being shot


That is not democracy.
 
No. Existence of a god is a completely different point.

But I ask you this

What's the fate of a Muslim who says he no longer believes and desires "proof"?

And what's the fate of a c of e follower?

Don't ever bracket the two together
 
You will have them foaming on here claiming that the British empire left such a positive legacy. But it's a fair point and a definite factor
 
clivex said:
Excuse me? I do know that they did not have free and fair elections and that any attempt to step outside the narrow party line was gulags or being shot


That is not democracy.
Click to expand...

Clive if you were a racehorse, you'd be declared with blinkers, run up a series of R's and hopefully be retired (or shot)

Lets' try this a different way round, as I've explained this to you in the past, but I would ask you to try and throw off all the propoganda that you've been filled up with over the decades.

You and 500 other people are washed up on a desert island. Not unreasonably you decide that you need to organise, and as part of that process you need a decision making organ. Can you tell me how you would proceed?
 
clivex said:
No. Existence of a god is a completely different point.

But I ask you this

What's the fate of a Muslim who says he no longer believes and desires "proof"?

And what's the fate of a c of e follower?

Don't ever bracket the two together
Click to expand...

So I'm assuming that you aren't convinced that this God thing exists either, but you are prepared to accept that people who base their whole philosophy around an unproven story have a legitimacy to be taken seriously. Why? If I told you the Loch Ness Monster not only existed, but could speak, and had been giving me instruction as to how society should organise, would you act on it? Yet you're prepared to lend credibility to people who believe in a God living up the ether somewhere. It's medieval at best. Even paganism has a touch of logic to it

The example of the muslim heretic does of course depend wholly on the country they're in and the level of their dissent. Equally it chills me that this people are along way from being brought into an enlightened age, and its even more reason why we should be siding with the despots over the theologians

I would say however, that the first American congressman to risk admitting to being atheist (Peter Stark 2007) faced calls (serious ones too) to have him banned from holding public office. Stark had to fight these off as a bona-fide elected representtaive of the people
 
And the organisation quickly bec,omes what? Once "leaders" are elected they are unaccountable and regardless of their failures, leave no room for dissent or challenges

Soviet democracy was this

Bloke goes in a shop for something to eat

He has a choice

Crosse and Blackwell beans and Heinz beans

He says. " I don't like beans"

"You will have beans because everyone else does and we know what's best for you"

"What if i ask for something else?"

"You will be shot"

And I didnt crib that
 
Last edited:
Back
Top