ISIS...Islamic State Victims
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
EC1
On a break
have you ever watched the apprentice Clive?..lots of clever people on there with university experience..really
each year they are picked from thousands..and are deemed the cream of the crop..really
Last edited:
In the UK context I'd agree with you, regarding the creative side, but not the complex side at all. Public policy is incredibly complex, much more so than running a business. Indeed, there's been a fetish for successful private sector business people to be head hunted into the public services with some high profile appointments and many of them have ended in disaster. The latest example we're seeing of it of course was reported last week in education where academies have seen standards fall with the introduction of private sector providers
I think it's also worth pointing out that a vast majority of private sector employment is even more menial, low paid, low skilled etc In most cases you're talking about very low value added professions like retail, hotels & leisure or tertiary support services like office cleaning, call centres etc
Despite the fact academic discipline shouldn't allow it to happen, I wasn't particularly convinced with the timings of this research, although I realise of course that it could have been old research that a Democrat friendly journalist had recycled. My own suspicion is that the media spun the conclusions.
I won't break my back looking for it, but I've got a feeling it's about 5 years old and was reported on the BBC. I'll see if I can find it, but the only way to make any real sense of it would be to get the full paper
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
poor comparison Clive
apprentice looks at thousands of clever people..big earners in their own right..own business etc..some right dongs have appeared on it...blows your argument out of the water..using real life examples
the reason why money doesn't measure brain in this country is that a large section of clever people never get in the position to earn the big money..so you end up with some right plums ..inheriting mummy+daddys money/business..getting shoved in fancy schools..so that even if they are as thick as sh1te they still have old school connections when they come out to get them overpaid work they probably don't deserve..people with little brain getting jobs because Daddy know someone in the lodge
lots of dum dums get paid big money Clive..for a variety of reasons..the least important being size of brain
its bugger all to with brain..its all about where you are born and who you know..in the main
apprentice looks at thousands of clever people..big earners in their own right..own business etc..some right dongs have appeared on it...blows your argument out of the water..using real life examples
the reason why money doesn't measure brain in this country is that a large section of clever people never get in the position to earn the big money..so you end up with some right plums ..inheriting mummy+daddys money/business..getting shoved in fancy schools..so that even if they are as thick as sh1te they still have old school connections when they come out to get them overpaid work they probably don't deserve..people with little brain getting jobs because Daddy know someone in the lodge
lots of dum dums get paid big money Clive..for a variety of reasons..the least important being size of brain
its bugger all to with brain..its all about where you are born and who you know..in the main
Last edited:
Indeed, there's been a fetish for successful private sector business people to head hunted into the public services with some high profile appointments and many of them have ended in disaster.
really? well no one recruits the other way round do they?. unless we are talking about co op bank of course
really? well no one recruits the other way round do they?. unless we are talking about co op bank of course
EC1
On a break
yes there have been plenty move from well paid private sector jobs into the public arena..and have packed in after showing what plums they are..i have had experience of seeing that with my own eyes
i've worked in public + private sectors..and been self employed...there is nothing in it..you get dimheads in all 3 areas
your problem Clive is you have a real down on public sector workers...which is so completely misguided its funny
i've worked in public + private sectors..and been self employed...there is nothing in it..you get dimheads in all 3 areas
your problem Clive is you have a real down on public sector workers...which is so completely misguided its funny
Last edited:
Plenty do actually Clive, although I have to say in my experience it owes something to the fact that the UK public sector is a very big procurer of UK private sector services, and having someone from the inside helps.
Private sector services in areas like health and education most definitely recruit from the public sector. Architects and planning consultants nearly always have a majority of their staff drawn from ex-public sector. HR and personnel is another field where public sector has genuine expertise. You can argue IT both ways. I've never been convinced by UK private sector IT expertise and tend to put all my stuff through North America
I think it's worth noting though that the public sector doesn't have equivalent low paid low skilled jobs anymore in some areas as the contracts have been handed over to private sector firms in one of the biggest backdoor privatisations in history (same thing happening in education at the moment). It's true to say that retailers, and low grade tertiary employers don't recruit from the public sector, but then only the desperate would take such a hammering on pay and conditions to do those jobs
I think the biggest gap is in management. Public sector managers are pretty poor for the most part, but the good ones will normally be picked up
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
News this evening of yet another beheading video published by these ISIS monsters.
I think this one is particularly terrible -- ordinary working men who were not war-participants, executed solely because of their religion.
May they rest in peace.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-purporting-beheading-21-Egyptians-Libya.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...christian-hostages-libya-150215193050277.html
It seems to me that Libya is now as near to a "failed state" as could possibly be.
I think this one is particularly terrible -- ordinary working men who were not war-participants, executed solely because of their religion.
May they rest in peace.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-purporting-beheading-21-Egyptians-Libya.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...christian-hostages-libya-150215193050277.html
It seems to me that Libya is now as near to a "failed state" as could possibly be.
What can I say?
I've been warning about this one for a few years, but even two weeks ago was chastised as follows
"your suggestion that Libya has "all but fallen to radical Islam" cannot be backed-up in any meaningful way. The country is split between two non-IS, non-radical (in the IS sense) factions. IS are of course trying to exploit this split, and are having a degree of success......but your initial description is inaccurate."
I suspect the author will come to revise that assessment eventually, but I do fear for the North Africa coast. Libya and Algeria could easily fuse together. Tunisia is already the biggest foreign provider of IS fighters and could form a third country, and that's before we look at Egypt which would have joined a North African caliphate by now were it not for the army deciding that democracy wasn't such a good idea after all.
Libya was the touch paper for this and probably the country that is going to tip the scales. When you actually look at what happened in Benghazi you could easily say that this should be an issue of resignable proportions for David Cameron. It's been a catastrophic misjudgement that will ultimately eclipse Suez in terms of what he's created on Europe's doorstep. There's an hysterical quote of his somewhere, which actually talks about intervening to prevent a failed state appearing - muppet. I'll see if I can dig it out
I've been warning about this one for a few years, but even two weeks ago was chastised as follows
"your suggestion that Libya has "all but fallen to radical Islam" cannot be backed-up in any meaningful way. The country is split between two non-IS, non-radical (in the IS sense) factions. IS are of course trying to exploit this split, and are having a degree of success......but your initial description is inaccurate."
I suspect the author will come to revise that assessment eventually, but I do fear for the North Africa coast. Libya and Algeria could easily fuse together. Tunisia is already the biggest foreign provider of IS fighters and could form a third country, and that's before we look at Egypt which would have joined a North African caliphate by now were it not for the army deciding that democracy wasn't such a good idea after all.
Libya was the touch paper for this and probably the country that is going to tip the scales. When you actually look at what happened in Benghazi you could easily say that this should be an issue of resignable proportions for David Cameron. It's been a catastrophic misjudgement that will ultimately eclipse Suez in terms of what he's created on Europe's doorstep. There's an hysterical quote of his somewhere, which actually talks about intervening to prevent a failed state appearing - muppet. I'll see if I can dig it out
Last edited:
"We simply can not have a situation where a failed pariah state festers on Europe's southern border. This would potentially threaten our security, push people across the Mediterranean and create a more dangerous and uncertain world for Britain and for all our allies as well as for the people of Libya." -
so said David Cameron in his Statement to the House of Commons on the UN resolution authorising a no-fly zone over Libya
Well Dave, perhaps you'd be so good as to revisit this assessment and state which bit doesn't apply to what you've created (times three).
Doubtless Dave will blame everyone else but himself. Not that he can blame Labour for this one (his usual tactic). Under Labour, Libya had come in from the cold, had destroyed its own WMD, abandoned research programmes, was detaining Islamic extremists, acting as a transitional point for extradition, and acting as an advanced immigration point, turning back thousands of asylum seekers. Dave got rid of all that and has helped replace it with a quasi Islamic state, where everyone from coptic christians to American diplomats are fair game. Nice one Dave! [FONT="][/FONT]
so said David Cameron in his Statement to the House of Commons on the UN resolution authorising a no-fly zone over Libya
Well Dave, perhaps you'd be so good as to revisit this assessment and state which bit doesn't apply to what you've created (times three).
Doubtless Dave will blame everyone else but himself. Not that he can blame Labour for this one (his usual tactic). Under Labour, Libya had come in from the cold, had destroyed its own WMD, abandoned research programmes, was detaining Islamic extremists, acting as a transitional point for extradition, and acting as an advanced immigration point, turning back thousands of asylum seekers. Dave got rid of all that and has helped replace it with a quasi Islamic state, where everyone from coptic christians to American diplomats are fair game. Nice one Dave! [FONT="][/FONT]
Once again, we removed our natural ally and first line of defence. Considering how much scrutiny the Iraq decision has been subjected to, the rightist BBC and irresponsibly loyal media have let the Conservatives, David Cameron, and William Hague off remarkably lightly for a decision that really does go all the way to their door. At least in Iraq some sort of attempt was made to put something in place (the recruitment and training of an army - the most expensive in history). In Libya we handed over weapons to anyone who broadly suggested they were anti Gadaffi and thus created an environment where by 200 tribal militias were empowered over night. Not surprisingly, they quite liked their new toys and refused to hand them back. Only bad could ever come from this, and it did. Libya has to be one the most boneheaded foreign policy decisions taken by a British government since Suez, in fact, it's probably worse, because it really was such a plain bloody stupid thing to do on so many different levels, and the various motivations behind the principal antagonists were opportunistic and completely devoid of any strategic judgement and intelligence
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
It seems Italy proposes that it (Italy) leads a multi-national expeditionary force to Libya to confront ISIS there.
"Italian Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti told Il Messaggero newspaper in an interview on Sunday that the risk of jihadists coming to Italy by boat “could not be ruled out.”Pinotti also confirmed Italy's readiness to lead a UN coalition against the advance of jihadists in Libya.“The risk is imminent, we cannot wait any longer. Italy has national defense needs and cannot have a caliphate ruling across the shores from us,” she said."
Could we be seeing the beginning of the global war of creed/civilisations that you previously forecasted?
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
I think that is the one good thing in all of this.
With countries like Egypt and Jordan heavily involved it might (hopefully) reassure the worldwide Muslim community that this is NOT a war of the West against Islam.
I need to dwell on it, but I think it would be a mistake to assume Italy would automatically prevail in such a situation
It's worth dwelling on the debt of gratitude we might owe to the Egyptian military here for overthrowing the muslim brotherhood. Let's not let calamity Cameron and hapless Hague off the hook. These morons were cheering on the muslim brotherhood through their completely flawed misdiagnosis of democracy. Cameron has been a friend of radcial islam and helped it gain a stronger footing than it otherwise had before he came to power. He's been a complete an utter disaster in this area of policy. He is Britain's George W Bush. If it weren't the case that Egypt's non-democratic forces but agents of stability, (the military) had realised what type of slide they were going into, Egypt would be lining behind the Jihadists of north Africa by now with the Tories seemingly cheering them on before they realised too late what they'd created. If people still can't see the lessons for Syria after the mistakes we've made all over this bloody region, than I despair
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Yes, I echo that.
It's interesting to read that al-Sisi and the military have become completely disillusioned with the lukewarm support from Obama and the West, so much so that they have turned towards Russia for upgrading and expanding military capability. Bankrolled to the tune of $12Billion from Gulf states, they are buying Russian kit.
"Egyptian army chief Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other officials in Russia on Thursday, highlighting the growing military ties between the two countries and Egypt’s apparent pivot away from the U.S.
Relations between Cairo and Washington cooled last year after the U.S. suspended military aid to Egypt following the ouster of the democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, and the crackdown on protests that followed".
Al Jazeera.
Actually it doesn't require me to think too hard.
I'll hold to my original view that the last 10 years were the decade of error, and that the comming decade will be defined as the decade of inertia
Italy's 'offer' is just a pointless gesture. Who exactly do the Italians think they're going to 'lead'? The British and French simply don't rate them as a fighting country, and there is no way on this earth we'll agree to any action under an Italian flag. The German's voted against the invasion of Libya anyway and will surely adopt a you're error, you sort it out attitude. The only new entrant on the scene who might be prepared to enter if their recent rhetoric is to be backed up are Japan!, but I really don't see that happening, and I'm not sure what their current constitution permits (I believe the mood in the country would support a change to it, and equally, don't expect it would be objected by the ww2 powers any longer).
ISIS in north Africa are in effect in a position to turn round and say to Italy "oh yeah, you and whose army". Well the Italians ain't got an answer to that. Unless they're prepared to have a go themselves (which they won't do). Outside of a few bombing runs from the comaprative safety of 20,000 ft, I can't see what they'll do, or who is going to be joining in. Spain? On balance I would think there's a pretty good chance that a Mediterranean army headed by the catholic countries of southern Europe, would lose
In any event, the action they're more likely to be fighting under Warbler's scenario is going to be on their own streets in 20 years time when European islamic populations have reached about 15%. It's the threat that is already here that becomes the issue.
You've got a choice as I see it. You can adopt the Clive route and place your unshakable belief in the seducation of democracy and free market capitalism to be so demonstrably superior that westernised muslims will throw off their religion and adopt your way of life. Or you can perhaps dwell on the possibility that we could be over estimating its allure and not for the first time, under estimating the irrational cocktail that a combination of theological dogma and warped nationalism can have on people by way of calling.
I see the future war being a slide into a state rather than a formal declaration, and I see it being fought on two principal fronts. The first will be on the streets of Europe where European armies, police forces, private security firms and people's brigades are pitched against an indigenous threat. The second will be more international whereby we will be looking to countries who can project military power to unite globally and do the job in the breeding grounds of radical islam. I can only see four countries potentially involved who possess the combination of population and military prowess. The US is the only one at this stage however who you could say were onside, albeit I suspect the Indians could be won round. By having a Prime Minister locked in a time warp though, our chances of getting Russia and China involved under the current blinkered world view are limited. That might change (well it will have to)
Last edited:
Can you blame them?
Egypt has a clear islamic threat of its own. It needs weapons from a reliable supplier. What would you do? I'd rather deal with Putin if I were in their position rather than pussy footing about with an unreliable ally like the west. Look what they did in Libya after all? Talk about backstabbling someone who complied with all your conditions. The betrayal of Libya sent out a terrible message. It screamed 'Don't trust America, don't trust France, don't trust Britain'
The additional tragedy of this of course is that Putin is a pragmatist looking for a world role for Russia. He has both hardware, a sizeable military, domestic incentive, and population. Only a complete tit like David Cameron could possibly think that eastern Ukraine (which is clearly Russian leaning anyway) is a greater strategic priority than IS
I should say actually that sourcing stories from Al Jazeera will prove a lot more informative than the conservative supporting BBC who have been airbrushing the extent to which Libya has been deteriorating for years now. Admittedly it also supports a certain line being Qatari run, but the standard of their journalism is higher than the dumbed down beeb, and they also make greater use of independent analysts rather than one eyed biased correspondents like Jeremy Bowen. Personally I'd encourage people to use Al Jazeera for their commentary and after a few weeks you'll be horrified at what's taking shape in north Africa
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Spot on. Coptics were being murdered in the streets of Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood came to power (the perps just didn't have an ISIS label) and nothing was said by, and next to nothing done by, the elected Egyptian Government to prevent it. In fact, it was barely even discouraged.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Please also point out the bit where you were "chastised" in the above (my) quote. Unless you think the simple act of disagreeing with you is tantamount to chastisement, in which case, you're being a) too sensitive, and b) forgetting what I'm really like when I'm trying to "chastise". I really don't see anything controversial or confrontational in that quote, and I've no idea what your motivation is in digging it up.
Last time I looked, IS had not over-run Tripoli, or established themselves "in any meaningful way" in Libya......the obvious measure of "meaningful" being a parallel with the Caliphate created in Iraq/Syria, and their governance control of major cities like Mosul. None of this has happened in Libya - yet.......but then again, everything happens to everyone, everywhere "eventually", so please stop with the Nostra-fu*cking-damus routine (mild chastisement here).
If you were warning about this one for a "few years", you were clearly doing so elsewhere, given you had a self-imposed exile from the site for long enough. Please therefore make your points relevant to the dialogues conducted on this thread.
Whilst I agree that Western policy has - yet again - called it (and continues to call it) wrong, your obsession with Cameron and the Tories comes across as infantile; making it appear that you consider them guilty of greater sins than ISIS, and holding them to account to be more important than the destruction of Islamic State. I state again that your contribution to the thread has generally been well-informed and accurate, but these continual references to Tories dilute that overall contribution.
Thats a ridiculous point. Plenty of Muslims have adopted our way of life in the uk and have no desire whatsoever to live in a Caliphate . The vast majority in fact. They are far from all being radicalised.
no one is saying that they should "throw off their religion" but there has to be acceptance of our freedoms.
Last edited:
This is nonsense. The regimes in Egypt got huge aid from the west (have you seen Russia's overseas aid budget? It's tiny) and unlike gadafi have no record or declaring war against western interests.
Rightly the west didnt trust gadafi. Not the other way round.
the idea that the bbc is a conservative mouthpiece is laughable
the idea that Russia is a world power is laughable too. It's economy is smaller than Italy's. yes Italy. It is also skint, has a declining population and no end of future difficulties
Last edited:
Last time I looked they had. Radical islamists run Benghazi and have been doing for a few years now. They pull all the strings in Tripoli and were doing 2 weeks ago when you said they weren't. The BBC have been under reporting this for years (and continue to do so). I dug it up, because only 2 weeks ago you assured there was next to no issue in Libya, though conceded that IS "are having a degree of success". Do you still hold that view? The Italians seemingly don't share it, and neither do the Egyptians
As regards being chastised, yes that's precisely what you were doing with the accompanying tone of the post that went with it and what followed, as you tried to appoint yourself as a judge as to what was being said between Clive and myself
"I have already pulled Warbler up for putting words in your mouth." (as it happened you were wrong as you weren't familiar with one Clives arguments about Tunisia which I was anticipating)
I realise cheerleaders like yourself don't like having Cameron's association with this particular piece of foreign policy underlined, but sadly his decisions (along with Nicholas Sarkozy who was the more influential of two partners in stupidity) runs deep in this particular one, so yes I will take the opportunity to remind people of it rather than trying to airbrush his culpability, and pretend it would have happened anyway. Put simply, it wouldn't. Gadaffi's forces were within hours of entering Benghazi when Cameron and Sarkozy launched their Islamist rescue bid. Radical islam would not have gotten a foothold in Libya were it not for Nicholas Sarkozy and David Cameron. Both of them are massievly guilty in this one, and for you pretend otherwise does you no service in defending them.
And just for the record, no, everything doesn't happen to everyone, everywhere, eventually. That's just a palpably wrong and nonesensically glib
As regards being chastised, yes that's precisely what you were doing with the accompanying tone of the post that went with it and what followed, as you tried to appoint yourself as a judge as to what was being said between Clive and myself
"I have already pulled Warbler up for putting words in your mouth." (as it happened you were wrong as you weren't familiar with one Clives arguments about Tunisia which I was anticipating)
I realise cheerleaders like yourself don't like having Cameron's association with this particular piece of foreign policy underlined, but sadly his decisions (along with Nicholas Sarkozy who was the more influential of two partners in stupidity) runs deep in this particular one, so yes I will take the opportunity to remind people of it rather than trying to airbrush his culpability, and pretend it would have happened anyway. Put simply, it wouldn't. Gadaffi's forces were within hours of entering Benghazi when Cameron and Sarkozy launched their Islamist rescue bid. Radical islam would not have gotten a foothold in Libya were it not for Nicholas Sarkozy and David Cameron. Both of them are massievly guilty in this one, and for you pretend otherwise does you no service in defending them.
And just for the record, no, everything doesn't happen to everyone, everywhere, eventually. That's just a palpably wrong and nonesensically glib