As I Said - More Muslims Are Fighting Foreign Muslim Wars Than Fight For England

25th April 2014

They hate you and I.


Up to 700 Britons could now be fighting or based in Syria and police are powerless to stop would-be jihadists heading there, the UK’s counter-terrorism chief has admitted.


But Helen Ball, the police senior national coordinator for counter-terrorism, warned anyone who takes part in any form of fighting, even for the Free Syrian Army, will face arrest on their return.


Metropolitan Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ball said it was likely the number of Brits in Syria is now in the “mid” rather than “low” hundreds as previously thought, including some as young as 16.


The warning came as police launched a national campaign to urge mothers, wives and sisters to report on their loved ones and stop them travelling to the war torn country.


However, DAC Ball accepted that even if individuals were brought to their attention, if they chose to ignore police warnings over the dangers, there was nothing police could do to stop them leaving the country.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10785316/Up-to-700-Britons-feared-to-be-in-Syria.html

As I posted on the National Service thread, there are a total of 176,810 serving soldiers (and sailors) in today's UK armed forces. Of these there are a total of 650 Muslims. So you're right Andy there are more fighting their jihad than fighting for the country they live in.

I know Tesstacious.

I'm sure some of them came here as asylum seekers - escaping danger.

Lies, lies, lies.

Didge wrote:The study, by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), also says Britain's war in Iraq radicalised young British Muslims, saying there is "no serious disagreement" about this, the paper also reported.
It quoted the study as saying: "Far from reducing international terrorism … the 2003 invasion [of Iraq] had the effect of promoting it.
"The rise of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) was a reaction to this invasion, and to the consequent marginalisation of Iraq's Sunni population (including de-Ba'athification and army disbandment).
"Today, AQAP and other radical jihadist groups stretching across the Iraqi-Syrian border, pose new terrorist threats to the UK and its allies that might not have existed, at least in this form, had Saddam remained in power."
The report also said that the scale of Saddam Hussein's misdeeds "had been much reduced" before he was overthrown by US-led forces, according to The Independent.
Those fighting Western forces in Afghanistan were "motivated much more by opposition to foreign intervention than by global jihadism", it says.
The report also said: "The wars of 9/11 revealed the limits of British power and strategy-making. Ends, ways and means were not suitably balanced, with predictable results on the ground.
"But more fundamentally, the UK has been unable to exert a strategic effect in theatre, heavily subordinate in both Iraq and Afghanistan to the leadership and commitment of the US."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/24/iraq-afghanistan-cost-to-britain_n_5204689.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

For Andy to answer????

BigAndy9 wrote:25th April 2014

They hate you and I.


Up to 700 Britons could now be fighting or based in Syria and police are powerless to stop would-be jihadists heading there, the UK’s counter-terrorism chief has admitted.


But Helen Ball, the police senior national coordinator for counter-terrorism, warned anyone who takes part in any form of fighting, even for the Free Syrian Army, will face arrest on their return.


Metropolitan Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ball said it was likely the number of Brits in Syria is now in the “mid” rather than “low” hundreds as previously thought, including some as young as 16.


The warning came as police launched a national campaign to urge mothers, wives and sisters to report on their loved ones and stop them travelling to the war torn country.


However, DAC Ball accepted that even if individuals were brought to their attention, if they chose to ignore police warnings over the dangers, there was nothing police could do to stop them leaving the country.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10785316/Up-to-700-Britons-feared-to-be-in-Syria.html

Then we should stop them coming back into the country, two birds and all that.

Didge wrote:

Didge wrote:The study, by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), also says Britain's war in Iraq radicalised young British Muslims, saying there is "no serious disagreement" about this, the paper also reported.
It quoted the study as saying: "Far from reducing international terrorism … the 2003 invasion [of Iraq] had the effect of promoting it.
"The rise of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) was a reaction to this invasion, and to the consequent marginalisation of Iraq's Sunni population (including de-Ba'athification and army disbandment).
"Today, AQAP and other radical jihadist groups stretching across the Iraqi-Syrian border, pose new terrorist threats to the UK and its allies that might not have existed, at least in this form, had Saddam remained in power."
The report also said that the scale of Saddam Hussein's misdeeds "had been much reduced" before he was overthrown by US-led forces, according to The Independent.
Those fighting Western forces in Afghanistan were "motivated much more by opposition to foreign intervention than by global jihadism", it says.
The report also said: "The wars of 9/11 revealed the limits of British power and strategy-making. Ends, ways and means were not suitably balanced, with predictable results on the ground.
"But more fundamentally, the UK has been unable to exert a strategic effect in theatre, heavily subordinate in both Iraq and Afghanistan to the leadership and commitment of the US."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/24/iraq-afghanistan-cost-to-britain_n_5204689.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

For Andy to answer????

There's no question didge.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Didge wrote:



For Andy to answer????

There's no question didge.

Simple question, has the western involvement led to the rise of extremist?

Had we not got involved, would at least 700 Muslim Brits be there in the first place?

[quote="Didge"]

BigAndy9 wrote:


There's no question didge.

Simple question, has the western involvement led to the rise of extremist?


No.

Had we not got involved, would at least 700 Muslim Brits be there in the first place?

We didn't get involved in Syria - people power stopped the left wing interfering, thank god.[/quote]

I suggest you read again and never said we got involved in Syria:


The study, by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), also says Britain's war in Iraq radicalised young British Muslims, saying there is "no serious disagreement" about this, the paper also reported.

Muslims don't want to john the army here or the police force, but have no trouble joining the dole queue or serving under her majesty's pleasure....!




They should not be arrested, just denied British citizenship as it is clear where their loyalty lays.

Tommy Monk wrote:Muslims don't want to john the army here or the police force, but have no trouble joining the dole queue or serving under her majesty's pleasure....!




They should not be arrested, just denied British citizenship as it is clear where their loyalty lays.

Really, then why have some joined then and even died for this country?

Didge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


There's no question didge.

Simple question, has the western involvement led to the rise of extremist?

Had we not got involved, would at least 700 Muslim Brits be there in the first place?

We should have helped from day one before the different groups went in to fight for different reasons.

They were their from The start. Starting the trouble.

gerber wrote:

Didge wrote:



Simple question, has the western involvement led to the rise of extremist?

Had we not got involved, would at least 700 Muslim Brits be there in the first place?

We should have helped from day one before the different groups went in to fight for different reasons.

Do not think that would have stopped the rise of extremism back due to previous conflicts though Gerber.

To be honest it should be more Arab countries resolving this

Tommy Monk wrote:They were their from The start. Starting the trouble.

Goal post change and the west used to fund Bin laden and co against the soviets, so again you are wrong

Didge wrote:

gerber wrote:

We should have helped from day one before the different groups went in to fight for different reasons.

Do not think that would have stopped the rise of extremism back due to previous conflicts though Gerber.

To be honest it should be more Arab countries resolving this

Agreed they should but Assad like Saddam and Ghadaffi have kept control of their county. We in the west might not like it them nor the regime but is as fact. Egypt another example. We supported so called democracy and look at it now.

Places like that need a firm grip to keep order.


And to stop them all from voting in islamists who take the countries backwards and needs no protection for women or other religious minorities.